MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Marxist’

My Corner by Boyd Cathey – The Philosophy of Progress is Killing Us

Posted by M. C. on October 7, 2020

The progressivist Left goes much further. Indeed, the same demands for equality, and expanded and newly-discovered “rights,” in the slogans and proposals of Leftists often become props in an overpowering effort, not as much for desired “social justice,” but more for the acquisition of power: a means to an end, the control of society and its structures.

http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

Over the past few years I have written about what I term a “triumph of lunacy” in our society—most significantly on our college campuses and in our schools, in our entertainment, in the media, but also in our culture generally. The post-Marxist progressivist Left, after the apparent political set-back of the 2016 elections, has redoubled its efforts with a frenzied fanaticism unknown in our history, at least since a few years before the War Between the States.

What distinguishes our revolutionary period from previous upheavals is that today’s revolutionaries have, in effect, created a “counter-reality” in which they base their thought and actions. That reality they have manufactured out of a critical misapprehension of the nature of creation and the nature of mankind. That counter-reality is totally subjective, anchored in fractured internal thinking processes which have been infected and warped from their inception. That counter-reality is the inverse of the two-millennia of Western civilization; it possesses its own language, its own precepts, its own rules of conduct, its own goals and objectives, undeterred by the inexorable laws of nature or the historic teachings of the Christian faith. Indeed, it is the contrary of historic Christianity.

In a very substantial sense the raging post-Marxist Left and its nostrums are grounded in the “idea of progress,” a broad conceptual movement in history that dates back several centuries, at least to the Enlightenment of the 18th century, but which achieved a large degree of intellectual triumph in society in the 19th, most especially with the social theories of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and others. The late conservative philosopher, Robert Nisbet, wrote comprehensively about it in his volume, The History of the Idea of Progress. It posits that history is a process materially leading to the improvement and refinement of our technological and scientific environment, and, philosophically, leading to more “individual freedom” and the abolition of what are considered hindrances to that expanding freedom and what are perceived to be any obstacles to the irreversible expansion of “rights” and “equality”—which become over time almost inexhaustible and unlimited. Nothing can stand against the ideas that proponents of progress propound. If you do, you are a hopeless reactionary, a bigot, old-fashioned, and probably a racist and a misogynist.

Of course, material progress is observable, constant, and measurable, and is to be welcomed generally. Going from oil lamps to electric lights, or from horse-and-buggies to automobiles is seen positively by most everyone. There are, certainly, a few negatives in such progress (e.g., damage to the environment, altered living patterns, etc.), but most of those negatives are outweighed by the positives and the material enhancement of civilization.

The real problem comes when the “idea of progress” is made the benchmark for intellectual thought and how political and social goals are presented and achieved under its banner. For it then becomes, depending on how it is defined, the vehicle for ideologies that use it to shape and push their agendas—whether the liberals of the 19th century, or the Marxists and Communists of the 20th. To be “on the side of progress,” to be part of the irresistible “forces of history,” is to grant to one’s beliefs a kind of inescapable inevitability: you can’t oppose what I am saying and doing, because it’s simply going to happen, and you can’t stop it!

In our society, and in Western society generally, the inevitability and positive nature of intellectual progress is more or less taken for granted. Most conservatives, including those opposed supposedly to the current revolution on our campuses and in our streets, accept it as a given. They may demur and disagree about what the goals should or ought to be, but the essential premise, the template idea, remains fixed and unassailable.

Thus, on Fox News most pundits applaud greater “rights” for minorities, both racial and sexual. They just don’t agree with some of the more vigorous applications coming from the Left. For “establishment conservatives” increasingly same sex marriage must be a full constitutional right—full transgender normalization and acceptance in society is desirable—women must have equal access to every position or role that men have (e.g., no more male-only academies, no more “Boy” Scouts, etc.)—absolute racial equity, even if that means special advantages, must be pursued—and “American democratic values” are in all parts of the globe demanded (even at the point of an M-16 rifle).

The progressivist Left goes much further. Indeed, the same demands for equality, and expanded and newly-discovered “rights,” in the slogans and proposals of Leftists often become props in an overpowering effort, not as much for desired “social justice,” but more for the acquisition of power: a means to an end, the control of society and its structures.

Right after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the first violent riots here in North Carolina, a couple of black college students videotaped a group of exclusively-white “millennials” demonstrating in a frenzy in Raleigh, North Carolina. The black videotapers noticed and commented that all the demonstrators were white, probably the sons and daughters of wealthy white (liberal) parents, and graduates of prestigious universities like Duke or UNC. The irony wasn’t lost on the two blacks, who wondered: “What do those privileged whites know about black issues?” Indeed, what they know is undergirded by and laden with the intellectual progressivism and post-Marxist ideology they’ve learned in classrooms at those very same prestigious universities.

In effect, these protesters demonstrate against “white supremacy” and “institutional racism” in a not-so-hidden effort to expiate their own sin of “whiteness,” inculcated into them by “woke” professors and an ideologized educational system.

But they are also out in the streets attempting to create a “new world order” in which the real objective is power, and that power recurs to global elites. “Systemic racism” may be a target but actually and more significantly, opposition to it is a means of advancing the overall goal of completely restructuring and recasting society—and the destruction of two millennia of civilization and its culture, annealed by the Christian faith—on behalf of those elites.

Until conservatives understand the fundamental dangers in embracing the “idea of progress” philosophically and in praxis—until they learn that beginning with the same premises on “equality” and “rights” as their purported opponents will inevitably conduct them to giving way to those opponents…and to denying implicitly, if not finally explicitly God-given creation and its natural and Divine Positive Laws–until they recognize this, they will remain prisoners of a dialectic that leads them always to eventual surrender to the Left.

The post-War Between the States Southern divine and essayist Robert Lewis Dabney summed up this type of conservatism succinctly and presciently 150 years ago. That quotation is apt and applies to far too many members of today’s “conservative loyal opposition”:

“This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its ‘bark is worse than its bite,’ and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rôle of resistance.

“The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ‘in wind,’ and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”  [From Womens’ Rights Women,” Discussions, vol. IV, Secular Discussions.]

Will they learn before it is too late? Or will they—far more likely—give way like previous temporizers in the face of the lunacy? 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

With Ginsburg’s Death Cue the Last Stand of American Marxists — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2020

Blumenthal knows that Ginsburg’s replacement will be the end of their power, the apotheosis of a four-generation long march through the institutions in the U.S. that has undermined basic societal structures. He knows re-electing Trump will ensure the Supreme Court will be made up of judges that tilt towards a constructionist view of the Constitution as a limited set of powers rather than an expansive one.

So is John Roberts. So was Antonin Scalia, Oliver Wendell Holmes and every other Supreme Court just that followed him. These are people, regardless of how they see themselves, their motivations or records as jurists, who wield the kind of power over the lives of billions that no person should possibly have.

By definition, that makes them tyrants. Some better than others on certain issues, but never forget they are tyrants, but who are, magically, supposed to be above politics.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/23/with-ginsburgs-death-cue-last-stand-of-american-marxists/

 Tom Luongo

For all of the bad things that have happened in 2020 don’t for a second believe that 2021 won’t be infinitely worse. It has been clear to me for months that the fight for the White House is one for the ages.

While every election is ‘the most important one ever’ in the minds of the politicos who see the other side for what it is, an existential threat to their power, this election is, I feel, finally one worth that moniker. But, that said, nearly every election truly is one where voters are presented a Hobson’s Choice where there is no real difference between the standard bearers of both major parties.

And the animating principle of these people is the accumulation of raw power, nothing more. Power, as a concept in modern political theory, is purely an outgrowth of Marxian thinking, defining everything that happens in our lives in terms of it. There are no win/wins in this worldview, only those who benefit and those who are exploited.

Basic concepts of comparative advantage and individual talents as expressed in free trade between sovereign actors are not only nullified by this doctrine but actively disparaged and denigrated through the language of envy and the rhetoric of victimization.

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the day has come for the existent power structure where they have to reveal the final truth of their naked need to maintain their power.

Because replacing Ginsburg has been the most pressing concern for Democrats, Regime Republicans and their globalist backers in The Davos Crowd since the day Donald Trump was elected.

Now that she is dead a knock-down, drag-out, war without end commences in Washington D.C.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already talking about impeaching Trump if he dares to try and push through a replacement for Ginsburg. She’s already famously termed Congressional Republicans, “enemies of the state.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has all but threatened the American people with open-ended violence if they re-elect Trump.

 

Scott Adams is not wrong here for calling Blumenthal to the carpet on this. Blumenthal is just saying what the Democrats have actually been doing for four years, trying to hang Trump for just being President. Blumenthal, like so many in Washington, are suffused with a Marxian lust for power and an abject and debilitating fear of losing it.

Fear of the loss of power, of all kinds, is the most powerful motivator of terrible, if not outright, tyrannical behavior. We’re all capable of it. You, me, a Senator, the cable guy or, yes, a Supreme Court justice.

Blumenthal knows that Ginsburg’s replacement will be the end of their power, the apotheosis of a four-generation long march through the institutions in the U.S. that has undermined basic societal structures. He knows re-electing Trump will ensure the Supreme Court will be made up of judges that tilt towards a constructionist view of the Constitution as a limited set of powers rather than an expansive one.

Every election, the Democrats have, quite cynically, pushed women farther and farther into insanity over an issue which the Supreme Court should have never ruled on in the first place, abortion. And fear over this right to murder your unborn child has corrupted women to the point that now it’s an irrational fear of a loss of control over something that would just devolve to the states or local communities, as it should.

All of this said and I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead when I say this but Ginsburg was a tyrant.

So is John Roberts. So was Antonin Scalia, Oliver Wendell Holmes and every other Supreme Court just that followed him. These are people, regardless of how they see themselves, their motivations or records as jurists, who wield the kind of power over the lives of billions that no person should possibly have.

By definition, that makes them tyrants. Some better than others on certain issues, but never forget they are tyrants, but who are, magically, supposed to be above politics.

And yet, the political calculus of who controls the Supreme Court of the world’s most powerful nation is always on the table. The elevation of the Supreme Court to the final arbiter of law in the U.S. is itself a power it was never intended to have with state Supreme Courts having as much, if not more, power than the SCOTUS.

But, again, in the long march through all the institutions by those in thrall to the siren’s song of power and its ruthless application, that issued has de facto been settled since Lee surrendered his army at Appomattox.

In their minds, the wrong person cannot control the access to the court, in this case Trump. They know he’s in line to make more appointments to the court should he win a second term.

The fear that a little bit of liberty or respect for the dignity of human sovereignty would make its way into the Supreme Court leaves the leadership of both parties saturated with fear.

Because, ultimately, these philosopher tyrants who occupy the Supreme Court are there to give the illusion of impartiality and justice, not to actually defend those high-minded concepts which have no real place in practical politics and the struggle sessions for power.

What is clear now that Ginsburg is gone is that if these power mad lose their fight over this seat and the direction of the court for the next two generations then they will dilute the court’s power just like they are actively diluting the legitimacy of local law enforcement through the subversion of local governments.

The openly Marxist rhetoric to justify the looting and burning by BLM/antifa activists while harassing their victims in and around their homes was done to lay the groundwork for a larger protest in the event of Trump winning.

And now the stage has been set for their last stand. Trump will be blocked from restoring order to the court by arm-twisting the three fake Republicans in the Senate – Mitt Romney (RINO-UT), Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) and Susan Collins (RINO-ME) – into voting down any appointment.

If there was ever to call in the markers on these three folks it is now. A presumably divided court will uphold ballot harvesting decisions by state Supreme Courts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, presumably to grant even more power to those who count the votes there to make sure the final tally comports with their desired reality.

They were supremely successful with this in 2018, flipping a number of seats after election night, to ensure not only a strong Democratic majority but that the most important allies of President Trump were removed.

Washington always collapses to protect itself from threats of the people having a real say over their future. And, like it or not and for all his faults (which are legion), Donald Trump is the people’s standard bearer against them.

They have gone all-in on this strategy. Men like George Soros have spent billions in support of this push for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. They aren’t going to allow such a little thing like the passing of a supreme court justice at the wrong time deter them from their goal.

You don’t need to have a dog’s keen nose to smell the fear and desperation that clings to these people, however. It is palpable in their behavior, their rhetoric and their over-reaction to everything Trump does or might do.

And their act is tiresome. The American people have fear porn fatigue. It’s showing up in the polls and its showing up in their hysterics. Regardless of how the election turns out, there will be no rest from the violence unleashed and the violence yet to come when millions of Americans come to the uncomfortable conclusion that they will never hold power again in their lifetimes.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

When Church Leaders Fail the Faithful – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 8, 2020

What makes the Orthodox and Catholic leaders position on COVID untenable to me is that as LewRockwell.com recently posted, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who is not Orthodox or Catholic, knows the truth and discussed it:

“From this point forward, anyone who submits to this phony, fraudulent corona narrative is a willing participant in tyranny. Those who continue to go along with this masquerade need to stop waving the flag and stop singing God Bless America, because they are volitionally submitting to their own subjugation. THEY ARE WILLING SLAVES.”

And I would ask are Pope Francis and Metropolitan Hilarion thus willing slaves?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/yvonne-lorenzo/maranatha/

By

I have written on Christian topics for LewRockwell.com previously, but I want to address a disturbing trend that is affecting Christians of many denominations, and this is that both the leadership and individual pastors and priests have at best surrendered and at worse profaned their faith in supplication to the edicts of the state and the ruling Western Oligarchy, as they appear if not indifferent to the truth they are at least hostile to learning it (regarding the COVID-1984 pandemic), or have engaged in what I believe is both obvious anti-Christian and heretical conduct in supporting agendas that include Black Lives Matter.

As readers of this site are well aware, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an admittedly Marxist organization, and supporting articles include the following from Mises.org posted to LewRockwell.com, “Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek to Dismantle the ‘Western Nuclear Family,’” “To Understand BLM” by Michael S. Rozeff, and “The Demand to Have Statues & Paintings of ‘White Jesus’ Torn Down Has Made BLM an Iconoclast Movement, Not Just a Marxist One” by Guy Birchall.

Now I am very much aware of the teachings of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for He said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Yet in the recent reprinting of the English language translation of a Byzantine Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Matthew by Bl. Theophylact, which was written in approximately in 1090 AD and until relatively recently this work was unknown in the English language (the translator used the King James text, with minor clarifications that are documented, for the extensive New Testament quotations in all the commentaries); these four books use the teachings of the Church Fathers accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox denominations, as I’ve discussed in the past here, Church Fathers who include Saint John Chrysostom. Regarding the commandment, “Judge not,” Bl. Theophylact writes simply:

“[Jesus Christ] forbids condemning others, but not reproving others. A reproof is for another’s benefit, but condemnation expresses only derision and scorn. You may also understand that the Lord is speaking of one who, despite his own great sins, condemns others who have lesser sins of which God will be the Judge.”

In that spirit, highly aware and attempting to correct my own sins and sinful nature, and as translator of the commentaries Fr. Christopher Stade wrote in his 1992 introduction to the text on Matthew, “I beg God’s forgiveness for sin, ignorance, and negligence on my part, and I beg you, the reader, your prayers and forbearance.”  Thus, I hope as I reprove the questionable conduct I will highlight in the spirit of helping Christians, and those who condemn Christians for hypocrisy who are not Christians, to understand that these “authorities” do not speak for all of us who believe.

Pope Francis, who is much discussed in LewRockwell.com, was revealed in a Huffington Post piece that he opined,“Let us look in the mirror before judging before a Mass.” I rather suspect that Pope Francis is using this most quoted portion of the New Testament, “Judge not,” in the same manner unbelievers use it as a weapon against Christian believers, who most certainly are cognizant of its true meaning, as I have cited above.

Thus, when Lew Rockwell recently posted on Political Theater “Bergoglio uses COVID-19 to call for an end to individualism” and also “Bergoglio repetitiously backs ‘universal’ COVID vaccination ‘for all’, WHO thrilled,” Pope Francis, I believe, is in fact attempting to forestall non only reproof against him, but also any questioning of his agenda and the powers behind it, which I have already discussed in a prior piece I wrote for LewRockwell.com. I would also explain how “heretic” is understood by the Church Fathers. As Father Patrick Barnes writes in his Book The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church:

“We live in a culture of extreme atheistic relativism, where the only dogma tolerated is that we should be intolerant of those who actually believe that there are dogmas reflecting absolute truth. Combine this with popular attitudes reflecting sensitivity to ‘multi-cultural diversity’ and ‘politically correct language,’ and the terms ‘heretic’ and ‘heresy’ end up seeming harsh and ‘unloving.’ Yet these traditional terms, found often in the writings of the Fathers, should not be viewed by informed and soberminded people in such an emotionally negative way.”

And then quoting from “What Is Heresy?,” St. Nectarios Education Series No. 63, he cites the following statement:

“[T]hese words [that is, heretic and heresy] have been in the theological glossary of the Orthodox Church from the beginning.

“A ‘heretic’ is simply one who maintains a ‘heretical doctrine.’ The sincerity and

good will of the ‘heretic’ is not in question. Nevertheless, ‘heresy’ is evil, because it is

a powerful means by which the devil seeks to ‘prevail’ against the Church…”

On the other hand, as recently posted on Political Theater linking to this site, “Heroic Priest Fr. Daniel Nolan, FSSP: ‘I encourage everybody not to wear a mask,’” the author writes, “Note: I was told by a parishioner of Fr. Nolan’s parish whom I trust there that ‘Catholic News Agency’ is the one who created this alleged ‘controversy’ by calling to report the priest to the Diocese and to his superiors…I have posted his homilies here before. This one is a must-hear: Latin Mass Priest on COVID: ‘Our republic has become a phobiocracy—ruled by fear. No virus is worse than an out-of-control government!’”

Fr. Nolan shows that he is challenging the heretical Christian authority of his superiors and might suffer adverse consequences for doing so; we Christians of every denomination should pray for him in gratitude for his courage and for his strength to defy authority and speak truth, which I believe is sacred to God.

Lest anyone think I pick on an easy target like Pope Francis, I also find heretical the Russian Orthodox support by the EASTERN AMERICAN DIOCESE Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia of the polices of the state that does not use Romans 13 as its authority but Hilarion, Metropolitan of Eastern America & New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, states in, “NEW YORK CITY: APPEAL OF THE FIRST HIERARCH OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA TO THE GOD-LOVING FLOCK, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC:”

“Unfortunately, we also hear of sorrowful instances of insubordination not only to local authorities, but also to the ruling bishops. Such behavior on the part of the clergy and lay parish officers is completely irresponsible and involves risk not only to the physical health of our neighbors, but also to our relationships with these communities and to parish property. Tempting God and man, their actions can result in insurmountable fines and other measures from law enforcement. In so doing, they irreparably damage their relationships with those around them, sowing in them doubts toward Christ’s Church, whose members must serve as an example. As a result of their disobedience and so-called ‘zeal not according to knowledge’ (Romans 10:2), there can even develop divisions and conflicts within the parish communities themselves.

“‘Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God,’ writes the Apostle Peter, ‘That He may exalt you in due time; casting all your care upon Him, for He careth for you’ (I Peter 5:6-7).”

So is Metropolitan Hilarion, when he states those who dissent from the totalitarian measures out of “Zeal, not according to knowledge,” when as readers of this site know from writings from Bill Sardi, Jon Rappoport and numerous others that they are not acting out “zeal” but are acting based on the truth. The latest announcement regarding COVID posted on the site was in May and stated in part that, “In a letter to campers, counselors, and families (the full text of which is available here), the Administrative and Advisory Committee members of St. Seraphim Camp announced that camp this year will be suspended, in light of ongoing concerns relating to the Coronavirus pandemic.” Again, there is nothing that supports this position using the facts obtained and discussed by others who have experience and have researched COVID.

But there is good news in one Russian Orthodox community that I know of: Saint Sabbas Monastery, which I wrote about in “Living a Dystopian Nightmare: The Response of the Churches,” is not only open but their wonderful restaurant, The Royal Eagle, in Harper Woods, Michigan, “all proceeds sustain the daily life and development of St Sabbas community,” is also open.

I will also provide this relatively short video by Spiro Skouras, whom I learned about from Lew Rockwell’s posting of his writing and videos, an investigative reporter and who has not posted another new video, even on BitChute  (the source, from his channel there) since its publication on August 24, and he expressed concerns about YouTube deleting his channel as well: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

America’s Riots Are Just the Latest Version of Marxist “Syndicalism” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 29, 2020

At the root of the chaos and upheaval on our streets is an attempt at disrupting society and taking more control of it by Marxists, socialists, and “anarchists.”

The fundamental error that syndicalism makes is to think that entrepreneurs and capitalists are “irresponsible autocrats” free to pursue their personal agenda. The reality is that business leaders must follow the interests of consumers in order to further their self-interest in making profits. They have to find correct prices, production levels, and correct means of production. These things are determined by entrepreneurs with various types of feedback from the marketplace.

The riots, looting, and violence against people and their property is mostly motivated to achieve Marxist ideals via syndicalist activity (i.e., violence).

https://mises.org/wire/americas-riots-are-just-latest-version-marxist-syndicalism?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=bdc838c443-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_28_02_44&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-bdc838c443-228343965

The year 2020 is one of the most disrupted times in at least the last half century, maybe longer. Global protests and riots, the covid-19 virus, lockdowns, and police killings of unarmed citizens. Add to that widespread rioting, looting, arson, homelessness, and destruction of property, including the tearing down of statues. This chaos in the streets is being facilitated by mayors, governors, and police chiefs who are unwilling to enforce the law.

The great Ludwig von Mises included a discussion of “syndicalism” in chapter 33 of his Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Most people have never heard or read of this concept, but it is highly relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today. Mises’s analysis is even more important for understanding and fixing some of the most important problems we face today. In general, I define syndicalism as being able to do whatever you want at the expense of others.

In part, it represents the ideas of French philosopher, Georges Sorel, who thought relentless violence should be used against the institutions of capitalism. This would include the “general strike” so familiar in Europe to this day. This is in direct contrast to mutually beneficial exchange and the social cooperation of the division of labor. His ideas were influential with Marxists, fascists, Nazis, and advocates of unionism.

A Key Chapter in Mises’s Human Action

When I first tried to read Human Action, I found it extremely difficult. I ended up skipping entire chapters and reading through others without understanding the material. Chapter 33 is a good example of that. Today, reading the book is much easier, because we now have things like Jeff Deist’s Human Action Podcast, which now contains a series of interviews on the book, and Robert Murphy’s Study Guide to Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.

In the 1990s I taught a course in Austrian economics at Auburn University, an advanced undergraduate course. It was listed in the catalog next to the econometric and mathematical economics classes. I spent classes reviewing chapters, but the most difficult aspect was trying to relate Mises’s words and concepts to current events. Due to time constraints, I never covered chapter 33.

Fast-forward to more recent times. The Rothbard Graduate Seminar reviews Human Action every few years along with Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State and other selections during other years. I have always been assigned to teach a section of chapters at the end of the book which includes chapter 33. Once again, due to time constraints and my perceived view of its relevancy, I have decided to skip the chapter. That is, until this year.

What Is Syndicalism?

So, what is syndicalism? Political syndicalism is direct violent revolutionary action against the institutions of capitalism, such as security forces, property, particularly business property, and the rule of law. This approach is often adopted by Marxists, socialists, and fascists as a means of gaining power. At the root of the chaos and upheaval on our streets is an attempt at disrupting society and taking more control of it by Marxists, socialists, and “anarchists.”

The fundamental error that syndicalism makes is to think that entrepreneurs and capitalists are “irresponsible autocrats” free to pursue their personal agenda. The reality is that business leaders must follow the interests of consumers in order to further their self-interest in making profits. They have to find correct prices, production levels, and correct means of production. These things are determined by entrepreneurs with various types of feedback from the marketplace.

The riots, looting, and violence against people and their property is mostly motivated to achieve Marxist ideals via syndicalist activity (i.e., violence). Those employing these means include Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and especially the “anarchist provocateurs” who adeptly turn peaceful protests into violent riots. Of course, there is also some violence on the right, some of which I witness on the campus of Auburn University. But in either case, with mayors, governors, and police chiefs restraining and even defunding the police, the violence often goes unchecked.

The Other Type of Syndicalism

This use of the word “syndicalism” should not be confused with the better-known syndicalism as a social system, which is an alternative to socialist central planning. This system in theory would give workers control over the industries in which they work. They would make the decisions on things entrepreneurs decide in the market, such as wage rates, benefits, hours, production, etc. The workers can do anything they want at the expense of others. But if everyone is raising their prices and reducing output, how can anyone gain from the arrangement? Both forms of syndicalism ultimately rest on the Marxist notions that entrepreneurs and capitalists exploit labor and have no real purpose worth rewarding. Obviously, each industry would want higher wages, higher prices, shorter working hours, and this would result in lower output. Raw material prices increase and get passed on to consumer goods industries, which must pass those increases on to the consumer along with their own increases. This happens across the entire economy. As a result, production plummets and prices become unhinged from market prices. The “economy” would collapse if syndicalism were attempted on an economywide basis.

Democracy Fails to Provide a Solution

With democracy and voting and the military not likely or viable options, an individualist option must be developed to solve the problem. People are arming themselves in various ways. They are using various security devices like cameras and stronger locks. Businesses are hiring security firms and protecting storefront windows. Others are simply moving from cities to the suburbs and beyond. Don’t expect government to solve the problem, although more secessionism and decentralization would surely help.

Author:

Contact Mark Thornton

Mark Thornton is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and the book review editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He has authored seven books and is a frequent guest on national radio shows.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A critique of modern socialism

Posted by M. C. on August 28, 2020

But that has not stopped socialism, which has simply evolved into a new form dominated by the social democratic model. The title is itself a contradiction. Social is laudable and democratic is inclusive but put them together and the state has been handed power over its electors by its electors.

https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/a-critique-of-modern-socialism

Socialism has moved on from the Marxist version of the state owning the means of production to one whereby production remains in the hands of individuals but are heavily regulated — echoing Mussolini’s fascist-socialist model.

But after nearly nine decades this model faces collapse, much like the Soviet collapse after sixty-seven years. This article explores the modern socialist model, updates the economic calculation problem identified by von Mises in 1920 and explains why it still fails in today’s socialism. And finally we predict the consequences for governments and their state-issued currencies.

Introduction

It is presidential election year in the United States. The choice is between the Republican’s or the Democrat’s socialism, the former being a milder version of the latter. A further difference is President Trump’s administration increasingly pays the government’s bills by socialising money, while great-uncle Joe wants to tax the rich even more (which in practice means not the rich but the middle and lower classes) as well as defoliating  the magic money tree.

In Britain, those of us who rejoiced at a free marketeer becoming Prime Minister with a strong electoral mandate have experienced a greater clampdown on personal freedom than imposed by any British government since post-war rationing. Admittedly, Covid-19 and its lockdowns were not foreseen, but will the British ever regain any of their hitherto restricted freedoms? And those of us with long memories are reflecting that the imposition of taxes — the socialising of our earnings — under the Conservatives is almost always more onerous than under Labour. It was not meant to be like that.

One way or the other, the establishment’s socialisation of our wealth, money and freedom “creeps in this petty pace day to day until the last syllable of recorded time”. Whether we like it or not, we are all socialists now. It is a fact of our lives, if not our inclinations. The destruction of our money and what wealth we have left is claimed to be for the common good, as opposed to capitalism, which the socialists tell us enriches the few and is deeply immoral. They, the socialists, have captured the moral high ground, leading us to their higher plain. They allege it is progress towards a better humanity. Their utopian view sees the end of social inequality as its final goal, and as Man progresses towards it the human race will discard capitalism and the class wars that go with it.

No longer should we define socialism by its post-Marxian objective, the acquisition by the state of the means of production and the ending of property ownership. The failure of the organising state to produce goods demanded by the consumer was fully exposed by the collapse of the USSR and the ending of the Chinese state’s monopoly on production. But that has not stopped socialism, which has simply evolved into a new form dominated by the social democratic model. The title is itself a contradiction. Social is laudable and democratic is inclusive but put them together and the state has been handed power over its electors by its electors.

The social democratic philosophy begs some fundamental questions. If it is a better system than the alleged evils of capitalism, why does social cooperation not evolve towards it at the behest of ordinary people without the need for an organising government? Why are leaders required to coerce, organise and force people to part with their income and wealth for their own common good? Who benefits?

Those who are said to benefit are the sick and the poor through the redistribution of wealth. But the evidence is overwhelming that a state bureaucracy is not better at this humane function than independent charities. The socialist’s rebuttal is that no one should have to rely on charity, to which those who value their freedom are normally too dull-witted to respond by asking, why not, when the alternative is state coercion backed by imprisonment?

Claims of morality are a thin cover, a disguise for wealth transfer from ordinary people to the state. The state is now an organisation that leeches on its electors in order to pursue its own separate agenda. We must therefore put claims of morality to one side if we are to understand the damage socialism has done to ordinary people and their economic progress. No longer ambitious for the acquisition of the means of production, modern socialism has evolved into a fascist form, a fact which when pointed out to social democrats leads to instant denial and horror, because in their language it is right wing and extreme, wrongly associated with free market capitalism.

Being fascists without knowing it

The accusation that social democratic planning is fascism is easily proved. Some claim fascism’s origins were in the nineteenth century, when European philosophers expressed ideas which were only later described as fascist. But the fascist movement proper started in Italy, when Benito Mussolini, then an avowed Marxist, was the most forceful Italian proponent of the Marxian paradise to come.

In 1914 on the declaration of the Great War Italian communists declared it to be a fight between imperialists and exploiters of the proletariat. In their view, the proletariat should stand aside and not be exploited by either side, waiting for the inevitable civil war which would pave the way to the destruction of capitalism, giving power to the workers.

Having initially taken the Italian communist position of abstaining from war, Mussolini then aligned himself with the nationalists against the imperialist Austrians. It was an opportunist move and a grab for support from the communist rank and file. Following the First World War, the Italian communist party movement faltered, and Mussolini with his new fascist party stepped into the void. Members left the communists and joined Mussolini’s fascists in droves, because there was little discernible difference between Mussolini’s socialism and that of the Italian Marxists. His 1919 manifesto was anti-capitalist and posed as socialism with renewed vigour. From there, it evolved into advocating aggressive interventionism, and then towards Nazism which was developing in parallel. The Nazi economic creed was simple: capitalists can own the means of production so long as they obey the commands of the state. In other words, business was directed and regulated instead of owned by the state.

It neatly describes the socialism of today. Socialists no longer deem it necessary for the state to own the means of production, it merely controls it by regulation, directing it by selective subsidies and taxes. It also exposes the intellectual ignorance of the useful idiots who blindly follow slogans.

The loss of the means of economic calculation

We have established that the objectives of today’s social democrats are little different in principal from those of the fascists in the interwar years. But this modifies our analysis from that of Ludwig von Mises in 1920, who wrote an important essay titled “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”[i], which sparked what became known as the socialist calculation debate. Mises demonstrated why public ownership of the means of production was bound to fail. Central to his argument was the state’s inability to make the calculations necessary to allocate the means of production, a function which can only be attempted successfully by independent entrepreneurs putting their own resources on the line.

Today’s institutional socialism is now fascist instead of being on the Marxist lines which were debated between Mises and socialist economists a century ago. The failure of Marxist socialism was for the reasons Mises predicted. It must still apply today to that portion of a socialist economy that relates to government spending which is not redistributed in the form of welfare payments or put out to private sector contracts by means of competitive tender. What then remains of government expenditure will lack the basis of economic calculation, which cannot be performed. But welfare distributions and government contracts raise a separate issue, the distortion of an economy by state-directed spending into spending that would not otherwise occur, and the wasteful use of all forms of capital which would otherwise be deployed more efficiently by private enterprise.

Economic activities that remain under free market principles, whereby entrepreneurs seek to profit by anticipating the needs and wants of consumers successfully, are now heavily regulated and restricted. State bureaucrats effectively control the forms and characteristics of goods and services offered by producers. They claim to protect the consumer from unscrupulous capitalist profiteers. Sometimes, regulations imposed by the state succeed in this objective, but it is wrong to argue that free markets would not have matched or even provided higher standards of product than those framed by the state’s regulatory regime, because it is manifestly in every producers’ interest to produce the best product for the market, unless, that is, the state regulator protects the producer from competition. This is too often the case.

Why bureaucracy fails and free markets succeed

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The “Try-Hard” Club: Limp-Wristed Marxists Need Not Apply

Posted by M. C. on August 21, 2020

I think the Marxist ideal is leading these kids down a path of brutal delusion, because they are never going to achieve the Utopian society that they seek. The world will never be “fair”, and the idea that you can force such conditions upon a culture without serious consequences is childish and mentally unstable.

Leftists in particular have always had a problem with competition and it stems from the Marxist roots of their philosophy. There is this notion among lefties that the world is supposed to be “equal”. Now, there are different types of equality, and I think the majority of Americans agree with the idea of equal opportunity.

http://www.alt-market.com/index.php/articles/4310-the-try-hard-club-limp-wristed-marxists-need-not-apply

Brandon Smith

Memes are a dominant force in popular culture today, and there is good reason for this; they allow people to inject an argument into discussion without having to actually compose that argument. In other words, by sharing a meme, everyone already knows what you are saying without an explanation. We all do this from time to time.

When I refer to a woman screaming at a man on the sidewalk for not wearing a mask as a “Karen”, most people immediately understand why this woman is a problem. She fits an archetypal mold, she has made herself into a walking, talking stereotype. The meme describes a thing everyone has experienced and is tired of dealing with. Memes make debate easier – They take on a life of their own.

That said, problems arise when dishonest people try to hijack a meme for their own agenda. For example, how many times have you seen crazed leftists call a conservative a “snowflake” because he/she is criticizing crazy leftist behavior? The meme refers to people who let their emotions get in the way of reason and they have “meltdowns” when faced with facts that disagree with their feelings. It also refers to people who fear competition and discomfort so much that they are trying to reshape the world so that it is “more fair” and less threatening to their self esteem. It does not apply to people who are logically debunking terrible behavior and terrible arguments.

To be fair, the term “snowflake” can be abused as a way to dismiss a younger person out of hand when they are expressing discontent with problems in the world. Memes can be misused by both sides of the political spectrum.

By the same token, a “Karen” is grown adult (not always a woman) who is aggressively uppity and unreasonable and who throws temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. It’s a person who acts like a spoiled toddler, and they do this because it has worked many times in the past in our “customer is always right” retail world. No one has ever smacked them upside the head and taught them a lesson in humility.

A “Karen” is NOT someone who is simply complaining or criticizing over a legitimate problem in a logical way. Yet, I have seen this meme misused as well to attack and shut down people who are doing exactly that.

And what about the “Okay Boomer” meme? The idea being that older people are disconnected from the “changing times” and that they have nothing to contribute anymore to the discussion because the planet has left them behind. This is one of the few purely leftist memes I’ve seen in the past few years.  It’s a futurist meme which comforts children in their common false notion that they have the world all figured out and advice from “old people” is useless. It’s a way for people with zero life experience and zero success to dismiss people with decades of life experience along and an array of successes and failures to draw knowledge from.

Being told you are a “newbie” is not always fun, but it’s sometimes necessary.  The Boomer meme is a tool for young people to feel better about themselves and their lack of wisdom or education.  These days, anyone who is over 30 years of age and disagrees with leftist politics or aspects of Zennial culture is called a “boomer” by default.

Memes can be entertaining, but the fact that they are so easy to exploit also leaves them open to abuse by narcissists and sociopaths. Leftists in particular are guilty of hijacking memes and twisting them for their own ends. They see memes as part of a culture war they are desperate to win. For them, controlling the meaning of words is paramount.

The newest meme trend I’m seeing these days is called the “try-hard” meme, i.e. “Stop acting like such a try-hard…” Now, this is another case where a phrase is being co-opted to fit a false narrative. Originally, a “try hard” was someone who takes recreational things much too seriously and turns fun into war. For example, a guy who plays a game of volleyball with his family and starts pummeling spikes down into their faces like he’s in a professional match. In other words, people who beat their chests and act overtly competitive in situations that don’t call for it.

These days, I’m seeing the meme used to describe ANYONE who excels at anything. That’s right, if you push yourself to be the best, if you are competitive and win often, if you are focused on self improvement as an individual, then there’s something “wrong” with you.

Leftists in particular have always had a problem with competition and it stems from the Marxist roots of their philosophy. There is this notion among lefties that the world is supposed to be “equal”. Now, there are different types of equality, and I think the majority of Americans agree with the idea of equal opportunity. Meaning, (at least in the West) we think every person regardless of their circumstances should be given the CHANCE to PROVE they can work hard and succeed. People should not be stopped from pursuing that chance merely because of who they are.

However, leftists and Marxists think that equality of opportunity is not enough. They think that there should also be equality of outcome.

This one delusion sits at the core of all Marxist thinking. Equality of outcome is impossible because not all people are born equal. Some people are, frankly, born superior to others. Some people are born smarter. Some people are born stronger, taller and faster. Some people are born with innate musical or artistic talent. Some people are born with innate mathematical understanding. Some people are born extroverted and are good at making friends. Some people are born introverted and are better at self reflection and awareness. Some people are born to be basketball players and some are born to be engineers.

The psychological reality of mankind is that we are not born as blank slates; we are born with inherent qualities and the seeds of unique individual talents.  Marxists suffer from a complete mental disconnect with this concept.  If they were to admit that people are born with individual qualities and advantages and are not blank slates, then the foundation of their philosophy falls apart.  They rationalize their social engineering agenda under the premise that all people need to be “molded” into equal units.  They think people must be reeducated to reject bad beliefs and bad habits they were taught as blank slate children and learn to accept that everyone starts life out exactly the same.  Therefore, the majority of people who succeed are those that were given an unfair advantage, and success should be treated with disdain and suspicion.

But if people have inherent psychological characteristics and inherent advantages, then their personalities and qualities cannot be reformed.  Those “bad beliefs and habits” might actually be completely natural and necessary.  You might be able to hold them back through force or fear, but you can’t change the core of who they are.  If our biological and genetic imperatives prevail, Marxists become obsolete and useless.

The secret is to discover what your innate strengths are in life and take advantage of them to succeed. If you do not have innate talent, then you must at least have an innate ability to work hard. If you don’t have the ability and drive to work hard to become good at a thing, then you don’t deserve to get recognition for that thing.  You are not entitled to feel like a winner merely because you exist.  It’s really as simple as that.

The try-hard meme is basically the equivalent of excellence-shaming; you are supposed to feel ashamed of being better than others at a certain task or talent. I’m not sure where this hatred for competition comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with leftists and their early childhoods. Many of them are “late bloomers” who did not have many experiences winning, or they were never pushed by their parents to mature and excel. They grew to despise the idea that winning and success are so elevated in our society, while at the same time they still crave that feeling of being the best at something.

So, they adopt the Marxist creed, which tells them that yes, they are losers, but it’s not because they are lazy and they suck; no, they are losers because they are victims of a society that is holding them back from their true potential. Marxism tells them that the people who succeed were actually given special treatment because of their class or the color of their skin. The winners are actually very bad people who don’t deserve success. If only the system was forced to be more fair, then THEY would be the winners.  Thus, in order for losers to “win”, they must join a mob of other losers and gain power through collective control.  The successful people must be given an extreme handicap by the mob to “level the playing field”.

I think the Marxist ideal is leading these kids down a path of brutal delusion, because they are never going to achieve the Utopian society that they seek. The world will never be “fair”, and the idea that you can force such conditions upon a culture without serious consequences is childish and mentally unstable. Make no mistake, we are entering an era in which the facade propping up limp-wristed and weak people is falling away. When it comes to economic strife, crisis and survival, there is no appeal to equality.  You’re in the jungle, baby, and if you have no merit, you’re gonna die.

The people willing to work hard and the people who seek to self improve are going to do well. The people that want a trophy just for participating are not going to make it.

By extension, trying to socially engineer our country to cater to the lowest common denominator would grind all progress to a standstill and make the crisis even worse. If “trying hard” becomes something to be ashamed of, or something that is punished, then there is no more incentive to improve or innovate or go beyond that which has already been accomplished. Our evolution ceases, and humanity stagnates.

While human competition has its ugly moments in history, at the very least it must be encouraged among individuals. It must continue to be rewarded. For if we start rewarding mediocrity it will be the exact opposite of the biological drives that keep us alive. It will lead to self destruction of the entire species.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Black Lives Matter Gives Revolution A Bad Name

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

But more alarming than their Marxist tendencies is the organization’s insistence that their plans will create paradise for black Americans through force.

How, you might ask? By abolishing prisons, transforming all schools into multicultural institutes, and providing all black Americans reparations regardless of their proximity to historical injustices—all through the government, of course.

But as history shows us, governments do not create harmony or paradise—only actual cooperation can help us achieve that vision.  But cooperation always fails when force enters the equation, which makes Black Lives Matter’s stated goals untenable for a free society. 

Black Lives Matter Gives Revolution A Bad Name

By Christian Watson

The word “Revolution” is among the most consequential gems in the english language.

History has associated the word with images of musket-wielding, ash-faced frenchmen or battle-hardened colonists soon-to-be Americans fighting for higher-order ideals of freedom. But similar to most illustrious historical concepts, contemporary politics rarely does them justice.

Enter Black Lives Matter.

The New York Times, for instance, noted that overall American support for Black Lives Matter increased “nearly as much as it had in the two preceding years.”

Of course, novelty often brings excitement. Think of the crowds that flood the streets of major cities around the world whenever a new iPhone is released– Black Lives Matter is no exception to this rule.

Indeed, TeenVogue urged Black Lives Matter activists not to allow their “revolution” to succumb to those nasty, grubby general political interests.

And the ever-so hip-to-the-left publication Vox’s Black Lives Matter apologism tied the movement’s activities to a long tradition of “American radicalism.”

The article incorrectly associates Black Lives Matter with the struggle against Jim Crow laws that resulted in the Civil Rights Movement.

Oh, yes: some actors in left-wing media are likening the goals of Black Lives Matter, the organization, with the Civil Rights Movement. And if one attacks anything resembling the struggle for Civil Rights, they can quite easily be written-off as a bad person, a racist, and so on. All while attaching Black Lives Matter to “American radicalism.”

Oh, how far we are from the promised land.

The premise of this argument quite boldly fails to understand the point of the American Revolution. The American Revolution—which had a clear, overarching principle—was both new and unique as the world hadn’t seen anything like it before. Thus, they set their own example for others to follow.

Unlike the American Revolution, Black Lives Matter, the organization, lacks a clear goal beyond their disjointed policy proposals.

Also unlike the American Revolution, Black Lives Matter rehashes old Marxist revolutionary tactics, such as the pumped fist symbolism, the goal to pour government funds into “community based” alternatives to policing, and the organization’s now redacted desire to overturn “US imperialism and capitalism.”

The list is endless. These goals would find a home among the manifestos of communist revolutionaries like Mao Zedong or Che Guevera. But in the American tradition? Not a chance.

But more alarming than their Marxist tendencies is the organization’s insistence that their plans will create paradise for black Americans through force.

How, you might ask? By abolishing prisons, transforming all schools into multicultural institutes, and providing all black Americans reparations regardless of their proximity to historical injustices—all through the government, of course.

But as history shows us, governments do not create harmony or paradise—only actual cooperation can help us achieve that vision.  But cooperation always fails when force enters the equation, which makes Black Lives Matter’s stated goals untenable for a free society.

And in this instance, the American Revolution, too, distinguishes itself from Black Lives Matter: The colonists goals addressed a legitimate danger to individual freedom. And that gave the colonists an obvious direction take their revolution.

For example, the American Revolution had a clear goal: To redress the actions of the British crown. In pursuance of this goal, seismic speeches and pamphlets like Patrick Henry’s Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense saturated the colonies and provided an intellectual framework for the impending American government.

Indeed, letters and correspondence between the founders and the legislative bodies of the colonies provided many of the ideas that constitute the Constitution. All of this, of course, at a time when questioning the crown was strictly forbidden.

But Black Lives Matter exists in the 21st century, in a time where African Americans are represented in media, politics, law, and other fields in large numbers. They don’t face a king trying to muffle them,  nor the inconveniences of organizing with just paper, pamphlets, and speeches—they have the internet and social media.

And yet, with all of their advantages, they lack an overarching principle which justifies their revolution. That’s a shame.

One thing is for certain: the goals of the organization Black Lives Matter, summed up, are simply anti-freedom. In contrast, the American Revolution had an overarching goal: to preserve freedom for everyone.

Even if that goal didn’t happen immediately, they gave their descendants the necessary tools to work with. Which one do you think reflects “American radicalism” better?

The rallying cry “Black Lives Matter,” which is different from the organization, has brought to light many issues pertinent to the preservation of individual liberty, such as the desperate need for policing and sentencing reform.

But the phrase’s power is lost amid the noise of a raucous Marxist militia which is concerned about fulfilling its agenda to the detriment of black lives.

If  black lives truly do matter, let’s focus on respecting individual rights, embracing freedom, and kicking Marxism to the curb.

In this era of wokeness, that would truly be revolutionary.

Christian Watson is a political writer based in Georgia and host of the Pensive Politics podcast. He can be found on Twitter at @OfficialCWatson.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New Opportunities for Marxists: Climate Change and Coronavirus | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2020

Many people do not know what capitalism really means. Capitalism is the social and economic order in which the means of production are privately owned. In its “pure” form, capitalism means unconditional respect of people’s private property, free markets, and, most importantly, a form of state that is confined to protecting people and their property against aggression from inside and outside the country’s borders. “Pure” capitalism is no doubt conducive to peaceful and productive cooperation nationally as well as internationally.

https://mises.org/wire/new-opportunities-marxists-climate-change-and-coronavirus

In The Communist Manifesto (1848) Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95) predicted that capitalism would lead to the impoverishment of the laboring class. Why? Well, to raise profit on capital invested, Marx and Engels argued, entrepreneurs (the capitalists) would exploit the workers. They would reduce wages and worsen working conditions by, say, increasing working hours. From that viewpoint, Marx and Engels put forward an immiseration theory of capitalism.

Worker “Exploitation”

Marxists would not argue that workers’ wages would decline in absolute terms, but certainly in relative terms: the wage incomes of the many would rise less than the incomes of the capitalists, thereby making the former poorer compared to the latter over time. Especially in times of crisis, which are inevitable and recurrent in a capitalist economy, workers would be hit particularly hard, causing their economic and financial conditions to fall further behind of those of the capitalists.

Capitalist “Imperialism”

To make things worse, Marxists argue that capitalism would bring about violent colonialism and imperialism. As capitalists pay less for labor than what is appropriate, the workers cannot buy all available products. Profit-seeking capital is, therefore, seeking to open up new markets in other parts of the world. Conflicts over who controls what arise among nations, paving the way toward war. This is, in fact, the message Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924) hammered home to his readers in his 1917 book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

If capitalism is bad—if it brings exploitation, misery, and even war to a great many people, and all this comes to the benefit of the capitalists—isn’t it rightful and consequential to do everything to overcome capitalism and replace it with socialism-communism, the alternatives said to bring peace, equality and happier life for the people in this world? Sound economics reveals that the Marxist critique of capitalism, as well as the high-flying enthusiasm for socialism-communism, is tantamount to outright intellectual confusion.

What Capitalism Really Is: Peaceful Cooperation

Many people do not know what capitalism really means. Capitalism is the social and economic order in which the means of production are privately owned. In its “pure” form, capitalism means unconditional respect of people’s private property, free markets, and, most importantly, a form of state that is confined to protecting people and their property against aggression from inside and outside the country’s borders. “Pure” capitalism is no doubt conducive to peaceful and productive cooperation nationally as well as internationally.

It is capitalism that makes mass production possible—the production of goods and services for the consumption of the greatest number of people. The productivity gains that it creates result in a tendency toward a continuous increase in people’s average living standard. Producers are subject to the profit and loss principle: they are economically rewarded only if and when their products meet consumers’ preferences. If they don’t, entrepreneurs will suffer losses, forcing them to improve their output to the benefit of their customers.

Pure capitalism not has only a built-in mechanism to improve the masses’ material well-being. What is particularly wonderful is that under pure capitalism, people’s wages do not depend on individual workers’ productivity, but the marginal productivity of labor in general. Assume a firm makes a productive innovation. To hire new labor, it has to pay higher wages compared to those paid by other employers. The latter, to retain their staff, will also have to offer a higher wage—to the benefit of less productive workers.

It should also be noted here that pure capitalism encourages the division of labor among people, nationally and internationally. This, in turn, entices people to seek peaceful cooperation rather than conflict: everyone realizes that it pays off to cooperate, that this is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. In other words: pure capitalism is a recipe for peace. In a world of pure capitalism, there would simply be no reason for large-scale violent conflicts, let alone state wars.

Interventionism vs. Capitalism

Why do so many people harbor resentment or even hate against the concept of capitalism? One answer is that they presumably look around and see the many evils in this world, such as the recurrence of financial and economic crises; mass unemployment; bailout programs that make big corporations richer, disregarding the fate of small and medium-sized firms; chronically rising costs of living; growing income and wealth inequality; and growing geopolitical tensions and conflicts.

Unfortunately, all these evils are attributed to capitalism. A fatal conclusion, though, because there is no pure capitalism, neither in the US nor in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa. What we find are interventionist-collectivist and sometimes even socialist economic and societal systems. Especially in the Western world, basically all states, and the special interest groups that exert great influence over them, have succeeded in increasingly replacing what little is left of the capitalist system in recent decades.

States have interfered in all areas of people’s lives. Be it education (kindergarten, schools, universities), health, pensions, transport, law and order, money and credit, or the environment, the states and their governments have become major players in markets for goods and services, turning free markets into hampered markets, raising taxes ever higher, and increasingly undermining and even destroying the institution of private property.

Intervention Cripples the Wealth Creation Offered by Capitalism

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : ‘Anti-American’? House Members Move To Condemn Rep. Omar In Resolution

Posted by M. C. on July 17, 2020

However, the attention of her colleagues has not been on closing this loophole but instead on lashing out at her recent call for the “dismantling the whole system of oppression” in the United States from its economic to political structures.

The greatest “anti-American” threat to our freedoms is the effort to oppose or chill the exercise of free speech, particularly by a political leader. The debate started by Omar is the ultimate example of our core values. We can disagree with each other while affirming our right to call for and seek changes within our system. The use of institutional resolutions of censure or condemnation undermine those values.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/july/17/anti-american-house-members-move-to-condemn-rep-omar-in-resolution/

Written by Jonathan Turley

undefined

I have recently been highly critical of reports that Rep. Iihan Omar (D-MN) has given up to one million dollars in campaign funds to her own husband’s company, one of the long-standing loopholes for corruption in Washington. Omar has been highly controversial for her positions and statements but this should be a matter that unifies people across the political spectrum.

However, the attention of her colleagues has not been on closing this loophole but instead on lashing out at her recent call for the “dismantling the whole system of oppression” in the United States from its economic to political structures. A resolution, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) would denounce Omar for having “a documented history of expressing anti-American sentiments.” The resolution is a mistake that undermines both free speech and democratic values. It should be withdrawn.

Omar recently declared:

‘We are not merely fighting to tear down the systems of oppression in the criminal justice system. We are fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, in the air we breathe. As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,’ she said. ‘We cannot stop at the criminal justice system, we must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.’

Many commentators and fellow members immediately denounced Omar’s positions. It was an example of how free speech is meant to work. Omar’s speech was met with counter speech.

However, members now want a formal censure or condemnation from the House as a whole. It is obviously not going to happen with the Democratically controlled House. Yet, the resolution itself is a concern for what it says about the right of Members to voice their views of the inherent flaws or abuses of our system. I do not happen to agree with Omar but I find the resolution far more concerning than her hyperbolic comments.

The resolution denounces Omar for advocating “a Marxist form of government that is incompatible with the principles laid out in the founding documents of the United States.”

As a Democratic nation, members have every right to call for sweeping reforms, even changing the emphasis or structure of our economic and political system. Omar has become a member of Congress to seek such changes lawfully and constitutionally. To her credit, she has overcome much in her life to attain her position in Congress and has become a global figure of influence. I do not agree with her and will oppose many of her proposals. However, we are all working within a constitutional structure that allows for and protects different visions for this country.

It is not enough to say that such resolution are just an exercise of free speech for other Members. These members are seeking to use the imprimatur of their House to denounce political opponents. I have long opposed the use of such institutional statements, including most recently the effort on my own faculty to denounce Attorney General Bill Attorney as a law school institution. Individual Members, like faculty members, are free to join as individuals in such statements. It is a misuse of the Congress to use resolution to denounce those with opposing political or economic views.

It is also a practice that makes for poor legislative cultures. The House Democrats could endlessly pass resolutions condemning their opponents as racists or fascists. Since these resolutions do not take any concrete action, courts are likely to view the matters as outside of the realm of judicial review or lacking a cognizable injury for judicial relief. The result is to further the stifling intolerance for opposing views that we are seeing across the country, particularly on our campuses. This becomes an insatiable appetite to use our institutions to denounce or silence or marginalize those with opposing views. The way to defend our system is not to use the Congress to denounce political opponents. We have gone through ugly periods like the Red Scare where such condemnations were common and members used their institutional power to intimidate or coerce those with dissenting views.

The greatest “anti-American” threat to our freedoms is the effort to oppose or chill the exercise of free speech, particularly by a political leader. The debate started by Omar is the ultimate example of our core values. We can disagree with each other while affirming our right to call for and seek changes within our system. The use of institutional resolutions of censure or condemnation undermine those values. Members, like free speech, require space. Indeed, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan noted that “the freedoms of expression” require “breathing space…to survive.”

I do not question the sincere feelings of anger of these sponsors but they should withdraw this resolution in the interests of the very American values that they cite.

Resolution condemning state… by Fox News on Scribd


Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Marxist Angela Davis: Joe Biden Is ‘Candidate Who Can Be Most Effectively Pressured’

Posted by M. C. on July 17, 2020

If by pressure she means money, she is right. Especially if son Hunter is involved.

Still, Biden is fake news. Watch out for his VP.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/16/marxist-angela-davis-joe-biden-is-candidate-who-can-be-most-effectively-pressured/

by Dr. Susan Berry

In a discussion about why she is supporting Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, radical Marxist and former Black Panther Angela Davis explained Monday that while Biden is by no means an ideal candidate for the radical left, he is the “candidate who can be most effectively pressured.”…

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »