Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2025

A Criminal Wins in NYC


A criminal won the mayoralty race in NYC. 


Why do I say “criminal?” A while back I read 2 books, The Communistic Societies of the United States by Charles Nordhoff and History of American Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes. Both were published in the 1870s by authors who documented the many socialist enclaves established across the young 19th Century USA by traveling around and living within them and getting first-hand experience. The CORE PREMISE that defined these socialisms is that they were VOLUNTARY. Then Karl Marx weaponized the young socialist movement, turning it into a violent political movement that sought control of government to force totalitarian Socialist control over society. This new Marxian Socialism—POLITICAL Socialism—can only be described as criminal, seeking to impose control and ownership over everyone’s wealth, work, and lives by government force. Can anyone tell me how Zohran Mamdani’s agenda of “free” stuff and “abolishing billionaires” is any different from that? He’s basically declaring that your wealth is his to seize and distribute.


If you have ever read the manifesto of The Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA), you would see that it is thoroughly Marxist. It advocates “worker control of the means of production,” which means government seizure of all privately held properties—the businesses, land, savings accounts, etc., of "the owning class"—and putting their earned wealth under government ownership, to be distributed according to bureaucratic edict. Zohran Mamdani, the new NYC mayor, has advocated just such policies of abolishing private property. Unlike wishy-washy “socialists” like Sanders and AOC—which the DSA does NOT endorse—Zohran Mamdani is the real thing.


Mamdani is a self-described Democratic Socialist—a CRIMINAL SOCIALIST. Unlike the voluntary socialisms described by Nordhoff and Noyes—which were perfectly consistent with a free society—Zamdani, like all Marxian Socialists, seeks to impose his socialist values on everyone regardless of their individual approvals. That’s why he’s in politics. He is a totalitarian. Never mind that he was elected. Tyranny is tyranny, whether imposed by coup d’etat, as in Cuba, or by vote, as in Venezuela. 


The danger of Mamdani is not so much in what he may impose on NYC. He likely will not get much of his stated agenda done. After all, he only won 50.4% of the vote, a bare majority, and against a corrupt Democrat at that. The danger is in that he will legitimize and normalize Democratic Socialism, a radical Left fringe movement, into American society. 


As to why so many supposed “Americans” can turn to an ideology so diametrically opposed to Americanism, and what can be done to stop it, that is a discussion for another time. For now, a dangerous precedent has been set for the long term. Modern Socialism—MARXIAN Socialism—is from beginning to end a criminal enterprise. It is literally organized crime rising out of the underworld to rule a nation. It begins with theft and it ends with murder. That’s what Mamdani’s voters injected into American politics. Given the destructive, bloody history of Marxism over the past 100+ years, to be a socialist today is an unforgivable sin. Ignorance is no excuse. There are no innocent socialists.


Related Reading:


Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society


Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'


Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter


My Facebook Post


Related Viewing:


Why Marxism? with Dr. C Bradley Thompson


Thursday, August 28, 2025

Trump's policies are fascism

 QUORA: "What term do you think best describes Trump's attempts to control the U.S. economy — state capitalism, fascist capitalism, or is there another term?"

My answer:

Neither “state capitalism” nor “fascist capitalism.” Both are logically invalid terms because Capitalism by definition means the absence of government interference into—or control of—the economy (i.e. the separation of economics and state). Trump’s policies are, in fact, straight-up socialism of the fascist, as opposed to the Communist, variety.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Is fascism a form of capitalism?’

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Pope Francis, the Anti-Capitalist Marxist, is Dead—Good Riddance

 Pope Francis, the Anti-Capitalist Marxist, is Dead—Good Riddance


Pope Francis, the arch enemy of property rights and individualism*, and thus Capitalism, freedom, and prosperity, is dead. I’m tempted to say good riddance, except that the Vatican will likely appoint another Marxian Communist. Why? Because Francis merely reiterated the Catholic Church’s long-held teachings. 


But why would the Church hold to its hostility to a social system that has established the conditions for people to work their way out from poverty? Can Francis really be ignorant of the available facts, empirical evidence, basic economics, or philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, or of the disastrous history of Capitalism’s antipode in practice, collectivism? 


I think not. The Catholic Church, as an institution, has a vested interest in poverty. When the Church ruled for centuries, what we now call the Dark and Middle Ages, poverty reigned, by design. It is only with the arrival of modern capitalism that general living standards exploded. Over the past 250 years, the Church had a front row seat to observe the rising prosperity, backed up by mountains of literature explaining the theoretical and empirical economic causes of the prosperity. How can any Pope deny these facts? Can the learned leader of an institution that has been around for 2000 years and has seen it all really be so ignorant of the reality of free market economics and the bloody record of collectivism? No. So why Francis’ trade against Capitalism? Easy. “The poor” is the Catholic Church's base. Poverty and Church power are linked.


More fundamentally, poverty and Church morals are linked. If handouts to the poor trumps property rights, then the unearned trumps the earned. If poverty is the standard of morality, where does a social system that diminishes poverty based on individual self-determination leave the Catholic Church? Obsolete. The Church doesn’t care about people who work their way up from poverty. They only care about moving the wealth from those who do to those who don’t. The standard of Catholic moral teaching is self-sacrificial giving. If the ranks of those in need are shrinking, who’s left to give to? Who’s left to be the “champion” of? Poverty, not prosperity, is the Church’s moral standard. Given Capitalism’s record in practice, where does that leave the centuries of Church moral teaching about giving to the poor? 


Francis is the latest in a line of anti-Capitalist Catholic Popes. His demotion of property rights is not new. When Francis says  “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods (Fratelli Tutti),” he is reiterating Pope Paul VI in his 1967 Encyclical Populorum Progressio who advanced the totalitarian principle that the “public authorities” must coercively ensure that “created goods should flow fairly to all,” emphasizing that  “All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle.” Francis is clear that this is not just moral teachings, but must be legally enforced:


The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. This has concrete consequences that ought to be reflected in the workings of society. Yet it often happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in practice making them irrelevant. [my emphasis]


The record of these principles is a record of grinding economic collapse, crushing tyranny, and rivers of blood. How could any champion of the poor subscribe to them? Because the Pope does not want to “help” the “underprivileged people.” He wants to preserve their misery and expand their ranks**. Poverty is virtue, and the most virtuous act one can perform is to take a vow of poverty. That’s why the Church hates capitalism. That’s why Pope after Pope condemns Capitalism. We can explain how Capitalism works until we’re blue in the face. It doesn’t matter to the Church, and never has. Why? Because it’s not whether Capitalism works or how it works. The problem is that it works--works to facilitate man’s escape from poverty. 


And they’re smart. No, Francis doesn’t attack Capitalism directly. He just attacks “unfettered Capitalism.” He just attacks Capitalism’s Heart and Soul. He attacks capitalism at its root--profit-seeking, property rights, free trade, individualism, and the ethics of rational self-interest. 


Francis is not ignorant. He’s a Marxist (“the principle of the universal destination of created goods,” or, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”) and a communist (“[W]e need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home.”) and an altruist (“[I]f one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.”). Francis knows exactly what he is saying. And he means it. Francis and the Church are not misguided souls. They are Capitalism’s—and thus the poor’s—arch enemies as much as Communism is. This fact must be explicitly acknowledged by Capitalism’s champions. 


* [“Individualism does not make us more free, more equal, more fraternal. The mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family. Nor can it save us from the many ills that are now increasingly globalized. Radical individualism is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever. It makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good.”—FRATELLI TUTTI, P. 105. Note Francis’s disdain for “safety nets” as any kind of solution. Clearly, he’s not satisfied with mixed economy welfare statism. What’s the alternative? Full blown totalitarian socialism.]


** [C. Brad Thompson concurs: “Christian empathy and guilt are also wrapped in a curious paradox: if alleviating poverty and suffering are the goals of Christian ethics and if capitalism (the system based on self-interest) is the economic system that makes that possible, what then is left of the Christian ethic if the ethic of self-interest and capitalism eliminates poverty and much suffering? There would then be no need for the Jesus’s moral teaching. It would seem then that Jesus’s moral teaching is thus stuck between a moral rock and a political hard place. Capitalism reduces poverty and thus reduces the need for the Christian ethic, while socialism increases poverty and thus incentivizes and fulfills the Christian teaching.” 


Related Reading:


Jesus and the Philosophy of Selflessness by C. Bradley Thompson for The Redneck Intellectual


Pope Francis’s Anti-Capitalism is No Misunderstanding


Catholic Social Doctrine is both Socialist and Statist


How the Catholic Church Paved the Way for the Birth Control Mandate


Pope Francis’s Embrace of Anti-Fossil Fuel Agenda Follows From Church’s Anti-Capitalism


The Illegitimacy of Pope Francis's “Legitimate Redistribution” of Wealth—Natalie Ogle for The Objective Standard


Pope Francis: Prosperity, Liberty, and Climate Change are the Common Enemy


Pope Francis’s ‘Authority’ Stems From The Church’s Authoritarian Self-Image


Climate Alarmism and the Catholic Church; Faith-Based Allies in the War on Prosperity


The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages: A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

Monday, March 3, 2025

The Idiotic “Economic Blackout” Charade

CNN reported on the February 28, 2025 “economic blackout. In Today’s ‘economic blackout’ began from an unlikely source. But it’s tapped into Americans’ anger, CNN’s  Nathaniel Meyersohn reports:


In early February, John Schwarz, a self-described “mindfulness and meditation facilitator,” proposed a 24-hour nationwide “economic blackout” of major chains on the last day of the month.


Schwarz urged people to forgo spending at Amazon, Walmart, and all other major retailers and fast-food companies for a day. He called on them to spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.


“The system has been designed to exploit us,” said Schwarz, who goes by “TheOneCalledJai” on social media, in a video to his roughly 250,000 followers on Instagram and TikTok. “On February 28, we are going to remind them who really holds the power. For one day, we turn it off.”


I posted this article to Facebook, with this commentary, slightly edited for clarity:


John Schwarz, the architect of the recent  “economic blackout” of major retailers and fast-food companies, says the purpose is to protest “the system [that] has been designed to exploit us.” Are these the same companies growing big by successfully “exploiting” us by providing mass market products that improve our lives and that we willingly buy? Is this the same system, called Capitalism, that grew out of the Founding principles of unalienable individual rights that make America great and moral and our lives so rich and free?


Schwarz demands that we “spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.” Are these the same small businesses many of whom started the bait-&-switch practice of greeting us with a welcome sign for credit cards, only to then charge us a penalty for using them? And why only “essential needs?” Is poverty the goal of this guy? What makes our lives worth living is that we can afford much more than essential needs.


Schwarz’s ignorant crusade is, of course, Marxist nonsense. Companies no more exploit us than consumers exploit them. Companies engage in voluntary trade with their customers. Trade is win-win and thus non-exploitative. Count me out of this and other such idiotic, anti-American charades. I won’t join the army of useful idiots who blindly fall for it. Business—especially big business—is today’s most persecuted minority. We should be thankful for big business and instead be protesting the encroachment of big government on our lives and freedoms.  


The article puts MAGA as the inspiration for the protest. But undoubtedly it was probably inspired, at least in part, by Joe Biden’s Big Lie of blaming private enterprise for the inflation the Federal Government's own policies caused. Remember “shrinkflation,” “greedflation,” and “corporate Greed?”


Related Listening:


America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business by Ayn Rand, Recorded live at Chicago’s McCormick Place. [This talk was also published as an essay in Rand’s book Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal.]


Obama’s Fascist “Partnership” With Big Business


B of A's Debit Charges: It's About More Than Fees


Big Government vs. Big Business; or, Political Power vs. Economic Power


The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger


The Star-Ledger Exploits a Workers Death to Attack Big Business


Quora: ‘Is capitalism based on the exploitation of others?’


Tuesday, August 9, 2022

QUORA: ‘Why should capitalists be allowed to continually reap the benefits of others' labor?’

 QUORA: ‘Why should capitalists be allowed to continually reap the benefits of others' labor?


I posted this answer:


The question implies that the capitalist—a label under which I include investors, businessmen, entrepreneurs—can profit only by permission, which the government should have the power to rescind, and thus outlaw and/or confiscate his profits at any time. 


The question ignores the fact that the employees accept and remain in the jobs created by the capitalist/businessman/entrepreneur by voluntary mutual consent, and that consumers willingly buy the businessman’s products. Therefore,  the profits are legitimately earned; meaning that the profits belong to the capitalist not by any authority’s permission but by moral right. It follows that there is only one moral way to “disallow” a capitalist’s profit—by consumers refusing to buy his product. Any other method, including governmental coercion, is criminal. 


That said, the creation of a product that is marketable at a price that is more than the total cost of production is not an easy task. It doesn’t just happen “somehow.” Yet the delusion persists that the labor of the individual workers, each performing a specific delimited task, magically integrates and coordinates into a final product. 


It does not. 


Capitalists reap the benefits of their own capital, ideas, managerial skills, production planning, market analysis, and the general work of running the enterprise and coordinating all of the myriad factors of production, including labor, when and if that work results in successfully creating a marketable product. The direct benefits labor contributes to the capitalist's goals goes to the workers in the form of wages, salaries, and fringe benefits. Certainly capitalists are not “reaping the benefits of others’ labor” if by “reaping” one means taking advantage of workers in the nature of Karl Marx’s absurd exploitation theory of capitalism. Capitalists benefit through their work as the Prime Movers of the business.


The benefits the capitalist receives results from his ability to plan and coordinate the productive contributions of different divisions of labor (and other factors of production) in a way that successfully culminates in the final marketable product, which the capitalist is solely responsible for making possible. It is the capitalist who gives value to the workers. A worker’s job has no value outside of the context as a contributor to the plans of the capitalist regarding the finished product. In this sense, it is actually labor that is reaping benefits—from the capitalists.


Related:


Jeff Bezos’s Beautiful Defense of American Entrepreneurialism


Good Answer  to this question by Saulius Muliolis


My answers to . . .


QUORA: ‘What are the practical proofs that the profits arise from labour which produces surplus value?'

Quora: ‘Is capitalism based on the exploitation of others?’

QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'


Related Reading:


Marx and His Exploitation Theory BY GEORGE REISMAN 


Atlas Shrugged—Ayn Rand


To Whom Does the American Worker Owe His Prowess?


Did Unions Create the Middle Class?


The Myth of the Entrepreneurial State by Deirdre McCloskey and Alberto Mingardi, especially Chapter 24, The Enchaining of Human Action Reverts to a Labor Theory of Value.


George Reisman on Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Capitalism, interview with Jim Brown for The Objective Standard


On this Labor Day, Celebrate Intellectual Labor


The Moral Injustice of the Assault on the Space Billionaires


A NJ Letter-Writer’s Comic Book Economics


QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'


Capitalism by George Reisman


The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein  


What is Capitalism? by Ayn Rand 


[Compare: What is Socialism?--Robert Heilbroner, 1982]

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Pope Francis, Capitalism’s Arch Enemy, Condemns Free Market Capitalism -- Again

Pope Francis is again condemning Capitalism. Brad Polumbo calls out the Pope on the absurdity of his criticisms in The Pope Just Called Private Property a ‘Secondary Right.’ He Couldn't Be More Wrong, published for The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)


I hate to be critical of a fellow champion of Capitalism. But I have to give this article two cheers. Why? Because the author gives the Pope the benefit of the doubt in claiming he doesn’t understand capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Francis thoroughly understands capitalism. 


The subtitle of Polumbo’s article is:


Pope Francis’s criticisms of free-market capitalism don’t mesh well with available facts, empirical evidence, or a basic understanding of how economics actually works.


Polumbo also states:


There’s no doubt that the Pope is a learned man in matters of religion, and he likely has the best of intentions in preaching his collectivist gospel. But his elementary arguments against free-market capitalism are incredibly weak.


Best of intentions? Let’s delve a little deeper into Polumbo’s article. First, Polumbo offers select quotes from Pope Francis. All italics are mine:


“The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom,” Francis wrote in part of a lengthy religious text. “To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves. Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home. Such care does not interest those economic powers that demand quick profits.”


“In today’s world, many forms of injustice persist, fed by… a profit-based economic model that does not hesitate to exploit, discard and even kill human beings,” Francis lamented.


The Pope decried the free-market “dogma of neo-liberal faith” that views “the magic theories of ‘spillover’ or ‘trickle’ ... as the only solution to societal problems.” He went on to write that “market freedom cannot supersede the rights of peoples and the dignity of the poor.”


Francis reiterated his belief that “if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.” He concluded that “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.



Polumbo understands the vital economic, social, and moral role of property rights. 


Pope Francis explicitly argues that property rights are only a “secondary natural right;” superseded by the needs and wants of others. Taken to its logical conclusion, arguing that property rights are second to the needs of others really means property rights aren’t valid at all, because human needs and scarcity of resources are permanent realities.


Right. Without property rights, “human needs and scarcity of resources are permanent realities.” Any Communist dictator proves this point in spades. Polumbo cites Thomas Sowell and Frederick Bastiat in identifying the social and economic benefits of property rights, but also gets to the moral root of those benefits:


Moreover, Francis is wrong philosophically to dismiss property rights as secondary. We would all agree that the right to life is paramount. But property rights are an extension of the right to life—because a man’s right to life necessarily depends on his livelihood.


“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation,” Ayn Rand once wrote. “Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.”


Can Pope Francis, the learned head of one of humanity's oldest institutions, really not know the available facts, empirical evidence, basic economics, or philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, or of the disastrous history of Capitalism’s antipode in practice, collectivism? I think not. And if not, can we credit Him with “the best of intentions?” I think not. 


Can Francis really be ignorant of the available facts, empirical evidence, basic economics, or philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, or of the disastrous history of Capitalism’s antipode in practice, collectivism? I think not. The Catholic Church, as an institution, has a vested interest in poverty. When the Church ruled for centuries, what we now call the Dark and Middle Ages, poverty reigned. It is only with the arrival of modern capitalism that general living standards exploded. Over the past 250 years, the Church had a front row seat to observe the rising prosperity, backed up by mountains of literature explaining the theoretical and empirical economic causes of the prosperity. How can any Pope deny these facts? Can the learned leader of an institution that has been around for 2000 years and has seen it all really be so ignorant of the reality of free market economics and the bloody record of collectivism? No. So why Francis’ trade against Capitalism? Easy. “The poor” is the Cathloic Church's base. Poverty and Church power are linked.


More fundamentally, poverty and Church morals are linked. If handouts to the poor trumps property rights, then the unearned trumps the earned. If poverty is the standard of morality, where does a social system that diminishes poverty based on individual self-determination leave the Catholic Church? Obsolete. The Church doesn’t care about people who work their way up from poverty. They only care about moving the wealth from those who do to those who don’t. The standard of Catholic moral teaching is self-sacrificial giving. If the ranks of those in need is shrinking, who’s left to give to? Poverty, not prosperity, is the Church’s moral standard. Given Capitalism’s record in practice, where does that leave the centuries of Church moral teaching about giving to the poor? 


Francis is the latest in a line of anti-Capitalist Catholic Popes. His demotion of property rights is not new. When Francis says “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.,” he is reiterating Pope Paul VI in his 1967 Encyclical Populorum Progressio who advanced the totalitarian principle that the “public authorities” must coercively ensure that “created goods should flow fairly to all,” emphasizing that  “All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle.” 


The Pope does not want to “help” the “underprivileged people.” He wants to preserve their misery and expand their ranks. Poverty is virtue, and the most virtuous act one can perform is to take a vow of poverty. That’s why the Church hates capitalism. That’s why Pope after Pope condemns Capitalism. We can explain how Capitalism works until we’re blue in the face. It doesn’t matter to the Church, and never has. Why? Because it’s not whether Capitalism works or how it works. The problem is that it works--works to facilitate man’s escape from poverty. And they’re smart. They attack capitalism at its root--profit-seeking, property rights, and the ethics of rational self-interest. 


Francis is not ignorant. He’s a Marxist (“the principle of the universal destination of created goods,” or, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need) and a communist (“[W]e need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home.”) and an altruist (“[I]f one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.”). Francis knows exactly what he is saying. And he means it. Francis and the Church are not misguided souls. They are Capitalism’s arch enemies as much as Communism is. This fact must be explicitly acknowledged by Capitalism’s champions. 


Related Reading:


Pope Francis’s Anti-Capitalism is No Misunderstanding


Catholic Social Doctrine is both Socialist and Statist


How the Catholic Church Paved the Way for the Birth Control Mandate


Pope Francis’s Embrace of Anti-Fossil Fuel Agenda Follows From Church’s Anti-Capitalism


The Illegitimacy of Pope Francis's “Legitimate Redistribution” of Wealth—Natalie Ogle for The Objective Standard


Pope Francis: Prosperity, Liberty, and Climate Change are the Common Enemy


Pope Francis’s ‘Authority’ Stems From The Church’s Authoritarian Self-Image


Climate Alarmism and the Catholic Church; Faith-Based Allies in the War on Prosperity


The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages: A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard