Editorials Front Page Blog (Full Desktop Version)

Click here for free speech discussion community

Freedom, Liberalism and Democracy

: January 8, 2018

Based off of Mao’s interpretation of Dialectical Materialism (Friedrich Engels originally promoted the concept), one could say that when a certain amount of force is applied to a peddle the bicycle moves forward if there is no force in the opposite direction.   The bicycle then moves backwards if force is applied in the opposite direction (for example sliding down a hill if there it no peddling).   The movement of the bicycle is like society.  Society moves with the force of people who push it.

In order to promote their positions and “move the bicycle,” people promote various ideologies.   Marx pointed out that people promote various ideologies as universal truths when they are actually shells for their own interests.  Hitler made the same observation with an abnormal focus on Jews in Mein Kampf, accusing Jews of promoting various ideologies as a means to an end.

Mao differed from a contemporary populist when he argued that society as a whole engages in this back and forth action-reaction, while populists seem to think only the elites of society have influence.   Thus the critique applies not only to “neo-cons” and powerful American leaders but also to what is known as the “patriotard” or the person who takes the idea of “god, country and family” as a slogan to stand behind those powerful people.


Market Socialism

: January 8, 2018

A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity – Deng Xiaoping

Socialism is defined by its class nature – the rule of the proletariat (or peasantry in Maoism) over the the bourgeoisie.  Socialism is not necessarily a command economy.   Socialist regimes have been known to use market forces and capitalist regimes have been known to use planning and commands.  The essential difference between socialism and capitalism is not the command economy / market economy dichotomy.

Lenin’s New Economic Policy utilized market economics and currently China does. What makes these economies still socialist is that the line between the Government and business is blurred or erased.  Mussolini defined fascism as the merging of corporate and state power.  The difference between market socialism and fascism is that under market socialism the Government and business blur into one for the purpose of protecting workers.   In American market socialism, there may still be a McDonalds and a Burger King, but both McDonalds and Burger King would have progressive policies implemented from the inside and progressive institutions would play a role in management as opposed to investors having full property rights.   Under fascism these forces are merged but instead of protecting workers, the combined entity now solidifies the interests of the economic insiders (who may be ethnic minorities or may not).  If McDonalds and Burger King controlled the EPA and stopped all regulation, as well as invaded countries to get Potatoes, that would be fascism.  However, looking out for workers under a market economy is not fascism.  Fascism certainly uses planning and fascism is not socialism.   Even American “liberal Democracy” at times uses planned economics.

Socialism can, however, be command oriented as Stalin supported more of a command economy than Lenin.   He grew impatient with the slow progress of industrialization and for technocratic reasons wanted to speed it up.  Mao had similar motivations – China was an undeveloped and primitive country and Mao used centralized planning to  “leap forward.”  Neither of these examples make command economics the definition of socialism.  If it was Mussolini and Hitler would be socialists and Lenin would be a capitalist.

The Racial Merry-Go-Round

: December 26, 2017

Freeway Rick Ross (the real one, not the rapper) saw cocaine as a white privilege.   He saw it as something Whites had access to, while Blacks only had access to PCP and Heroin.   Then he figured out that there was a market for crack and was influential in its boom in popularity in inner cities.   This is an analogy towards Blacks and capitalism.   Non-whites have taken a blast of what they thought was a White Privilege.  Black people finally gained access to the white paradise of the free market and learned that their paradise was actually hell.  Many have escaped plantation slavery only to enter wage slavery and unemployment, while being hit with bills and higher costs of living.   They soon learned that the powerful Blacks also serve finance capital just like the powerful Whites.

Barack Obama took power but did he end poverty?  No.  Did he end imperialism?  No.   Did he end layoffs and firings?  No.  Did he end racism?  No.   Take it back to the civil rights movement and yes, the civil rights movement allowed Black people access to White society.  However, that White society did not get any better just because it became multiracial.   The only thing that will make the society better is a critique of capitalism.  As the song by Insane Clown Posse called echo side goes, Damien escaped out of the back door of hell only to walk in the front gates.

It will eventually become clear to Blacks that Black officers shoot Black people and that Black criminals kill black people.  Likewise, it will be clear that White officers shoot White people and that White criminals kill White people.  Of course, these events cross racial lines as well, but it is an unforgivable error to not critique capitalism just because you think you can tweak the demographics involved.  The same will become obvious to Whites.  When the merry-go-round moved from Obama to Trump, it remained the same sadistic ride and the same amusement park continued to get paid.

The Masses

: December 23, 2017

A key thing to understand about human beings is that a large inferior subsection of human beings is filled with herd animals. If they see that you have somehow come into conflict with the herd, their gut instinct is to throw you under the bus instead of to see if they can make an ally. We should not give the masses any more credit than this, they are not creative geniuses who are avoiding a genuine threat.  The economic one percent is NOT the intellectual one percent.  Furthermore, most employers are not even part of the one percent but part of small businesses and yet they instinctively side against good people whenever there is the slightest controversy.

Far right activists will always point out that pressure groups get people fired from jobs.  Many of these activists will focus on Jewish pressure groups.  However, as Constantin Von Hoffmeister points out, if Jews demand one thing and Gentiles follow, then Gentiles are chiefly to blame.  Something is deeply wrong with the average person and something is deeply flawed with our society.   If lifeboats were out in the ocean, society would not say “it’s your fault, sink” and drive the nearby ship away but that is how capitalism works and how it is intentionally designed and supported.  The masses intentionally offer up people as sacrifices at the slightest sign of adversity and most business owners intellectually are part of the masses.  These hurdles are not unbeatable or impossible to overcome, but do not kid yourself, these hurdles do exist for anyone who speaks truth to power.

The Limits of Libertarianism

: December 19, 2017

Libertarians will attack certain harmful aspects of our society like the prison profit system, the military industrial complex and the bias towards Israel but what they will not do is point out that microeconomic forces benefit from these things.  Every time a court payment is made, someone profits. Every time we go to war, individual corporations profit. Israel lobbyists can profit from land grabs and material as well.  They profit from paranoia and loyalty.  These are microeconomics forces, not macroeconomic forces.  I am not necessarily arguing that war takes the entire economy out of recession or that the average American benefits (the opposite can occur), but I am indeed arguing that individual interests and corporations profit.

Libertarians do not critique this because they think economic liberty is a high priority and lean towards the idea of “getting the Government out.”  They do not emphasize the tendency of market capitalism to move to monopoly like leftists who read Vladimir Lenin do and they tend to focus on Government institutions like the Federal Reserve instead.

Having written all this, someone like Ron Paul (a high profile Libertarian dissident) does still antagonize the people who operate the free market forces that in abstract theory Libertarianism would oppose intervening against.  By calling out the Iraq war, by calling out the Israel lobby, by calling out the “neo-cons,” Ron Paul still essentially aims at the right target while refusing to view the target in financial terms.  Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice become simply “bad people” instead of outgrowths of a system that is promoting a profit motive.

I would absolutely support Ron Paul if it was a choice between Ron Paul, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.  I would consider supporting Paul over Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as well in a three way.   However it is clear that Paul’s critique of capitalism is lacking (in fact he would oppose any critique) and thus I could clearly imagine a candidate who I would support over Ron Paul.  In fact I recognize that the ability to change society through voting is limited, at some point the average person has to simply not cooperate with imperialism (the primary contradiction) in their day to day lives.

Gender: Liberalism vs. Socialism

: December 9, 2017

As stated earlier, the idea that picking winners and losers in our current system is similar to socialism is incorrect.   Even under socialism and other systems, people are going to need to be skilled in the jobs they do.  Instead of focusing on making nursing a majority male profession and computer programming a majority female profession, women should focus on changing the economic system so that no-one is left behind regardless of profession.  Men do not deserve to lose their jobs because certain professions are “too male” any more than 100m dash champions deserve to have their medals taken away because the results are “too black.”

With non-sporting professions, high performance is needed.   This is not solely a result of feminism and attacks on white privilege, but there is a growing movement against merit as professions turn to office jobs where favors and politics are getting people too far.   To be clear, in many instances this is not related to gender or race.  Often it is a person hiring his friend and firing a good employee or a recruiter promoting an unskilled person for having “more experience” but in general, increasingly there is an attitude that performance is secondary and “social fit” is primary.  It goes without saying that such a model is not sustainable long term, it was obvious when the American economy was manufacturing based, but as we switch to the servicing model this is still unsustainable, just less obviously so.  Similar to other forms of anti-merit thinking, equal representation in the actual lines of work (instead of providing for everyone regardless of profession) is a result of the movement against merit.

Money and effort should not be going to fight pointless wars in Iraq, it should instead be going to the poor.  This is progressive thinking, thinking that every female needs to be a computer programmer is not going to deal with the inherit problems of our economic system, nor is it an essential goal of socialism.   Any futuristic thinking person would oppose ideas that women should be uneducated or illiterate, but the idea that equal representation in the actual lines of work is more socialist than it is capitalist has no basis in theory or common sense.

Baby Boomers’ Fruits

: December 6, 2017

On a generalist, large macro scale, baby boomers gave millennials a world of trash and then shifted the blame downwards onto millennials. In the office microcosm the same thing often happens locally. Often a baby boomer manager will hire a millenial worker and then shift the blame downwards onto him, performance and actual merit and evidence be damned.

The four most harmful ideas promoted by baby boomers:

  • 1) Reganism / extreme free market capitalism
  • 2) Substituting attacks on “white privledge” for critiques of point 1. They imply that a White person in Appalachia should be blamed for actions of “the 1%” because the White person is “racist” and “uneducated.”
  • 3) Blaming Millennials for the results of above.
  • 4) Using code language and promoting excessive experience based screening in hiring to enact the punishment that they assigned to millennials as a result of point 3.

White Privilege

: November 28, 2017

The difference between being a class based leftist and being a person who is against “white privilege” (which implies that white workers should be displaced) is enough to not be part of the same movement. I don’t work with people whose primary talking point is white privilege and don’t consider them to be class based leftists.  If there is a feminist equivalent of the white privilege crowd, I do not work with that equivalent either.

To be clear Whites as a group have more power than Blacks as a group.  However, Whites are divided by class as are Males, as are Females, as are Christians, as are Buddhists, as are Blacks.  Anyone who denies that all these groups have internal class divisions is blatantly at odds with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

Replacing working class Whites Males with outsourced jobs and non-Whites and women is not Marxism.  Marxism is about remaking the entire economy, not picking winners and losers.  This sort of deviation is just as much a deviation as a right wing deviation, just by a different group of people and in a different yet similar direction.

While Bernie Sanders is not a Marxist and is a FDR style Social democrat, this is an area where Bernie is basically on the right track.  Sanders talks about remaking the entire economy and lifting the entire working class.  This is what separates someone like Bernie Sanders from someone like Hillary Clinton.  Clinton openly defends free markets.  Because of that the only thing Clinton can do is pick winners and losers in the free market system.  These position are not the same or interchangeable.

2016 Election

: November 26, 2017

The election featuring Trump and Clinton involved a choice between a con artist and a politician who is for sale to the highest bidder. Clinton essentially was a smorgasbord politician who tried to get votes from everyone and therefore held no meaningful positions, except her consistent position that the US should invade the middle east. Clinton’s support for the economic status quo backfired against her, because working class whites realized that the only way others could advance through the status quo is by replacing them.  By championing minority and female rights without advocating a change in economic policy, Clinton threatened working class white males.  How else could these non-Whites and females advance other than taking away positions from natives, like NAFTA (Bill Clinton’s policy) did?  These working class White males defected not only to Trump in the General election, but also to Bernie Sanders in the Primary.  They were the difference between Obama’s win and Clinton’s loss, in the Northern States.  One thing Obama and Trump have in common is that they both campaigned on the basis of “change” with Obama implying that he would role back military policies and take on corporate interests groups and Trump actually saying it.  Clinton with her record on Wall Street, Iraq, Libya and Syria could not run the con game that Trump can and Obama could.

To put things in perspective, even George W Bush in 2000 campaigned against “nation building” but did not govern that way.  Many people interpret Bush’s 2004 win as a result of the popularity of his wars.  This is not true, his opponent John Kerry did not oppose the Iraq War let alone the Afghanistan War, thus there was no option to vote against the war.  It is therefore easy to build the case that Clinton’s ties to US imperialism and establishment politics were enough to make her lose.

Trump the Idiot?

: November 26, 2017

I disagree with people who say Trump is an idiot. It’s the American people who are idiots and Trump takes advantage of their stupidity. He’s laughing as he writes every tweet and his comments range from insincere comments that he thinks will win an applause line to comments designed to get an angry reaction. He is a con artist, but he’s not an idiot.

It’s not true that Trump allied with Putin. What happened is that Putin simply supported a candidate with massive personality flaws because Putin is a decent leader who correctly realizes that the United States should butt out of foreign affairs.  Trump has certain personality traits that prevent him from being humble and from sacrificing himself for a group.  In this case those traits are positive, because imperialism is not desirable.