Category Archives: communism

Mao or Hillary?

Enable every woman who can work to take her place on the labour front, under the principle of equal pay for equal work. This should be done as quickly as possible.~ Mao Tse Tung, 1955

We hail from all corners of the country and have joined together for a common revolutionary objective…. Our cadres must show concern for every soldier, and all people in the revolutionary ranks must care for each other, must love and help each other. ~ Mao Tse Tung, September 8, 1944

Unite and take part in production and political activity to improve the economic and political status of women.~ Mao Tse Tung, July 20, 1949

By increasing women’s participation in the economy and enhancing their efficiency and productivity, we can bring about a dramatic impact on the competitiveness and growth of our economies. ~ Hillary Clinton, September 16, 2011



Harrison Bergeron


If you were to compile a list of works of speculative fiction whose predictions of the future were truly prescient, it would have to include Kurt Vonnegut’s short story masterpiece, Harrison BergeronI am hard pressed to think of any work which so perfectly captures the pathological mentality of the modern day social justice warrior so perfectly and traces out the ramifications of this mentality if it were made into public policy. Sadly, it’s a process which seems well underway.  
Vonnegut manages to build his dystopian world in one elegant paragraph: 

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

With this single paragraph, he places us in a nightmare future where the crusade for equality of outcomes has been pursued to its fullest conclusion. In this not-too-distant future, the US Constitution contains over 200 amendments, people have lost the distinction between positive and negative rights, and perverted its original intent beyond all recognition. The ideas of equality before the law, individual rights and equality of opportunity preserved by a Constitutionally limited State have been completely supplanted by an all-consuming obsession with equal results which can only be attained by destroying uniqueness, individualism and humanity itself. Equality is, of course, enforced by a government bureaucrat, United States Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers. Anyone who possesses a quality, attribute or skill that might set him or her apart from everyone else must be handicapped in order to preserve equality of outcomes. The intelligent receive a mental implant which short circuits their ability to think. The attractive are forced to hide their beauty behind masks. The physically able are forced to carry sacks of lead balls padlocked to their bodies. Those with beautiful voices are given speech impediments. And so on. 

The action centers around George and Hazel Bergeron as they watch their son, Harrison, commit the highest act of sedition possible after escaping prison at age fourteen.  Harrison sheds his handicaps and dazzles the world by dancing a ballet on live television before the world. 

One need only to look at any of the social justice jihads being carried out on campuses and in the media to discover that Vonnegut was on to something.  The decades-long feminist outrage against “patriarchal beauty standards” has culminated in the so-called “body positivity” movement which not only destroys the one objective standard present in modeling, but seemingly seeks to reprogram manhood to be attracted to overweight women. The politics of grievance have reached an apex with the never-ending quest to name and shame anyone with “privilege”. Genetic and biological traits now supersede individual rights or merit and are sufficient grounds for legislative redress or special administrative dispensation by today’s social justice jihadists. Perhaps the most pernicious of all the social justice crusades is the pursuit of gender neutrality by those who insist that gender segregation in sports somehow reinforces “harmful” gender stereotypes.  And let’s not forget the deathless claim of a wage gap between men and women which is shamelessly flogged by the political and media establishment despite being debunked several times over. 

Meanwhile, different versions of the United States Handicapper General get created in college campuses and different levels of federal and local government throughout the country. 

What other outcome is possible from this mad pursuit of “equality” if not the anesthetized, institutionalized mediocrity and servitude portrayed in Harrison Bergeron?  As Paul Gottfried and many others have argued, this therapeutic agenda being administered by the democratic priesthood and their lackeys seeks nothing more than to debilitate the population and pave the path to socialist serfdom.  The only equality one can reasonably expect to uphold as an ideal is equality of opportunity. Once you seek equality of results, you destroy the foundation of liberty upon which any possibility for real achievement rests. Speculative fiction of this nature is meant to serve as a warning against the realities of the present. The signs of the nightmare world Vonnegut portrayed are everywhere. Here’s to everyone discovering their own inner Harrison. 

Once Upon a Time in Russia

Once Upon a Time in Russia is Ben Mezrich’s highly entertaining and informative account of the rise of the so-called Russian oligarchs who accumulated power after the collapse of the USSR. The allusion to the American Wild West is intentional since the period chronicled was nothing short of a seismic shift in Russian society. The story centers around the ascent of two of Russia’s most ambitious oligarchs, Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, and the complex web of power they wove in order to attain their respective positions. Within this sticky mass are dueling loyalties, inverted moral expectations, and internecine turf wars within and without the government. The book is refreshing because it opens a window of insight into the rise of private industrialists in a country which was (is) highly secretive and outlawed and stigmatized private industry for decades. Though it was certainly not as bloody and repressive as the Bolshevik regime, it was a period filled with plenty of violence and political intrigue in its own right.  Like Mezrich’s other novels, Once Upon a Time in Russia was culled from exclusive firsthand accounts of events, but it reads like a hardboiled political thriller/gangland novel.   

Imagine being an entrepreneur attempting to obtain some semblance of security for commerce and property rights after living under the bootheel of a corrupt kleptocracy which criminalized all property ownership and terrorized its own population for 70 years and you get a small sense of the challenges these men faced. Some people are likely to view the oligarchs as the corrupt gangsters who destabilized and terrorized, but in my estimation, this book paints a more nuanced picture. The new, quasi-liberal order in Russia was very fragile, and the only way they could push back against the resurgent Communist Party was buy patronage from the the Yeltsin government. 

You know you’re in for a juicy tale right off the bat. The book opens with a meeting of the oligarchs hosted by Vladimir Putin at none other than Joseph Stalin’s Moscow dacha.  Dashing all hopes that they had just bought themselves a yes-man, freshly installed president, Vladimir Putin, chose an appropriate venue to send the message that the oligarchs were subordinate to the Russian government. Not vice versa.

The story kicks into gear by taking us back to the beginning of Berezovsky’s story.  An assassination attempt on Berezovsky leaves him badly burned, his driver dead and his car a bombed out slag heap. Since he couldn’t get any business done without security, he enlisted the services of FSB agent, Alexander Litvinenko, and became what’s known in Russia as a krysha or “roof”. Taking private money under the table for security work was considered illegal, but given the porous nature of the state institutions in the early days of the newly liberalized Russian Republic, people were often willing to look the other way.

With Abramovich’s partnership and protection from Litvinenko, the two oligarchs set out to consolidate ownership of aluminum, oil, and most importantly, television. The remainder of the story weaves its way through the Yeltsin and Putin regimes as the oligarchs compete for political influence in the new and very tenuous capitalist order. It’s a race for survival and economic power, but the fate of the recently freed Russian economy hangs in the balance.  

As Berezovsky’s influence grew, his ties to Litvinenko came under scrutiny of the bureaucrats in the FSB who had ties to his political enemies and commercial rivals.  Litvinenko was ultimately given an order to execute Berezovsky, but couldn’t betray his trust or patronage.  Berezovsky used his growing influence to unseat the director of the FSB and replace him with an individual he believed to be a reliable yes-man: Vladimir Putin.  How much they had to learn about this former KGB administrator.

After Putin’s election, Berezovsky grew frustrated by his betrayal, and used his own influence in the Russian television station, ORT, to undermine public confidence in Putin. Berezovsky shamelessly exploited the Kursk submarine incident and attempted to make a random military accident a referendum on Putin’s leadership. This overt act of vindictiveness and dissidence forced Putin’s hand resulting in Berezovsky selling his shares in ORT and being exiled from his home country.   

Berezovsky’s antagonism towards the Putin regime threatened the stability of Abramovich’s active interests in oil and aluminum in Russia which sets the former krysha/protege relationship on a collision course.  The escalating tensions between these former business associates culminates in a civil suit over Berezovsky’s claim on assets accumulated during the active years of their partnership. 

Mezrich’s narrative seems to stick to the facts, but he compromises his own objectivity when describing the failing Communist regime as “right-wing”.  Communism is an ideology long associated with the political Left, and the Soviet Republic was, in fact, Marxist doctrine taken to its logical conclusion.  Throughout the book, he refers to Communist hardliners as “conservatives” while describing capitalist reformers as being for “democracy”.  Besides the fact that it distorts the historical legacy of European classical liberalism (and American constitutional conservatism by extension), he’s feeding the standard Right/Left false dichotomy of American politics which places the Left on the side of virtue, reason and decency and the Right on the side of authoritarianism, thuggery and resistance to change. Lenin believed in democracy, too, and it ultimately amounted to nothing. Democracy and economic freedom do not necessarily go hand in hand, and the American Left have more and more in common with the Bolsheviks with each passing election cycle as Bernie Sanders’ campaign amply attests.

Though it’s a minor detail, Mezrich also betrays his bias in his passing mention of Litvinenko’s conversion to Islam and apparent sympathy towards the Chechen Muslim separatists.  Litvinenko’s story certainly wasn’t the focus of the novel, but given the ever increasing prevalence of Islamic terrorism as well as the intensified focus on the connection between Islamic belief and acts of terror, Mezrich missed an opportunity to anchor this story more firmly into the debates of the present.  

Minor flaws notwithstanding, Once Upon a Time in Russia is an entertaining read which shines a light on a slice of history which, like Russian Communism itself, remains largely unknown to America and the West. Highly recommended.

Requiem for Marx

Despite the epic failures of socialism throughout the world, the Left throughout the West has held fast to its perverse and irrational idolatry of the philosophy of Karl Marx.  In America, The Communist Manifesto is the most widely taught economics text in university.  The bookstores of the most elite and prosperous communities are stocked with copies of Das Kapital. Media elites openly trumpet socialism and socialist regimes in major publications without remorse. Socialists now unironically wave banners of Stalin and Soviet flags in public parades and protest rallies. But no matter how spectacularly socialism fails, the Left have mastered the art of apologia when it comes to the writings of Marx. Somehow these failures cannot be attributed to Marxist doctrine, are handwaved away as merely the unfortunate consequences of bad actors who either misapplied principles or were just despotic malefactors to begin with. Socialists contend either that socialism has never been properly attempted or hold up the welfare states of Scandinavian countries as model societies to which to aspire with no regard for history or market economics. Even worse, Marx’ analysis of capitalism continues to be accorded unwarranted deference, and his quasi-religious promises of earthly plenitude and social harmony continue to hold sway in the consciousness of the Left.

Whatever the reasons for the maddening endurance of this doctrine, what is needed is a stern and thorough repudiation of Marxist doctrine in the court of public opinion.  Preferably, before its adherents do any more damage than they already have done. 

Though others have set out to stamp out the mental cancer of Marxism, there is perhaps no refutation more definitive than Requiem for Marx. Edited and prefaced by former Soviet economist, Yuri N. Maltsev, Requiem for Marx sets out to disassemble and dismantle Marxism root and branch. Comprised of essays by the most notable thinkers in the Austrian tradition, Requiem for Marx lays waste to every facet of this toxic, but seductive ideology. 

Mr. Maltsev’s introduction all by itself should be sufficient to disabuse the average Occupy Wall Street proponent of any fascination with socialism, but it is merely a prelude to the battering ram of truth which follows.  Maltsev describes being indoctrinated to accept Marxist principles from a very early age up to the massive abuses, widespread corruption, indifference, repression and deception he witnessed from within the highest echelons of the Gorbachev regime. While Gorbachev enjoys a reputation in the minds of the Western public as a forward-looking politician, Maltsev paints a far less charitable portrait of a party apparatchik who lacked any intellectual curiosity, and held fast to his belief in socialism despite the large scale collapse happening throughout the Soviet Republic. Most importantly, Maltsev reminds us that rather than being some misapplication of principles, the USSR was, in fact, a sincere and faithful attempt to apply and implement Marxist doctrine.  Put that in your pipe and Bern it, Occupiers.

The chapter written by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is revelatory because he illustrates the parallels between the Austrian and Marxist analysis of exploitation. Marxists and Austrians both posit the existence of a predatory ruling class, but Marxists got it completely wrong by incorrectly pointing the finger at capitalists and producers. Hoppe draws a critical distinction between those who produce and exchange through voluntary contract and the homesteading principle versus those who extract wealth through involuntary and coercive means (i.e. the State). The former are the productive classes and the latter are the parasites.  

Gary North’s examination of Marx’ personal life, spending and borrowing habits, academic output, financial dependence, and absence of any real employment history is absolutely essential because it exposes Marx as the dilettante that he was. The fact that Marx is so heavily favored by pampered, bourgeois academics is sadly appropriate because that’s exactly what Marx himself was.  Not only was he born into wealth and privilege, he married into wealth and privilege, and managed to squander a fortune that easily placed him in the 19th century 1%. Not exactly the hardscrabble life of a working-class prole. Boasting an exhaustive set of original and biographical sources, North paints a picture of a classically narcissistic and predatory personality. Marx was deeply vindictive and spiteful towards opponents both real and perceived, demanded compliance from everyone around him, lived off the patronage of Engels and spent well beyond his means, fathered illegitimate children despite having no gainful employment, and proffered no positive theory of socialism while penning volumes of seething criticism of capitalism. Most tellingly, Marx essentially stopped publishing at age 49, and North argues that this was because Marx had reached an intellectual dead end.  For someone who’s entire theory of exploitation hinged on the idea of class exploitation, the fact that he never bothered to define “class” until the third volume of Das Kapital says quite a bit about the superficiality of his thought. North delivers a stinging rebuke to the political parasites, celebrity socialists, media water carriers and academic wankers who replicate Marx’ cult of personality, venerate his toxic swill, and telegraph their phony concern for the working man while luxuriating in the confines of their gilded fiefdoms. With this chapter alone, Gary North has driven a permanent stake into the heart of the myth of Marx as a Champion of the Working Class.

David Osterfeld’s critique of the Marxian taxonomy of historical modes of production and theory of history completely annihilates the validity of any claim that Marx makes on his system of thought being a genuinely scientific framework.  Throughout his work, Marx makes repeated references to the allegedly irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism, but it appears that few true believers in Marxist doctrine examine the contradictions within the Marxist theory itself.  Among the many confused and confusing notions which emanated from his addled mind, his theory of the inevitability of socialism receives a well deserved thrashing. According to Marx, the material forces of production develop without interruption like some sentient Borg-like hive mind which simultaneously gives rise to the exploitative bourgeois superstructure, improves material conditions and immiserates the proletariat all at once. Individual initiative and innovation play no role in his theory nor does the increased satisfaction that follows from the ongoing material improvement for the vast majority of the population. He simply presents the development of a revolutionary proletarian consciousness laboring under the crushing bootheel of the capitalist machine as an unfalsifiable a priori proposition. Most importantly, Osterfeld illustrates how Marx alternates between a sociological definition of capitalism and an economic one which, if properly distinguished, would have made a clearer separation between the mercantilist interventions of the State and the voluntary nature of market transactions. 

Picking up where Gary North and Hoppe left off, Ralph Raico uncovers the classical liberal roots of the theory of class exploitation and illustrates how Marx perverted the idea and propagated a wildly distorted vision of reality.  Marx cribbed his theories of class struggle from early classical liberal thinkers, François Guizot and Augustin Thierry, but by the end of Engel’s life, the role of the individual in the development of historical materialism had been nearly erased. Through the liberal journal, Le Censeur Européen, Thierry, Charles Comte, and Charles Dunoyer developed the doctrine of Industrialisme, or Industrialism. These thinkers put commerce at the center of society and asserted voluntary exchange as the true engine of virtue, industry, and innovation.  Most importantly, these men also drew critical inspiration from fellow Frenchman and economic theorist, Jean-Baptiste Say.  At the center of the theory of Industrialism was a harsh rebuke to the intervention of the State in economic affairs. All of these theorists correctly identified the State and its enablers as the idlers, exploiters and parasites. Marx and his followers ended up turning this analysis on its head and pitting workers against capitalists while assigning an unwarranted illusion of virtue to the expropriative power of the State.  

Coming in for the coup de grâce is the late, great Murray Rothbard. Drawing from a mind boggling collection of original and secondary sources, Rothbard argues that the Marxian pursuit of Communism was, in fact, religious in nature. Rothbard argues that not only was the Marxian pretense of secular scientific rationalism a pathetic farce, but his work had roots in religious millennarian prophecy which seeks a Kingdom of God on Earth.  Just as Marx’ economic thought was built upon the foundations of British Classicism, his pursuit of communism was merely a repurposing of the work of 16th century religious zealots who also saw inequality as a moral sin and sought redress through confiscation and conscripted labor. Rothbard focuses in particular on the first large scale attempt at Communism in Europe based on the teachings of the megalomaniacial eschatological Anabaptist, Thomas Müntzer.  Though Müntzer’s initial attempt at Anabaptist Communism in the city of Muhlhausen was another abject failure resulting in mass death and his ultimate execution at the hands of the German monarchy, his ideas carried on and were implemented by others to similarly disastrous results. The zealots who picked up the torch of eschatological Anabaptist Communism eventually gravitated to the city of Münster, and under the leadership of another set of proto-Lenins, Jan Matthys and Jan Bockelson, the first major experiment in socialist dictatorship was imposed.  All the features that defined every modern Communist dictatorship were present in the Münster experiment. Private property was confiscated, labor was coerced, disobedience was met with capital punishment, and the lionshare of the produce of society was reserved for the self-appointed elites. 

Rothbard also points out that Marx was a Christian in his youth before he adopted Hegelianism as a college student and his megalomaniacal ambitions, nihilism and abject hostility to humanity were present in his early attempts at play writing and poetry. 

Among the many failures of logic in the Marxian framework is his inability to reconcile market prices to the value of labor inputs. The entire edifice of Marxism rests on the premise that market prices must reflect the value of labor inputs and that the relationship between capitalist and laborers is exploitative by nature. Rothbard neatly emphasizes that Marxists have neither adequately responded to Eugen Böhm-Bawerk’s critique of this aspect of the Marxian system nor come to grips with the insights of the Marginalists.  

Rothbard correctly observed that ideas are notoriously hard to kill even if they’re demonstrably bad ideas like Marxism.  The fact that Marxism forms the backdrop of thought for contemporary sociology, the new secular religion of the Left, is unsurprising. Predictably, the loudest advocacy for socialism is coming from the academic class via gender studies, critical race theory and other variations in postmodern social analysis. These new school socialists have simply put a new veneer on an old formula.  The New Kingdom of God on Earth will be achieved by eradicating racism and sexism. And of course, the age old gripe against inequality of outcomes must be rectified through confiscation and redistribution (aka “economic justice”). There’s no doubt these secondhand theories emanate from the same poisonous well of thought from which Marxism itself emanates.  

The debate against socialism should have been settled long ago.  Sadly, Marxism has retained its place as the unofficial religion of the Left since the Left has no firm principles and, like their Marxist forebears, have made the State their religion. The fantasy of “equality” and the yearning for a secular morality coupled with a prefab indictment of free market capitalism all conspire to keep Marxism alive. Subsequently, academic con artists, media dittoheads, and political hacks are aggrandized and their pretentious paeans to the proletariat proliferate. Aging Boomers and their patchouli soaked, non-binary, queer positive, trustafarian progeny lured by promises of “social and economic justice” and a sweet Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack regurgitate their braindead slogans like manna from heaven while what remains of the free world marches down the road to serfdom once again.  

Perhaps humanity needs to learn its lessons the hard way by repeating its mistakes a few times. It would be nice if it didn’t have to come to that. Marx and his system have been refuted many times over, and this magnificent collection of essays has earned its rightful place as the final epitaph for a philosophy that’s well past its expiration date. It’s high time that socialists pay attention. 

Live Aid: The Terrible Truth

Live Aid: The Terrible Truth

If you haven’t yet read Spin magazine’s stunning exposé of the true legacy of Live Aid, you owe it to yourself to give it a read.  Just like the other well-intentioned social justice musical venture whose legacy is equally dubious, Artists United Against Apartheid, this story proves that there is a vast difference between virtue signalling and being a champion for the expansion of human freedom and market economics. 

There isn’t much that needs to be added to this story other than to emphasize that Marxism creates misery and oppression everywhere it travels, and that the progressive narrative of an all-encompassing white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy is once again exposed for the pathetic, childish farce that it is. 

Bernie Sanders is Wrong

We’re living in dark times, and just about everyone can give you their version of evidence that civilization is on the brink of collapse.  For some, it’s Donald Trump. For others, ISIS.  Choose your preferred harbinger of the End Times.

For me, the person who’s earned my deepest contempt and is the clearest evidence that we’ve reached an absolute nadir and collapse of American principles in politics and culture is the presidential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 

After spending his entire adult life as a political parasite espousing openly Marxist views and sympathies towards brutal Communist dictatorships, Sanders is currently enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame as The Principled Democratic Socialist Who’s Sticking It To The Fat Cats. Despite his highly dubious legislative record which includes support for Clinton’s Kosovo bombing campaign, the 1994 Crime Bill, four Iraq War appropriations bills as well as the notorious boondoggle known as the F-35, Sanders enjoys a largely unquestioned reputation as a politician of spotless virtue and courage. Fortunately, intellectual titan and all around champion of liberty, Tom Woods, has assembled a collection of transcripts from his indispensable podcast which systematically dismantle Sanders’ carefully crafted edifice of would-be moral rectitude and misguided policy prescriptions.  

Sanders’ platform is not even remotely new or innovative, and if anything, is comprised merely of more expansive and bloated versions of pet projects that have been incubating within the Left for decades.  What’s actually new about the Sanders phenomenon is that he’s packaged them into a unified political agenda and is presenting them on a national stage as ideas which belong in the Democratic Party platform.  This is especially interesting and noteworthy given that Sanders has spent his entire political career in DC officially as a self-described Independent, but as a “democratic socialist” in public

Naturally, Sanders and his supporters have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from the undeniable legacy of misery, repression, and economic dysfunction that’s been the hallmark of every socialist regime in history by condescendingly handwaving away any comparison between Bernie’s vision of socialism and the repressive dictatorships of past and present. Bernie doesn’t want Venezuelan socialism, he wants the nice version of DEMOCRATIC socialism like they have in Scandinavian countries!  By invoking the welfare states of Northern Europe, Sweden and Denmark in particular, as irrefutable evidence that socialism is benign and benevolent, Sanders and his loyal Berners consistently and fallaciously argue that these are, in fact, socialist success stories AND that Sanders’ magical campaign promises will produce a comparable or greater outcome here without so much as a shred of evidence on which to base the ludicrous claim or the slightest concern for potentially adverse effects of implementing such an agenda.

Of course, these promises and glib pronouncements are either pathetic, manipulative delusions or outright falsehoods and distortions of reality.  Tom Woods’ magnificent little book walks you through his entire agenda point by point and succinctly illustrates exactly why Bernie Sanders is Wrong.

The book is divided into four sections which cover the central pillars of his agenda: Sanders’ designs on implementing European-style welfare state policies, government subsidized renewable energy, minimum wage, and income inequality. 

Woods starts off by letting out the gas in the hot air balloon of Scandinavian welfare state idolatry.  Johan Norberg lays out a century’s worth of historical context around Sweden’s economic rise which includes a period of 50 years of laissez faire policy which created the prosperity for such a generous welfare state in the first place. The decline in Sweden’s overall prosperity after the implementation of the welfare state is never mentioned by Sanders or his supporters, nor are the policies which are friendlier to business. Norberg also discusses the ways in which the advent of the welfare state destroyed cultural bonds of trust that were forged over decades of organic social cooperation and market driven policy in a country that was, in fact, a white, Nordic monoculture. A fact that’s conveniently omitted by multiculturalists.   Woods chose to limit the scope of his excerpt to Sweden’s economic history and development, but this section could have been further strengthened by some mention of the failure of immigration policies and the collapse of social cohesion which has been hastened by force feeding the population feminism and multicultural social justice politics.

Professor of Economics from Aarhus University, Christian Bjørnskov, unpacks the seemingly ubiquitous myth of Denmark as “the happiest country in the world.” Naturally, the Berners will chalk this up to the size of the welfare state and government mandated benefits, but Bjørnskov provides some sobering perspective. The benefits conferred by the welfare state do not contribute to an individual’s active pursuit of happiness, but simply become baked into the expectations of each citizen that aren’t consciously chosen. Subsequently, it breeds a higher level of entitlement amongst the population as well as a disincentive to produce. Bjørnskov makes a very interesting point about how state mandated 52-week maternity leave creates an artificial incentive for women to become mothers and often diminishes their future employment prospects. He concludes with some fascinating data about how the welfare state disincentivizes actual charity as well as some intentionally neglected liberal policies, like those found in Sweden, which are friendlier to business than the US.

Robert Bryce and Alex Epstein take a sledgehammer to the deathless progressive claims of the necessity of government investment in renewable energy.  Bryce argues that if environmental protection is a priority, then the density of the energy source must be the primary measuring stick.  Outrageous calls for a 20-fold reduction of fossil fuels are little more than a death sentence since renewable energy sources are not even remotely close to filling present or rising energy consumption needs. Epstein tackles the issue from both the moral and empirical perspective and elucidates some critical points that are absent from climate change alarmist script.  Environmentalists consistently agitate for minimizing human impact for non-human life while ignoring positive metrics for humanity that are the direct result of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. 

Of all the progressive policy myths which have been the most durable, the minimum wage has enjoyed an extraordinarily long life.  Like everything Sanders says, it has tremendous surface appeal because it gives the illusion of expanding prosperity, but the opposite is true. Former DOL economist, Diana Furchtgott-Roth swings a wrecking ball of truth against Sanders’ flimsy claims.  The arguments against minimum wage will be familiar for those who actually investigate economics for 5 minutes, but as the appeal of Sanders attests, rationality and logic has yet to prevail. If you’re truly concerned about the welfare of the poor, then don’t criminalize work for low skill laborers whose labor isn’t worth $15 per hour, and most of all, don’t try to sell low skilled labor as a lifelong career path. The fact that Sanders is peddling minimum wage as a centerpiece of his economic platform shows how bankrupt his agenda is.  For Sanders, creating wage floors on low skill labor and subsidizing college education without regard for what a student actually studies will somehow magically create prosperity. 

Loyola University professor, Thomas DiLorenzo, adds some additional historical insight into the racist origins of minimum wage while bursting the mythology of labor unions as drivers of upward economic mobility.  Progressive era business owners didn’t want to have to compete with firms who could hire cheaper black labor, so they agitated for minimum wages to price them out of the labor market and inhibit black economic upward mobility.  By using the club of the State to criminalize non-union labor, unions make the market less competitive and only enshrine a culture of entitlement and mediocrity. 

Another gaping hole in the Sanders platform mentioned briefly in the book is his disregard for the skill gap that already exists within the US labor force.  While Sanders touts his confiscatory plans for subsidizing every art history and gender studies degrees for middle-class Americans, he ignores the 5mm jobs that are unfilled largely due to a shortage of skilled labor.  Apparently, it’s more important to subsidize college so kids can study The Communist Manifesto and agitate for safe spaces than prepare them for adulthood with marketable skills.

Among the most revelatory chapters is the interview with physician and entrepreneur, Dr. Josh Umbehr.  Dr. Umbehr runs a concierge medical practice modeled on a Netflix/Costco-style membership which covers the general practice medical services people actually need. For a monthly fee, people can gain access to any general practice medical care they need including home, office or online consultations.  He explains how opting out of the ACA’s bureaucratic straightjacket allowed him pursue a business model that lowered costs, increased access and provided a better value for all of his patients.  Just like virtually every other scientific profession, he encountered an antagonistic attitude towards business throughout his education, but ultimately rejected the false dichotomy.

Mark Perry from University of Michigan takes another swing at the seemingly indestructible myth of the so-called gender wage gap. Aside from equally laudable takedowns of this talking point by Christina Hoff Sommers, Claudia Goldin and seemingly countless others, Sanders, the feminist media/academic industrial complex and the Tumblrista Brigade won’t let this die.  It doesn’t matter that women consistently choose different career paths that are less strenuous and less remunerative. It doesn’t matter that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is already law. It doesn’t matter that women work fewer hours in aggregate.  It doesn’t matter that motherhood plays a major role in a woman’s career choices and ambition.  Sanders flogs this meme because it sounds good and scores “Equality” points with his base. 

Scott Winship, Don Boudreaux, and Grant Phillips round out the book with some excellent discussion of free trade, inequality, and rising living standards resulting from capitalism. Sanders focuses solely on metrics that invoke outrage, greed, and envy while ignoring the affordability and accessibility of technology and consumer conveniences that were inconceivable to previous generations.  The schism between unskilled labor and the acceleration of automation is an issue that warrants further discussion and scrutiny since it tends to validate arguments for universal income and the imminent arrival of the post-scarcity economy amongst the Berners. 

Even if one sets aside all of the failures of morality and logic inherent in Sanders’ agenda, his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination seems both deeply opportunistic and fully at odds with his carefully cultivated pretense of principled independence. Beside the fact that he’s carefully avoided throwing any hard punches at Hillary, he’s only embraced the Democratic Party after assiduously avoiding identification with the Democratic Party throughout his entire career in Congress. Why should the Democrats embrace Bernie-come-lately as the leader of their party? If he really saw himself as a political maverick, why would he hitch his wagon to the DNC unless he had no real intention of clinching the nomination in the first place? He blames it on “the structure of American politics”, but not only is this a whiny cop out, it’s contrary to his previous public statements about the necessity of a third party.  It seems he’s only interested in enjoying his cult of personality on the taxpayer dime while tilling the soil for a more overtly socialist tenor in Democratic Party politics.

Bernie Sanders’ candidacy perfectly epitomizes the classic socialist con game; lots of soaring appeals to secular morality, manipulative declamations around “equality”, and promises of bread and circuses which mask a naked hunger for power fueled by a blatant ignorance of and contempt for basic economics. Despite everything, Sanders’ reputation is seemingly beyond reproach to his loyal Berners. By carefully omitting his partisan support for the central bank, warfare and police state and maintaining rigid message discipline, Sanders has very skillfully avoided deep scrutiny from most of the media. The truth is that Sanders doesn’t have a single original idea in his policy toolkit, and his entire agenda should be called by its true name: soft Bolshevism. Thanks to Tom Woods’ excellent little book, he is exposed as the contemptible, parasitic fraud that he is.

What Happened to the 80’s Anti-Apartheid Dream?

image

You got to say I, I, I
Ain’t gonna play Sun City
I, I, I ain’t gonna play Sun City

Steven Van Zandt and a multiracial supergroup, Artists United Against Apartheid, created the anti-apartheid rallying cry heard around the world which played a role in turning public opinion against South Africa’s regime of racial segregation and towards full political enfranchisement for the black majority of South Africa. 

Artists United Against Apartheid was Van Zandt’s brainchild, and followed the pattern of other star-studded affairs by attracting industry heavyweights from across the music spectrum. It also distinguished itself by being tilted ever so slightly towards the edgier end of the pop spectrum by including jazz, rap and punk rockers.

As much as I might be inclined to view Macklemore’s loathsome preachiness as a phenomenon unique to our Age of Multiculturalism and Social Justice, he pales in comparison to the stadium level, globe spanning virtue signalling which occurred throughout the 80’s.  Pop music has always been a vehicle for political protest and social commentary, but the particular brand of “racial justice” grandstanding which is Macklemore’s stock in trade definitely had antecedents in the glossy megaconglomerations of the 1980’s.

Though USA for Africa, Band Aid and Live Aid captured the attention of the masses and drew widespread attention to the plight of starvation in Africa, Artists United Against Apartheid was unique in that it was a protest against the de Klerk regime, an organized boycott of the Sun City resort and a call for economic sanctions against South Africa.  While I can appreciate that the track and the project was animated by a genuine spirit of human goodwill and brotherhood, I think it’s worth taking a look of the song’s allegedly “apolitical” message and the quality of life for post-apartheid South Africans in light of recent current events in South Africa.

On the surface, the political situation in South Africa cried out for change and justice.  The repressions and abuses of the South African National Party and the facts behind the construction of the Sun City resort created a perfect subject for a protest track. State enforced segregation, violent crackdowns, and mass relocations were among the list of human rights abuses perpetrated by the regime.  Add Reagan’s policy of “constructive engagement”, and the standard narrative of the white supremacist conspiracy of capitalist state power writes itself. 

What’s more difficult to appreciate and less frequently discussed is that there was a sharp competition of economic ideas between the nascent ANC and the various militant African nationalist factions vying for political power and the minority National Party.

By his own account, Van Zandt sought the cooperation of militant group, AZAPO; a group which not only espoused socialist political beliefs, but were willing to use violence to achieve their political ambitions.  Van Zandt apparently had to dissuade them from targeting Paul Simon for assassination.

Listen, this is not gonna help anybody if you knock off Paul Simon. Trust me on this, alright? Let’s put that aside for the moment. Give me a year or so, you know, six months.

Van Zandt goes on to recount his disagreement with Simon over Mandela’s own political views. Van Zandt displays a typical leftist bellicosity towards Simon and dismisses his allegation simply because he cited Henry Kissinger as the source of his information.  But neither Kissinger’s or Simon’s claim was without foundations in fact. Mandela may not have been a communist, but he sure sounds like one.  

Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organization of early African societies in this country.

His association with the South African Communist Party wasn’t exactly a secret either.  While it wasn’t necessarily a carbon copy of the Communist Manifesto, the Freedom Charter was a solidly socialist program and became the guiding document of the ANC.  In his legendary 1964 Rivonia Trial speech, Mandela himself acknowledges as much.

Under the Freedom Charter, nationalization would take place in an economy based on private enterprise.

So what does this have to do with the “Sun City” track itself?

When Rolling Stone ranked “Sun City” as 100th greatest song of the 1980’s, Bono describes the message of the track in the following manner.

This is apolitical. It doesn’t matter what side you’re on — this is common sense.

See? It’s just “common sense.” But the lyrics are pretty explicit about the nature of the injustice in South Africa.

23 million can’t vote
‘Cause they’re black
We’re stabbing our brothers
And sisters in the back

Van Zandt was equally explicit about the call for economic boycott.

I thought in order to change the system, we need to enforce this cultural boycott as a means of getting to the economic boycott, which is really where the action is.

Despite winning the battle of public opinion, witnessing the release and election of Nelson Mandela, Van Zandt affected a phony posture of humility and declined to attend his inauguration and directs blame towards the Reagan administration for their alleged support of the de Klerk regime. 

Social justice warriors, artists and politicians alike agitated for economic sanctions, congratulated themselves for their moral righteousness, and went on to systematically ignore the consequences of these policies on South Africa’s already fragile economy. An economic contraction that would affect tax revenues and purchasing power for a population which depended heavily on redistribution.

One effect of this capital outflow has been a dramatic decline in the international exchange rate of the rand.  This means that imports are increasingly expensive.  It has also helped fuel South Africa’s inflation rate, which at 12-15% per year, is much higher than its major trading partners.

All of which brings us to the present. 

Longtime ANC veteran and current president, Jacob Zuma was charged with raiding the public treasury to fund improvements to his home to the tune of 246 million rand, or about $16.7 million at current exchange rates.

Where is the international condemnation of Zuma from artists?

Van Zandt and countless others agitated for universal suffrage and equal representation in the South African government, but has this made a material difference on the quality of life in South Africa?

By any objective measure, the results are negligible and have perhaps deteriorated further since the demise of apartheid.

Unemployment has remained stuck above 20% for years and certainly hasn’t improved since Mandela and the ANC came to power.  Few black children are raised by both parentsEducational performance is consistently dismalViolent crime persists, and a minority of taxpayers are subsidizing one of the world’s biggest welfare states.  Loose monetary policy has fueled the same speculative bubble in South Africa as it has throughout the developed world.  Politically motivated violence is a common feature of post-apartheid South Africa.

Everyone involved in AUAA was apparently so focused on the attainment of political power, but placed no emphasis on the necessity of economic development.  Even Bono has acknowledged that recently

But their hearts were in the right place, so why get so incensed over a pop track?

Perhaps. I would feel a little bit more charitable towards this effort if it was a one-time phenomenon, but this type of “racial justice” activism was at the very least, an early template for virtually every social justice campaign you can name.

Nowadays, if there anythng done or said that has the slightest perceived hint of a discriminatory attitude, the calls for retribution and censure from the social justice crowd is swift and immediate. With an equal disregard for economic consequences.  All that apparently matters is that egos are satiated by upholding the virtues of Social Justice prescribed by its self-appointed gatekeepers. 

But what about the track itself?

It’s pretty good.  It’s a stylistic hybrid that is a reflection of the people who recorded it; a hip-hop/Afropop flavored rave up with a fist pumping chorus.  It is propelled by its sense of righteous indignation so effectively, you can almost ignore its guilt tripping preachiness.  It doesn’t even get sunk by Lou Reed’s pretentious affectation in his laughable cameo. 

I do not doubt that Steve Van Zandt and the artists who contributed to the AUAA project had the best of intentions.  Unfortunately, we now live in a world where good intentions are often all that’s required with little or no attention given to the political consequences of good intentions. 

The standard narrative that the Reagan administration’s support for the de Klerk regime was animated by racism doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either. Not that anyone on the Left would be that charitable towards a conservative, but anti-communist sentiment was white hot during the 80’s, and even if the fears of communist global expansion were exaggerated, I don’t begrudge Reagan for fearing the rise of another socialist regime in South Africa.  Besides, if that criticism is going to be levelled at Reagan, then it should be made of his predecessors as well.

I also do not begrudge AUAA for making a bold political statement.  In fact, I would prefer to see more artists express their political convictions with such fervor.  Of all the realms of real economic cooperation, music and art is perhaps the one sphere of human activity which allows us to experience and appreciate our shared humanity and sense of purpose.  But if you are going to make a political statement like “Sun City”, don’t turn a blind eye to the consequences of your advocacy. Most of all, make sure you’re applying your criticism consistently and directing a comparable level of indignation towards the black politicians who abused their hard won political power.

Trumbo

image

To say that Hollywood is inhabited by self-congratulatory, self-important, narcissistic egomaniacs is perhaps an understatement and self-evident. However, that’s not to say that the Hollywood creative class is without talent, skill or principle. If anything, a great, contemporary Hollywood film exhibits both of these qualities at once. Hollywood films are also very good at promoting Hollywood’s own self-righteous mythology of being inhabited by collection of pious crusaders who are On the Right Side of History and Trumbo is unequivocally one of these films. Trumbo is of course a biopic which dramatizes the life of screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, but it also touches on issues of free speech and the First Amendment, free markets, the anti-Communist witch hunts of the 50’s and the Hollywood Blacklist. This film is roughly analogous to Reds in that it dramatizes a figure of the American Left who had Communist sympathies and was persecuted for his convictions, but it is far inferior to Reds in the sense that it utterly fails to pinpoint the failure of leftist and Marxist ideology and the reversal of roles that has taken place between the Right and the Left in contemporary society. In the latter respect, Trumbo is dismal bit of partisan hackery which seeks only to reinforce the mythology of the American Right as corrupt, vacuous authoritarians who are Wrong About Everything and the Left as the principled, virtuous rebels On the Right Side of History whose voices and spotless moral rectitude are under perpetual assault by those dirty ReTHUGliKKKans. Though it’s refreshing to get a Hollywood film that wears its political stripes on its sleeve, the solid philosophical points that it does make are completely undermined by its partisanship.

Trumbo starts off on very shaky ground and only devolves from there. We’re presented with an extravagant poolside party with Bryan Cranston’s Trumbo arguing passionately in favor of the beleaguered proles whose labor creates so much surplus value for the greedy Hollywood capitalists. The soulless and indifferent Hollywood executive with whom he was arguing haughtily dismisses him as a Dirty Red and walks away leaving a cloud of contempt in his wake. This incident portends the ostracism to come. Principled, Compassionate Leftist is just trying to speak his mind and stick up for the Little Guy and he’s just shut down by an Evil, Heartless Conservative. In a subsequent scene on the plush ranch he purchased from the earnings he made from the dirty capitalist system, Trumbo is taking his daughter Niki on a horseback ride. Niki nervously asks him if he’s a Communist to which he answers clearly and unequivocally, “Yes.” She asks him if she’s also a Communist. Instead of educating his child with history, economics, and sound reasoning and asking her to reach her own conclusion, he lays out a half-baked, simplistic analogy which offers no sound foundation upon which to make an informed choice. Rather than expounding on why he was sympathetic to Marxist politics, he likens Communism as being exactly equivalent to sharing a sandwich with a student at school. This is the level of vile sophistry and perversion of economics and history to which Hollywood has descended. Socialism is just charity and caring for your fellow man, proles. That’s all. Utterly contemptible and loathsome.

Anti-communist sentiment was on the rise, and Trumbo and his screenwriter colleagues banded together to oppose the ascendant persecution as well as affirm the freedom to assert their political convictions on First Amendment grounds. In another gathering of Hollywood elites, David James Elliott does a great job channeling John Wayne’s cartoonish patriotism and his anti-Communist bloviations. The roomful of executives and actors express their agreement with cheers, applause and laughter at every sentence spoken. Once again, we see the Dirty, Evil Conservatives in the thrall of patriotic groupthink and the Fearless, Intrepid Leftists who just want to assert basic American Constitutional principles. The gathering ends with a confrontation between Trumbo and Wayne in which Wayne is taken down a peg when Trumbo reminds him that his patriotism was only tested in the comfort of a Hollywood studio and not in the trenches of the battlefront. Playing failed actress, gossip columnist, Anita Sarkeesian progenitor, and all around contemptible bitch, Hedda Hopper, Helen Mirren giddily informs him that he will be ruined in the court of public opinion in her column.

Despite making waves for his political sensibilities, Trumbo’s star was on the rise and he signs a lucrative contract with MGM. As he’s about to sign on the dotted line, Louis Mayer holds up Hopper’s column and warns him not to make these kinds of headlines. He signs and simply advises him not to read the papers. He’s subsequently served a subpoena to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and is subject to an interrogation that most have come to associate with the term McCarthyism. He refuses on the grounds that he’s not being charged with an actual crime, but is ultimately charged with contempt of Congress. He is sentenced to time in the federal penitentiary along with nine others, and the infamous Hollywood Ten are born.

Hopper exerts her influence even further in a private meeting with Mayer. She pressures him into refusing employment to those on the Blacklist by threatening to tar him in her column and manipulating him with appeals to patriotism. Mayer tries to push back, but caves in when he realizes he’s cornered. She plunges the knife in further with a few choice anti-Semitic digs at him and other Jewish studio heads. Here, we see the filmmakers peddling the mythology of racism, Nazism, authoritarianism and fascism being the sole province of the Political Right. Never mind the Nazi’s application of Keynesian economic policy in the run up to World War II which mirrored FDR’s applications. Never mind FDR’s internment of the Japanese. The filmmakers clearly want the viewer to associate Nazism and fascism with the Political Right.

While in prison, he befriends a gruff and surly inmate, Virgil Brooks, who is in charge of prison supplies and happens to be black. Naturally, since Trumbo is a Leftist and Friend of the Dispossessed and Unjustly Persecuted, he is able to ingratiate himself to him sufficiently in order to obtain work typing up requisitions. Brooks offers him the gig, but reminds him that he will “fuck him” if he violates his trust at any point. During his period of incarceration, a former Trumbo actor colleague, Edward G. Robinson, is called to HUAC to testify and the inmates are able to watch the hearing on the communal television. Robinson confesses to being a liberal Democrat, but distances himself and outs his own former colleagues as Communists just to avoid the ostracism that Trumbo and the remaining Hollywood Ten received. After the testimony, Brooks says that if anyone in prison snitched like that, they’d be killed. That’s right, proles. Truly ethical behavior and real human virtue can be found in the prison population of America. The American criminal justice system is surely guilty of being overzealous in prosecuting an ever expanding sphere of illegality, but this persistent effort to invert reality and attribute virtue to all things Leftist is positively odious. This phenomenon is due in no small part to activism from both the black community and liberals alike, but you’re more likely to hear idiotic lectures about white privilege than you are admissions of their respective roles legislating these outcomes.

In another bit of blatant partisanship, Trumbo encounters fellow inmate and former HUAC committee member and interrogator, J. Parnell Thomas. Thomas was sentenced for corruption charges, and Trumbo takes a shot at him by reminding him that he’s the only real criminal between the two of them. Apparently, only conservatives are corrupt and abuse political power.

After serving his year long sentence, Trumbo returns to his family and attempts to revive his flagging career prospects. He’s forced to sell his plush ranch and the Trumbo family take up residence in the Los Angeles suburbs. His neighbors are aware of him and the persecution continues with threatening anonymous notes and vandalistic messages on their property. Desperate for work, Trumbo makes a deal with B-movie kingpin, Frank King, and agrees to write scripts under a pseudonym. During this time, he secures work for his blacklisted colleagues and enters into a period of relentless output and near perpetual solitude. In a family meeting in which Trumbo conscripts his family into his semi-clandestine script writing factory, Niki wonders how she will fit in time for her studies and her Civil Rights activism. Got that, proles? Leftists are smart, studious, industrious and of course, care deeply about Social Justice. Trumbo’s star is also quietly rising as he wins Oscars for penning Roman Holiday and The Brave One, but cannot claim credit due to his blacklist status. His relationship with his family is increasingly strained as a result of his punishing work schedule, and things come to head during Niki’s sixteenth birthday. She cannot believe that her own father cannot spare even a minute to share a piece of birthday cake on this momentous occasion, and she storms off in a fit of frustration. Trumbo seeks her out in order to attempt a reconciliation and finds her fighting patriarchy and racism at the racially integrated café. For once, the Hollywood film portrays the father as a positive influence on his daughter. Apparently, even Leftists have to affirm family values and the virtues of fatherhood every now and then.

Trumbo’s fortunes finally turn when Kirk Douglas asks him to work on the script for Spartacus. Douglas is able to win Trumbo over by telling him that Spartacus is the story of a man who stood his ground when the world was against him. Trumbo’s script catches the attention of filmmaker Otto Preminger and he’s offered another big opportunity to write the script for Exodus. Hopper’s defamation campaign is relentless and she attempts to manipulate and threaten Douglas for employing Trumbo, but ultimately caves in to Douglas’ resolve. “When did you become such a bastard?” asks Hopper. “I’ve always been a bastard,” retorts Douglas. What appears to be Spartacus’ Randian message of individualism against the tyranny of the collective is transformed into the facile collectivism of #JeSuisCharlie. The reign of repression is finally broken when Preminger goes to the press with an open admission that Trumbo is the writer of Exodus.

Trumbo is canonized with an award in the final scene, and here, the film commits its final atrocity of intellectual dishonesty and smug, self-congratulatory partisanship. In a speech, Trumbo asserts a hypocritical and contemptible moral relativism by claiming that there were “no heroes and no villains” during the anti-Communist purges. After two hours of demagoguery and demonization of the Political Right, the filmmakers just want you to believe that this was just a non-partisan slice of history without an agenda from which you can draw your own conclusions. It’s not as though the politicization of Hollywood began under FDR and has continued to push government propaganda ever since then. It’s not as though leftists have triumphed overwhelmingly in their legislative pursuits over the past century and those policies have contributed to any of the negative outcomes in America. It’s not as though leftists have overwhelmingly colonized academia and Hollywood and nearly all of the messaging reflects a solidly leftist ideological bent. It’s not as though leftist social justice activism has taken on the exact same characteristics as the McCarthyist witch hunts and people now lose their jobs and fortunes in the Star Chamber of social media. There are no failed leftist policies and there is no reckoning to be made with the historical connections to failed socialist states and contemporary leftist policy. Nope. It’s just those dirty conservatives and their nationalism, authoritarianism, racism, and dumb, selfish devotion to capitalism.

Trumbo is a an interesting story which touches on an earlier and highly politicized atmosphere in America from which important lessons can be drawn. Unfortunately, it’s just peddling the same lesson that Hollywood is almost always selling. As long as you’re a Leftist, you’re a Good Person. If not, you’re evil, racist and stupid and on the Wrong Side of History. Setting aside his socialist politics, Trumbo’s life stands as a testimony to the importance of free speech, the inextricable link between individual freedom and economic freedom that can only flourish under capitalism, and against the pernicious influence of the state in carrying out a political agenda regardless of its partisan origins. Everyone regardless of political affiliation can learn from these examples. It’s just too bad they’ve been papered over with the facile talking points of the Left.

The State and Revolution

image

I’ve been listening to the rhetoric and propaganda emanating from the Bernie Sanders campaign and the media bootlickers who cover him, and found myself increasingly disturbed by the tenor. It sounded remarkably familiar to the rhetoric from socialism’s tragic past so I took a dive into Vladimir Lenin’s revolutionary tract, State and Revolution, to see how much common ground there is between these two self-aggrandizing, power hungry sociopaths.  To my dismay, I discovered more than a few parallels between Sanders’ pugilistic bluster and Lenin’s.

Tragic similarities notwithstanding, I have to give Lenin credit where credit is due. He doesn’t mince words. State and Revolution is completely blunt about the totalitarian ambitions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. You can learn a lot about totalitarianism by reading the words of totalitarians. He is remarkably forthright about his communist ambitions and the role of the state in this book. It’s also infinitely more readable than pretentious wanks like Das  Kapital. In this regard, State and Revolution is a useful document by which to compare Sanders’ rhetoric and agenda. Sanders is an elected official seeking the highest office in the land, has a reputation as a truth speaking contrarian and certainly demonstrates an ability to be blunt in his own right.  The book reveals where Sanders’ rhetoric and ambition are similar to Lenin as well as his tendency to indulge in deceptive platitudes in order to shade and distort the nature of state power and the cold truth about his agenda. 

State and Revolution has truth value as a statement of intention, but it is also batshit crazy with delusion and sophistry.  Lenin expounds upon his insane notions about the withering away of the state and the era of classless emancipation that will somehow magically materialize from the proletarian “smashing of the state”. These lunatic ravings mirror the gauzy weasel words and unattainable promises Sanders deploys in his own rhetorical grifts.

Since Marx’ predictions of widespread socialist revolution never came to fruition in the revolutions of 1848 or the failed Paris Commune of 1871, Lenin published this tract in order to bridge the divide between Marx’ unfulfilled predictions and the Bolshevik revolution he’d been actively cultivating. Subsequently, State and Revolution has become the cornerstone of what has become known as Leninist Marxism. 

According to classical Marxist theory and its Hegelian view of historical inevitability, the forces of production would reach a sufficient level of maturity that when the revolutionary proletariat would take their rightful place at the helm of society, the era of classless emancipation would naturally unfold.  However, in 1917, Russia was hardly a developed industrial economy ripe for a proletarian revolution. Not a problem, according to Lenin. What the proletariat need is a revolutionary vanguard to lead a violent revolution and hasten things along a bit. 

In State and Revolution, Lenin opens with what he argues is the correct role of the state and that his thesis is, in fact, grounded in Marxist canon. 

Lenin and by extension, Engels and Marx, are completely correct about the nature of state power. The state is an agency of violence.

Hit it, Vlad:

The  state  is  a  special  organization  of  force:  it  is  an  organization  of  violence  for  the  suppression  of  some class.  What  class  must  the  proletariat  suppress?  Naturally,  only  the  exploiting  class,  i.e.,  the  bourgeoisie. The  working  people  need  the  state  only  to  suppress  the  resistance  of  the  exploiters,  and  only  the  proletariat can  direct  this  suppression,  can  carry  it  out.  For  the  proletariat  is  the  only  class  that  is  consistently revolutionary,  the  only  class  that  can  unite  all  the  working  and  exploited  people  in  the  struggle  against  the bourgeoisie,  in  completely  removing  it.

The problem, of course, is his conflation of state power with capitalist economics.  To Lenin and Marx and many progressives, they are one and the same.  Marxist doctrine posits that capitalism is inherently expropriative, but the apparatus of the state must be controlled in order to “expropriate the expropriators”. The proletarian revolution will only come about by using the suppressive, violent force of the state against the bourgeoisie.  The era of emancipation that follows is a given and a historical inevitability.

Lenin simultaneously reveals the sheer elitist contempt he holds for the oppressed class he professes to represent as well as supremacist delusions he has and ascribes solely to the proletariat class.  After all, they are the only class that is consistently revolutionary.  The proletariat are incapable of emancipating themselves, so they require a revolutionary vanguard to lead the revolution for them. 

The cultish devotion and absolutist mentality of Sanders voters and their apparently unshakable faith in his promises of bread and circuses and retribution against the bourgeois 1% is no different from Lenin.

Compare the messianic self-righteousness and megalomania of their allegedly prole-positive sentiments.  Lenin contends the following:

Only  he  is  a  Marxist  who extends  the  recognition  of  the  class  struggle  to  the  recognition  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat.

Sanders’ proclamation of the purity of his progressivism:

Lenin argues that the “withering away of the state” will ensue after the proletariat have taken control of and “smashed” the machinery of the state.  This is the exact type of rhetoric that’s deployed by socialist agitators, media sycophants and Sanders himself. 

This  course  of  events  compels the  revolution  “to  concentrate  all  its  forces  of  destruction”  against  the  state  power,  and  to  set  itself  the  aim, not  of  improving  the  state  machine,  but  of  smashing  and  destroying  it.

Compare these sentiments to those expressed by Slate toady, Jim Newell, in describing the aims of Sanders’ “political revolution”:

The Vermont senator doesn’t want to bring Republicans and Democrats together. He means to tear it all down.

Lenin was similarly dismissive of “opportunists” who tried to negotiate with the liberal bourgeoisie of the democratic state.  Sanders attitude towards the billionaire class is equally hostile and describes them as being “on the warpath” in the Newell piece. 

Opportunism  does  not  extend  recognition  of  the  class  struggle  to  the  cardinal  point,  to  the  period  of transition  from  capitalism  to  communism,  of  the  overthrow  and  the  complete  abolition  of  the  bourgeoisie.  In reality,  this  period  inevitably  is  a  period  of  an  unprecedently  violent  class  struggle  in  unprecedentedly  acute forms,  and,  consequently,  during  this  period  the  state  must  inevitably  be  a  state  that  is  democratic  in  a  new way  (for  the  proletariat  and  the  propertyless  in  general)  and  dictatorial  in  a  new  way  (against  the bourgeoisie).

Newell elaborates further on Sanders’ goals:

He campaigns on a promise to turn the whole thing upside down, to create a grassroots “political revolution” that will give him the mandate to bring working- and middle-class people together to overwhelm the “billionaire class” into submission.

Lenin’s ambitions sound pretty similar:

It  is  still  necessary  to  suppress  the  bourgeoisie  and  crush  their  resistance.  This  was  particularly  necessary  for the  Commune;  and  one  of  the  reasons  for  its  defeat  was  that  it  did  not  do  this  with  sufficient  determination. The  organ  of  suppression,  however,  is  here  the  majority  of  the  population,  and  not  a  minority,  as  was always  the  case  under  slavery,  serfdom,  and  wage  slavery.  And  since  the  majority  of  people  itself suppresses  its  oppressors,  a  ‘special  force’  for  suppression  is  no  longer  necessary!  In  this  sense,  the  state begins  to  wither  away.  Instead  of  the  special  institutions  of  a  privileged  minority  (privileged  officialdom the  chiefs  of  the  standing  army),  the  majority  itself  can  directly  fulfil  all  these  functions,  and  the  more  the functions  of  state  power  are  performed  by  the  people  as  a  whole,  the  less  need  there  is  for  the  existence  of this  power.

Sanders routinely inveighs against the corrupt political system which favors the billionaire class over the poor and middle-class.  Lenin engaged in an identical form of demagoguery. 

But  from  this  capitalist  democracy that  is  inevitably  narrow  and  stealthily  pushes  aside  the  poor,  and  is therefore  hypocritical  and  false  through  and  throughforward  development  does  not  proceed  simply, directly  and  smoothly,  towards  “greater  and  greater  democracy”,  as  the  liberal  professors  and  petty bourgeois  opportunists  would  have  us  believe.  No,  forward  development,  i.e.,  development  towards communism,  proceeds  through  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  and  cannot  do  otherwise,  for  the  resistance of  the  capitalist  exploiters  cannot  be  broken  by  anyone  else  or  in  any  other  way. And  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  i.e.,  the  organization  of  the  vanguard  of  the  oppress.

One of the more striking resemblances between the rhetoric of Sanders and Lenin is their mutual obsession with forcibly imposing a theoretically equalized bureaucratic order modeled after the postal service. 

Lenin proposes the following:

To  organize  the  whole  economy  on  the  lines  of  the  postal  service  so  that  the  technicians,  foremen  and accountants,  as  well  as  all  officials,  shall  receive  salaries  no  higher  than  “a  workman’s  wage”,  all  under  the control  and  leadership  of  the  armed  proletariat that  is  our  immediate  aim.  This  is  what  will  bring  about  the abolition  of  parliamentarism  and  the  preservation  of  representative  institutions.  This  is  what  will  rid  the laboring  classes  of  the  bourgeoisie’s  prostitution  of  these  institutions.

Contrast these proposals with those proffered by Comrade Sanders:

We need to stop payday lenders from ripping off millions of Americans. Post offices exist in almost every community in our country. One important way to provide decent banking opportunities for low income communities is to allow the U.S. postal Service to engage in basic banking services, and that’s what I will fight for.

How do they differ?  I’m not convinced they do.

Sanders makes a very big deal out of the inclusion of the word “democratic” when he speaks of “democratic socialism”, but Lenin is much more forthright about the nature of democracy.

No,  democracy  is  not  identical  with  the  subordination  of  the  minority  to  the  majority.  Democracy  is  a  state which  recognizes  the  subordination  of  the  minority  to  the  majority,  i.e.,  an  organization  for  the  systematic use  of  force  by  one  class  against  another,  by  one  section  of  the  population  against  another.

Sanders has been garnering enthusiasm for his calls for “political revolution”, but this excerpt of Engels referenced by Lenin sheds a brighter light on what that means. 

Have  these  gentlemen  ever  seen  a  revolution?  A  revolution  is  certainly  the  most  authoritarian thing  there  is;  it  is  an  act  whereby  one  part  of  the  population  imposes  its  will  upon  the  other part  by  means  of  rifles,  bayonets  and  cannon,  all  of  which  are  highly  authoritarian  means.  And the  victorious  party  must  maintain  its  rule  by  means  of  the  terror  which  its  arms  inspire  in  the reactionaries.

Fundamentally, Bernie Sanders is promoting an agenda which has few differences from Lenin.  The rhetoric is softer and the platitudes are attuned to American sensibilities, but the agenda is forcible confiscation, redistribution, unlimited monetary expansion, arbitrary equalization and bureaucratization of economic life.  

Karl Marx was recently cited as the most assigned “economist” in colleges.  After decades of leftist policy including central banking, regulation, price and wage controls, progressive taxation, public education and the entire welfare state apparatus, the ascendancy of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is a sad consequence of the indoctrination of statist economic orthodoxy and the phony pretense of Marxism’s Fight the Power pugilism. Marxist doctrine offers several  convenient advantages for the power hungry politician. Not only does it provide a ready made analytical lens with which to diagnose society’s ills and lay blame at the feet of an omnipresent capitalist boogeyman, it’s an agenda of greed, vengeance and spite painted over with a fig leaf of moral righteousness.

Ironically, when you strip away the delusions of the “withering away of the state”, Lenin had some keen observations about the democratic republic.

To  decide  once  every  few  years  which  members  of  the  ruling  class  is  to  repress  and  crush  the  people through  parliament. This  is  the  real  essence  of  bourgeois  parliamentarism,  not  only  in  parliamentary constitutional  monarchies,  but  also  in  the  most  democratic  republics.

Based on the policy initiatives being championed by Sanders, we can predict what will come to pass if he were to be elected and his policies enacted.  Somehow, socialism manages to escape all criticism and its current champions are always able to promote the idea that It’s Going to Be Different When We Do It.

Sadly, Sanders is also driven by the same repressive desire to centralize, command and dictate from on high that drove Lenin, but Lenin was far more blunt about his ultimate goals of “Equality.”

The  whole  of  society  will  have  become  a  single  office  and  a  single  factory,  with  equality  of  labor  and  pay.

If only Sanders could be that honest.

Reds

image

I admit it.  It’s not the Marxist lovefest I expected.  

I went into Warren Beatty’s 1981 opus expecting it to be another Hollywood love letter to socialism.  Instead, what I witnessed was a remarkably honest portrait of a doomed love affair between two seminal American communist radicals whose ideals pitted them against one another and drove them apart despite their deep devotion to one another. 

Reds is a sweeping historical political drama which encompasses the roots of the American socialist Left, World War 1, and the Bolshevik Revolution.  The film is built around the tempestuous love affair between John Reed and Louise Bryant played by Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton respectively.   Its major achievement is how it manages to expose the limitations of Marxism and socialism by showing how the central characters’ allegedly revolutionary ideals undermined their ability to simply be with one another. 

As expected, the film spells out some of the facile appeal of socialism at the outset.  Beatty takes a very classical approach to filmmaking and the themes of the film are embedded in the characters. Louise Bryant is the aspiring writer and avowed feminist with libertine sexual mores who scandalizes Portland’s high society by posing nude for an artist sketch.  John Reed leaves jaws agape at the Liberal Society when he openly opines that the motivation behind the war is the capitalistic profit motive.  Louise is enthralled by Reed and after asking him for an interview, they spend an evening together in which Reed bores the shit out of her regales her with his passionate desire to foment a socialist revolution.   Socialist feminist and Marxist revolutionary meet and the seeds of a deep love affair at a momentous time in history are sown. 

All of the touchstones of leftist bohemian ideals and political activism are present; sexual promiscuity, polyamory, disdain for capitalism, anti-war sentiment, high artistic idealism, an initial refusal to submit to traditional bourgeois values, and a naïve hope in the promise of a worker’s revolution.  

Reed and Bryant eventually travel to Greenwich Village and we’re introduced to the seminal figures of America’s socialist Left including Emma Goldman and Max Eastman.  The atmosphere is ripe with revolutionary spirit, but Reed’s attempts to cover labor organizing efforts for his socialist magazine take him away from Bryant and drive an emotional wedge between them.   Meanwhile, Bryant tries to peddle her writing, but fails because her writing sucks.   Bryant tries to assert her independence, but can’t confront how much she ultimately wants and needs Reed.  The couple resolve to remain together and set out to Provincetown, MA with Eugene O’Neill and others to live as artists in a quasi-communistic manner. 

Reed’s activism leads him away from the idyll of Provincetown, and on to the campaign trail to canvass for Woodrow Wilson.  Bryant has an affair with O’Neill, and here, Beatty shows how the bohemian spirit of free love clashes with monogamous impulses.   

Bryant and Reed separate again, but are reunited when Reed follows her to France and asks her to join him on his journey to Petrograd to cover the imminent Bolshevik Revolution.   Though their love is rekindled in the fires of the Revolution, their activity is not viewed favorably by US federal authorities.   Reed is given a platform at a Bolshevik rally and stirs up the proles with some good old fashioned demagoguery.  It’s impeccably staged and plays like an Occupy Wall Street protest if it weren’t run by a bunch of pussies. 

They return to the US with a renewed hope in revolution, but with the Feds hot on their tail.  Adding to their travails is their renewed tensions with the American Socialist Party.  Reed is a member of the Industrial Workers of World and tries to persuade them toward a Bolshevik spirit, but his views are at odds with the leadership of the party.  Reed breaks with the main party and forms his own more “pure” Socialist Party and is voted as the leader to seek the sanction of the Bolsheviks in Moscow. Here, the film turns a corner and starts to show how the revolution and Marxist dogma ultimately implodes and pits socialists against one another.  The bickering and tests of purity which the party members apply to one another translates perfectly to modern day squabbles and purges carried out by social justice progressives today.  

Reed travels back to Moscow, and after enduring imprisonment for improper paperwork, is ultimately conscripted by the party elites to be a propagandist.   The consequences of his choice hit hard as he is denied return to the United States, finds his appeals to the Party squashed by crushing authoritarianism, and is unable to get a simple communication to his wife due to the palsied bureaucratization, incompetence and backwardness of life in Soviet Russia.

He is ultimately reunited with the recently deported Emma Goldman and he ponders his fate in her squalid apartment.  In a devastating monologue, Goldman tries to appeal to his sense of reason by pointing out the tragic failure of the revolution.  Instead of emancipating the proletariat, the Bolshevik regime has metastasized into a brutal and repressive police state intolerant of dissent and driven the economy into deep contraction and dysfunction.  Blinded by his idealism, Reed brushes it off and says that you just can’t have a revolution without cracking a few skulls.  

Reed is sent on a fateful mission to Azerbaijan to bring the gospel of Bolshevist Socialism to the Muslims.  To his dismay, he discovers that his propaganda speech was mistranslated by Party kommissar, Zinoviev.  Drawing an excellent and accurate parallel between Marxism and Islam, Zinoviev replaced “class war” with “Holy war”.  Reed gets upset that his voice and intent was subordinated by the will of the Party and launches into a screed against the tyranny of the collective.  It’s good stuff. 

The train is sacked by counter-revolutionaries and a stunning battle scene involving cavalry, muskets and cannons ensues.  

Meanwhile, Bryant travels to Russia to try and find Reed.  They are ultimately reunited, but Reed contracts typhus and he spends his last days in a Soviet hospital.   

Despite the patina of revolutionary politics, Reds is a traditional romance which ultimately affirms monogamous bourgeois values.  Reed and Bryant were variously portrayed as marginal talents and busybodies who were trying to reconcile their artistic ambitions with their political sensibilities and libertine sexual desires. These values worked at cross purposes more often than not and each paid an emotional price.  

Reds is an impeccably produced film which tackles a lot of pithy material while succeeding at being a solid dramatic romance.  It reveals the roots of socialism’s enduring appeal while also showing where it went off the rails.  Socialist ideals still hold a lot of appeal with the Hollywood set, but Beatty deserves a little credit for tackling it head on and with a higher than expected level of intellectual honesty.