Upon looking at the hard copy of George Mason University’s Fourth Estate, I saw right beneath my op-ed, “Why is Marxism Still Cool?” that they published a counter op-ed titled, “Why Marxism is Actually Cool”.
They could’ve presented it a bit more coherently had they told me there was going to be a counter op-ed because then we could’ve coordinated the topic. I addressed mine from a philosophic angle whereas the counter piece addressed it from an economics angle. So, the comparison is useless from the vantage point of both.
Regardless, I’ve decided to answer the counter op-ed here. As far as I can tell, it was typed on some sort of evil capitalistic device like a laptop or desktop computer.
“In this age of the Fight for $15, #MeToo movement and general dissatisfaction with the status quo, many young people are beginning to turn to leftist ideologies like Marxism, socialism and social democracy. In fact, favorability for socialism is on the rise in a major way.”
It is true that many young people under 30 favor socialism to a great extent, but people over 30 and overwhelmingly over 65, who have established financial affluence, are more likely to support a capitalistic system of some sort. Why the appeal to young people then? College students are largely supported by their parents. In the case of GMU, a commuter school in Northern Virginia, most students still live at home.
The Northern Virginia-DC area is also the most affluent area of the country, adding to the understandability of why they’d support “free” things. Much like NOVA Marxist kids, Karl Marx was financially supported by a pimp named Frederich Engels. Essentially, they have yet to experience the wonders of living paycheck-to-paycheck while being smashed over the head with crippling taxes. This is also an appeal to authority – a logical fallacy. So what if lots of people are seduced by it?
“So why are these theories, which commonly attributed to authoritarian regimes such as Stalin’s Soviet Russia so popular in the ultra-capitalist United States?”
People attribute Stalin and communism to Marxism because that’s correct. Our author doesn’t provide an argument as to why it isn’t linked to Stalin though. Stalin did support the German Socialist Workers’ Party when it came to economics. An alias for the Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The bottom line is that the only difference between communism and socialism is leadership. Communism is rule by dictator and socialism is rule by dictators (i.e., the community). It should be said though, that Marxism isn’t always connected to socialism.
“…so popular in the ultra-capitalist United States?”
What kind of “ultra-capitalist” society spends itself out of debt?
“Because socialism is a philosophy, not a government.”
Find me one bank robber that doesn’t operate off of some form of philosophy. Find me one social worker that doesn’t operate off of some sort of philosophy. Find me one economic system that doesn’t operate off of some sort of philosophy. The concept of government, by itself, does not denote a philosophic system. However, it’s unavoidable to find a governing body that does not operate off of some sort of philosophical base.
“Socialism is a response to what Karl Marx called the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Those contradictions are happening before our very eyes: prisons engage in slave labor to help companies cut profit under the premise of increasing production efficiency. Working class Americans suffer under inhumane conditions working multiple jobs to support their families, while CEOs benefit from their necessary toils. Students suffer under thousands in debt just to get a job that may not ever pay that debt off. Patients receive excellent healthcare that permanently cripples their family after they are forced to pay thousands for price-gouged pharmaceuticals. Corporations obsess over making money off of the fossil fuel industry at the literal expense of the planet.”
This is nothing but an appeal to emotion – another logical fallacy. All the writer does is list troubles without providing an argument as to how they tie to capitalism. Words and phrases, you are to unquestionably hate, are then flung in all directions as buzzwords like “CEOs”, “profit”, and “thousands in debt” try to induce your flow of tears. Whatever the supposed “contradictions of capitalism” are, they are not mentioned.
What do any of these grievances have to do with capitalism? Let’s take a look.
Prisoners and slave labor: Capitalism (i.e., free choice) and slavery could not be anymore unrelated. Slavery dictates that you sacrifice your life to the state and the needs of others. You are not allowed to retain what you have produced and others have a claim on your life. Capitalism is the antithesis of slavery. It recognizes you as an individual, it protects you from the force of others, and allows you to pursue your interests while retaining what you gain. Slavery (i.e., socialism and communism) makes it so only your neighbor benefits at your expense. With capitalism both sides benefit via trade. As for prison labor, historically, communism and socialism have always created labor camps so I’m surprised this wasn’t used as a selling point for socialism, but instead somehow as a detraction of capitalism.
Working class: You cannot even begin to recount how well-off, not only the United States is, but how the entire world is today. According to Harvard sociologist Steven Pinker, less than 10% of the world lives in extreme poverty compared to three decades ago when 30% of the world lived in extreme poverty. We also work fewer hours than ever before (see prior link). As for the nonsense pertaining to people working two jobs, this is part of something that Alexandria Occasional-Cortex recently said which has been debunked. People even work less jobs today than they did in the 90s. The average person today has a better quality of life than John D. Rockefeller did. Of course, always thrown out of the working class picture are CEOs as if their companies popped out of thin air. Marxists always fail to see that they are a working class in their own right and have every right to retain the wealth they’ve honestly created as much as their workers do.
Student debt: The educational system in this country is dominated by the public sector. Nationally, five percent of students are in for-profit schools. I’d also like to wish anybody good luck paying off their student debt with a degree in Feminist Basketweaving Studies.
Healthcare: Medicine is largely run by the government – a socialist and communist solution. If it was privatized it would most likely be affordable since there’d be less red tape. According to a study by the American Enterprise Institute, private industries produce things that are lower cost whereas government regulated industries tend to produce more expensive necessities. Plus, if greedy healthcare companies want to make money why would they make their customers go bankrupt?
Fossil Fuels: Industrialists have contributed to the Hockey Stick of Human Prosperity due to their decades long capitalization on rational technological advances. Once again, if their goal is money I don’t think a wise industrialist would want to kill off their main source of revenue.
It would’ve been great, too, for the author to give other examples of capitalism like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates’ charity, prosperity, food, and cars.
“Marx’s proposal in devising his brand of socialism, while complex, ultimately boils down to one simple principle: the only way to ensure our best interests as individuals us to serve our interests as a community.”
Along with the unexplained “contradictions of capitalism”, the author should’ve addressed the contradictions of Marx’s ideas like the one above. You cannot have an individual interest if you are to turn yourself over to the interests of others. Only an individual can have individual interests. A collective is not related to individualism. People, just by virtue of existing, are going to have different interests. Who are you to tell them to CONFORM to the interests and needs of others? The author gives no argument as to why this Marxist idea is good.
“Marx expresses this in a quote from “The Communist Manifesto,” in which he states, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
This may be the most evil credo ever uttered in human history. When taken personally it is suicide. Just because I need to be Michael Jordan does not mean Jordan should have to have his legs cut off in order to make me a tall basketball player. Needing to be a great bass player like Paul McCartney does not justify you cutting off his fingers nor will finger redistribution ever make you as talented as him. A need, in Marxism, is a violent claim on somebody’s life. Why is this Marxist tenet good? Once again, no explanation is given.
This one is my favorite:
“Socialism is not exclusive to naive college students and sheltered philosophy professors. Albert Einstein wrote on the benefits of a socialist society. Martin Luther King, Jr. supported a working class movement under his own brand of socialism. Even George Orwell, one of history’s greatest critics of Soviet communism, was himself a socialist.”
This is one long plea to authority. Who cares what the above individuals think on economics? They can be wrong and inconsistent. You cannot bring anything of value to an argument if I say, “Capitalism is great” and then you respond with, “Martin Luther King, Jr. said otherwise. Point refuted.” It’s so typical of communists and socialists to look to leaders without questioning them. I am glad, though, that the writer is admitting to students being naive and professors being sheltered. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
“Marxism and socialism are not synonymous to communism.”
You are 100% correct. Marx had nothing to do with communism. Groucho was too busy making movies with his brothers. Karl Marx, on the other hand, had everything in the world to do with communism. Yes, communism and socialism are not related just like murder and suicide are not related. And for the umpteenth time, the author does not explain how they are not related.
“Leftist politics is a massive spectrum that contains myriad diverse ideologues and ideas that have different pros and cons.”
I agree. There are sensible leftists who do not wish to eat their own children in order to survive. What did my original piece even have to do with left and right? It’s about objective thinking not whose political party is better.
“But for the young American leftist, one thing is certain: capitalism only damages our society and our world.”
But for the young American Marxist who abides to 171-year old failed ideas one thing is certain: basic economics is not a requirement.
The cartoon:
In order to unpack the hierarchy depicted in the cartoon, you have to understand what economic premises socialism, communism (referred to as S&C here on out), and capitalism rest upon. S&C erroneously state that wealth is created by brute force courtesy of muscles and seizing. Capitalism correctly recognizes that wealth is only made possible by the use of the mind and not by seizing. Was the iPhone made by seizing the means of production or was it made by creative thinking? Is the engine of a Tesla made by muscles or is it made by the mind? Most importantly, who did Jobs and Musk kill to get their ideas from? Was it people that didn’t have the ideas to begin with?
Since S&C believe that wealth is made at the expense of others and not by free thought, they are led to think that any existing hierarchy is the result of oppression and not by the natural choice and the competition of others. They view capitalism as a static hierarchy of winners and losers (or “pyramid” as the cartoon does) and not as system where the only thing that matters is whether or not you get to keep the wealth you’ve honestly produced. They view humans as animals. They think of it as a form of Social Darwinism where the weak go extinct not realizing that so long as you’re allowed to think and produce you will always be able to survive.
In a free society, the hierarchy always changes and it welcomes changes. The man who bred horses dominated the hierarchy before the man who produced cars came along. The man who created appendectomies via cutting a person’s stomach open dominated this medical practice before laser surgery came along. Elvis Presley dominated the music industry before The Beatles came along. The “1%” always changes in a free society.
If you want a static system where the tyrants at the top determine who gets what and literally kills you off for achieving more than your peers look no further than S&C. In a way, S&C supporters aren’t too different than what they claim to be against since their solution is to seize wealth much like they claim capitalism does. The only difference is that they view their version of seizing to be just. It’s basic authoritarian thinking; my side is most just when holding the gun.
Final thoughts:
With regards to the entire counter op-ed, there isn’t one point in it that explains why socialism is good. Instead, it is just an argument against “capitalism”. I don’t think you could even confidentially call this a counter op-ed because it’s not countering ANYTHING.
It’s also ironic that the Fourth Estate and/or author “seized” images produced by others, whereas I produced my own image for my piece.
First Amendment Safe Space 