Why I’m anti-communist— and why you should be, too

Why I’m anti-communist—
and why you should be, too

a response to Helen Razer and her article 'Why I’m a communist—and why you should be, too'
April 25, 2017 Quartz

In her not so short epic masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged - a widely read text (ranking at times second only to the Bible as the book that influenced people most) - you can tell that the author has had it, right up to the butt of her cigarette. Ayn Rand was clearly sick of explaining that communism was the root of all evil and the rejection of sound reasoning. Communism is a historical virus vital for authoritarian power - while impoverishing for the masses. More than a century and a half later, its gruesome legacy (Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot) Communism continues with Kim Jong-un et. al.

“Marx may have been one of the world’s most influential thinkers” writes Razer. Indeed! His work permeates all areas of society. We may have scant understanding of the The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto yet most of these tenants are in application today to various degrees. The two most sinister being Central Banking and Education.

National banking with its political power to set (manipulate) interest rates and hold a monopoly on legal counterfeiting gives it the power to rob through inflation and distort markets. It is these distortions which hinder the self correcting market mechanisms, creating the rollercoaster exacerbated boom/bust cycles we experience “especially in times such as now when an economic downturn has been felt by so many.”

Rather than Marx's ideas crumbling “into dust along with the Berlin Wall” they instead infiltrated themselves into the education system well before the collapse of the USSR.
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." - Vladimir Lenin.

“Communism is a system of social organization” writes Razer. Yes, but it is much more – it is a authoritarian centralised coercive system of social organisation.

The citizen indoctrination camps known as Public schools are the blueprint and printing press for an authoritarian centralised coercive system of social organisation. Most of its teachers, a product of the school system themselves, even if not consciously or implicitly, impart the 'values' of collective means, as they are the recipients of its principles.

Human interactions can be either voluntary (done with permission, consent, contract and agreement) or they can be coercive (done with compulsion, mandated, involuntary and with force).

It is no different with social organisation. Ancient mystic Lao Tzu and modern economist Hayek both advocated spontaneous order which is peaceful, natural, adaptive as well as more productive.
As Razer considers you stupid with her condescending; “Marx is tough..we’ll make this quick”, and because she believes you to all be slaves in some 19 century industrial sweat shop fantasy – rather than in present day reality, she provides you with some definitions – some correct - some misleading and some flipped over in their reasoning.

One of Razer's biggest problems is a refusal to see the trees for the wood. A forest can be considered as a 'whole', which can be helpful, and it can also be considered as many individual trees (in geographical proximity). Razer recognises the group; e.g. the way WE organize OUR means for survival. The individual and their morals are summarily dismissed as irrelevant. It Is only the abstract collective which is important.

This is because Communism is a utilitarian ideology and invariably in pursuit of its aims, throws the baby out with the bath water. The individual is sacrificed for the nominal 'good of the whole'.

“A liberal believes that capitalism can be humanized.” says Razer. Perhaps so, but more significantly her claim here presupposes that capitalism is not human. No proof is given. In characterising 'Crony-Capitalism' she states liberals as claiming “capitalism is only bad when bad people are capitalists.” Again liberals may do so but it is also important to note here the proper definition of Crony-Capitalism:
-an economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials.
Crony-Capitalism incidentally is not unlike Mussolini's definition of fascism:
-Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.

Our current system then could be more accurately described as a socialist fascism rather than Capitalism.

There are bad people who are capitalists, of course, yet this is because bad people exist – not because Capitalism exists.
“A communist thinks that the crate itself is rotten.” writes Razer. She may be referring to the 'crate' of Capitalists but she also later adds, “ A communist seeks conditions to end the state entirely..” so she may also include government in the rotting fruit basket, perhaps?

In any case it is not the bad Capitalists who are the problem per se. In a free naturally decentralised society there would be no all powerful state to bribe, capture and use as a weapon against competitors and rival upstarts.
If vampires existed and society had a centralised system for blood banks, it does not take much to see that the vampires would soon be in charge of the operation. Razer is right in saying the state should go. It is the reason that coercion becomes institutionalised, systemic and unaccountable.

Just how Razer however envisions human society to be “collectively managed” without replacing the state with some sort of system that would have to inevitably resemble the state is a mystery. She does not though - and admits this. “It is my view that an honest communist can now no longer say that the state can be done away with entirely—these true threats require a handful of true bureaucrats to manage them.”
Vampires will be back in charge of the blood bank. Cue again Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot.

Razer is an authoritarian. This is clear in her use of language too. Communists “want all of us to .. become our own dictators” This is contrast to the Libertarian philosophy where the individual becomes their own un-coerced free agent. “Communism is the collective ownership of all property,” she states – but what exactly does this mean?

Razer continues, “In a slave mode of production, the slave gives all their labor—or what Marx calls “surplus”—to the slave owner. Under feudalism, the serf gave roughly 50% of their surplus to the lord.” All 'given' without the individuals consent. Yes, and under governance today we also hand over (without our individual consent) on average 50% of income (from over 130 taxes) to the state. Under the emaciated remnants of capitalism today, we voluntarily give a lot of our surplus to other productive, clever and inventive risk takers for a myriad of reasons, but mainly because it suits us to do so.

Within the mode of production communists place a lot of emphasis on material resources to the neglect of human resources. When they want the collective ownership of all property this includes the human capital. If you consent this is not a problem. Yet when the Communists claim all the resources and abolish private property they invariably rope in all those who do not consent as well. Communism denies the individual freedom of consent. In the Communist mode of production many people provide all their labour without consent, as such it indentures them, in other terms it is 'collective slavery'.

Communism in its abolition of property also negates the individual and self-ownership – self-ownership being the diametric of slavery. Some Communists may claim a distinction between private property and personal property but the demarcation is arbitrary at best. One has only to consider one of the worlds oldest professions – prostitution. A sex worker owns their body. Their body is also the tool they use to turn a profit. Claiming collective ownership over the means of production, not only denies people the right to the fruits of their labour but puts a claim on their personal sovereignty.

Beside the moral concern of consent there are other arguments against the communist mode of production such as 'The Tragedy of the Commons' (with its “cost of environmental devastation”) and lack of individual incentive. Capitalism on the other hand rewards creativity and allows the individual to pursue interests that the collective may not recognise. Capitalism gives us the beauty of the division of labour. "I, Pencil" is an essay by Leonard Read, explains this miracle where the pencil details the complexity of its own creation, and the numerous people involved - all with the absence of a master mind.

There is no blueprint for Capitalism. We can’t predict with real accuracy where we are being led – but 'we' do not need to - that is the magic of spontaneous order. But we can talk a little about how we might get there. That is through voluntary relationships. Just let consenting individuals transact without restriction as long as they do not initiate force.

“But, there is no need for the nation-state to sustain our life” writes Razer. This is true. The stae is no more than a parasite that churns off more than it provides. There is however a need for profit. Profit is a signal that allows one to know when value has been given. Profit is the reward for providing value to the world. Profit is the incentive that allows society to prosper. Communism has not found a replacement for the benefits of profit and its accompanying distribution system determined by the price mechanism.

“Capitalism needs that cheap labor to function.” states Razer. No, it is not a pre-requisite, but 'Capitalism certainly needs artificially expensive labour (penalty rates/min wage/regulations) in order to fail'. “But the communist believes that the exploitation is inevitable.” Yes, this is true and it is a good thing! The Communist looks upon labour in terms of a glass half empty situation rather than a glass half full. They replace the positive that is opportunity with exploitation.

Exploitation is “the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.” So rather than resources going to waste the Capitalists are a blessing in that they are able to recognise resources as beneficial and puts them to use when nobody else will do so. Capitalism is anti-waste.

When one South American country banned the exploitation that is child labor, it did not magically cure oppression. In fact, it forced the children who still needed to provide food for their families into more illegal and dangerous professions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (when force is used as the means).

On the road to a free society, the labor of many has ensured the comfort and ever increasing prosperity of all who embrace the free market - and as Razer astutely points out, “We know that our age of automation has created the possibility of free time.” This is our destiny if we embrace liberty and freedom.

Anarcho-Taoist
28/04/2017