Your money or your life?
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is...
Your Money or Your Life?
Socialism is where ‘We the People’ get to do what’s best for ourselves. Capitalism is where mean, greedy businessmen grab all the money for themselves. Right?
Let’s look into that. I think we all feel a little tense, right now, like maybe the bottom is going to fall out. But what does that really mean? How can we solve a problem, if we don’t understand the problem? Capitalism. Socialism. What are they really, and which one is going to save us? Save us from what?
You can’t seriously study socialism without studying Marxism and the Communist Manifesto. I see the Manifesto as being of two parts. The first part is a history of recent economic events as seen by Marx in 1848. The second part is a prediction of the future, of both socialism and capitalism. Not surprisingly, Marx sees socialism advancing and capitalism disintegrating.
Is Marx correct? Not a chance. That’s the trouble with ideologues; they are legends in their own minds, and nowhere else. Marx is correct in predicting the past. In the previous 100 years, capitalism had reshaped the very idea of economics. In a generation, perhpas two, people went from a subsistence economy of providing for their own needs in their own shops and farms, to working for large businesses, and then using their paycheck to buy the goods that they used to make for themselves. A person born in the late 1700s saw in their lifetime the development of industries such that lumber could be purchased from a lumber mill rather than cut from the forest by hand, by the end user. He/she saw the development of the textile industry, such that women bought cloth in which to make clothes, rather than making cloth themselves with spinning wheels and hand looms.
Food became an industry. Meat packing plants became the primary source of meat (immortalized half a century later by Upton Sinclair in “The Jungle”). Furniture was manufactured, not made by hand by the end user.
Since efficient manufacturing made more goods than a local economy could absorb, transportation had to be developed in order to ship in raw materials and ship out finished goods. Railroads were developed, as well as steamships. The steam engine also powered most factories. All of this, starting late in the 1700s, was developed in one person’s lifetime (if they lived to a ripe old age).
Karl Marx was of that time. He saw the self-contained, self-sustaining family unit broken up, as husband, wife and even kids left the family farm and worked as employees in factories. Marx didn’t like that. Fact is, I’m not fond of that change, either.
So, as I stated, Marx’s prediction of the past is accurate. But what about his prediction for the future? Not so accurate. Marx recognized that there was no going back to the family farm for most people. Why not? Because the standard of living had shot up into the stratosphere by modern (capitalist) production methods. People weren’t forced to leave their farm, they chose to leave their farm for much better living conditions. Still, Marx correctly observed that people and families largely lost their sense of autonomy as they became dependent on a paycheck.
So far, I’m right there with Marx. But what to do about it? Marx figured (imagined) that the proletariat would arise and take over the factories and operate them communally. It was not just about the money, but about the desire for self-determination. I’m still right there with Marx, but I know better than to think a bunch of people will get together and produce, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Why develop ability, if it only means you’ll be expected to work harder and take more responsibility? (Do you remember Boxer in Animal Farm?). And if needs are met with no cost to the user, the users develop more needs. Invariably, a communist/socialist enterprise caves in on itself from lack of productivity and high demand for products.
Interestingly, Marx was his own example of why socialism/communism won’t work. In his life, he produced no tangible thing. He avoided work, and was always angling for other people to meet his needs.
Socialism/communism can work, but any such organization must be selective. It must be small enough to be effectively overseen, and leaders must be carefully chosen. Churches come to mind. Your average independent church funds itself with the money and efforts of its members. They truly participate "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
But large governments? Not a chance. Not a Snowball’s chance in hell. (See what I did there? “Snowball.” That’s right, Animal Farm.)
Do we need education, healthcare and retirement security? Of course we do. Is there any likelihood that a bloated bureaucracy will do the best job of providing it? Not a Snowball’s chance.
So, we have factories, and they can dehumanize and potentially dispirit the workers. Does any of that change with communism, as Marx predicted fantasized? No. A factory is a factory, whether it be in a totalitarian communist country such as China, or in a mostly free market country such as the USA. In what kind of economy do workers generally have the best conditions and best quality of life? In free market economies such as the USA.
So why would anyone want socialism/communism? Simple. Not everyone does want it. Generally, the least productive, the most Marxist-level lazy people want socialism. The Snowballs want socialism. College professors want socialism.
Those who are willing to take the initiative and be responsible for their own lives want a free market economy. Try to find a socialist among the people who have made the big differences in the way we live. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and yes, Elon Musk and Donald Trump make a difference. On the other hand, socialists such as Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama have made no difference. None whatsoever. If they had never existed, it would make no difference.
But we do want those rich capitalists to pay their fair share, right? Right. OK, so what’s a fair share? Nobody ever says. Why not? Because socialists don’t concern themselves with rational assessments of economic realities. They concern themselves with grabbing as much as they can get while contributing as little as possible. As John Fogarty said in ‘Fortunate Son’, “When you ask them how much should we give, the only answer is more, more, more, more.” (link below)
No, it’s not the capitalists who are greedy, it is the professional socialists. Capitalists don’t take; essentially, they contribute. If they get rich doing it, I’m OK with that. After all, Elon pretty much made marketable electric cars happen. He was the darling of the socialists, until he started pulling the plug on runaway socialism.
Remember, capitalists get rich, not by taking anything from anyone, but by producing so efficiently that they can sell people what they want for a price they are willing to pay, and make good money doing it. If you don’t want those capitalists getting their hands on any of your money, then go buy your car from a socialist. And your house. And your clothes. And so on. In a free market, there is incentive for a capitalist to create an efficient operation and get rich. In communist economies there is no such incentive, and the products are of less quality and more expensive relative to a worker’s pay.
And keep in mind, rich capitalists are rich, not so much because of taking money from people. They are rich in worth, but not necessarily in cash. Elon is worth billions in money that has never existed. Tesla opened on the market at $4.94/share in 2011. It is now valued at $280.52. That’s approximately a 5600% increase in value, without one dollar being printed, without one dollar being taken from anyone else. So now Elon is perhaps the wealthiest man in the world, worth perhaps fifty billion dollars. But that’s not cash, that’s value in investments. Perhaps he has a million in cash, which by normal standards is a lot, but not really that much. Elon’s wealth is truly created as a result of his efforts, not as a result of taking anything from anyone else.
Wealth cannot be created by printing money. An economy cannot become healthier by taking cash from these people and giving it to those people. If you count on the false prophets, the Marxists and socialists, to make us all richer, you can be sure that they will make us poorer. It is the Elons, the Henry Fords, the Thomas Edison’s who create the real wealth.
And yes, it trickles down to us. Look around you. Look at the things that you see that were made by man. Can you find anything that wasn’t created in a factory, by capitalists? Your clothes, your housing, most of your food, your electronics, your car or other transportation; all came from capitalist factories. None of it came from Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, AOC or any other socialist/Marxist.
But those socialists make sure you get your ‘fair share’, right? I’ll consider that possibility, just as soon as you give me a mathematical definition of ‘fair share’.
I continue to have a romantic notion of a family’s self-sufficiency on the old homestead. It’s a great notion, but I don’t want to live it in real life. My real life has consisted of trying to find the blend of free market capitalism and homestead self sufficiency that gives me the most rewarding life. I make no claim that I have it all figured out, even after all these years. But I’ve done a pretty fair job, between my own efforts and those of Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Elon Musk, George Westinghouse, Alexander Bell and many others. As for the Marxists? They’ve done nothing for me but get in my way.
If you haven’t been there lately, please visit my home page, Individualists Unite
"No, it’s not the capitalists who are greedy, it is the professional socialists. Capitalists don’t take; essentially, they contribute."
Many important points made here, not the least of which is the fact that those who seek to undermine capitalism have never had a real job outside of government or academia.
Interesting that Marx had the reputation for avoiding work. Some things never change.