Paul Marks
The Soviet Union was not a perfect socialist country – for example about 3% of farm land was owned by individuals (the other 97% was socialist – either state owned or owned by “collectives” – i.e. the state by another name).
However, the idea that the Soviet Union was not really socialist or that Karl Marx was a nice man who supported human freedom is nonsense. The “Red Prussian” was not a nice man – he was a natural dictator type, and he been around he would just as bad as “Lenin”, “Stalin”, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other socialist leaders who murdered more than a 100 million people in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism” and many other works).
Saying that “Lenin” and co misinterpreted Karl Marx and socialism would have been less evil had Karl still been about is just wrong. Compulsory collectivism is evil because it is compulsory collectivism – period.
One might as well quote that old liar Arthur S. that Andrew Jackson was some sort of leftist who wanted to “restrain the business community” – accept that Kevin Carson actually does cite Arthur Schlesinger Jr as if he was some sort objective seeker after truth. General note – someone who will claim that Jefferson and Jackson were in the same tradition as Franklin Roosevelt and L.B.J. (the central claim of that old liar Arthur S.) will claim ANYTHING – to cite him as an authority on history is an error (to put the matter mildly). Arthur S. even managed to write a book on Jack Kennedy without mentioning that he was murdered by a Marxist – instead Arthur S. implies that evil conservative Dallas was collectively to blame (the evil conservative city that had a big spending Democrat Mayor at the time……).
The Democrats of the early 19th century, at least the “Barnburners” of New York State (Andrew Jackson’s right hand man Martin Van Buren – and those who supported O.K.) understood the central economic lesson of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism.
The central economic lesson of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (which I have been explaining to Kevin for many years – and he keeps pretending that he does not understand) is that the long term economic interests of “the rich” and “the poor” are THE SAME. The long term economic interests of “small business” and “big business” are also THE SAME. And the long term economic interests of “employers” and “employees” are also THE SAME.
The “long term harmony of economic interests” is the central economic lesson of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism – if you do not understand that you really ought to go away, and not come back till you do understand it.
After all Kevin if you sincerely do not understand (if you are not just pretending not to understand) then you are as dumb as a box of rocks – so dumb you probably think the Soviet Union, China under Mao (and so on) were not “really” Marxist and Karl Marx was some sort of nice guy.
As for business enterprises who support the Henry Clay agenda of taxes on imports, a Central Bank, and internal improvements…….
Well that is not sensible – for a government that is big enough to give you that stuff, is big enough to take all your own stuff away from.
You start off with Henry Clay and end up with Franklin Roosevelt (or Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy) who will push your taxes into outer space (although even under both Woodrow Wilson and Herbert “The Forgotten Progressive” Hoover taxes were pushed to absurd levels – the idea that Herbert Hoover was some sort of conservative is just flat wrong) and government policies changing (in arbitrary fashion) from day to day, on the basis of the whims of Franklin Roosevelt (or his brain tumour, or his advisers – with all the internal disputes between various factions of those “advisers”). No one, other than a complete moron, would claim that Franklin Roosevelt was a good President for “the rich” or “business”.
But even in the time of Henry Clay more business enterprises (including more big ones) would have been hurt by his ideas than would have helped by them. Henry Clay was not “representing a class interest” or some-such Marxist B.S. – Henry Clay was just wrong (period). After all his main economic opponent was not a Red Flag (or Black Flag) waving idiot – the main economic opponent of Henry Clay was Andrew Jackson’s right hand man Martin Van Buren (a New York banker) and the newspapers and other such associated with Martin Van Buren. O.K. did not oppose the policies of Henry Clay because he hated “business” – he opposed the policies of Henry Clay because he, quite rightly, thought that this sort of government was against the long term interests of business (the interests of “business” being the interests of civil society generally).
And what of Jefferson Davis (a few years later) – were business enterprises in the Confederacy helped by his massive “Progressive” income taxes? How about all his regulations? Which were far more extreme than those of the Union side in the Civil War and ended up (as such government regulations do in the end) bankrupting Southern industry and communications and leading to a government take over. Lincoln was bad enough (a Henry Clay man in his economic ideas) – but Jefferson Davis and co were even worse. This can even be seen in fiat money inflation – both sides indulged in it (to pay for the struggle) – but the Confederacy did it more, and the result was utter ruination, not for a certain “class”, ruination for just about everybody.
And the central claim of the Confederates that slavery was not fundamentally different from the so called “wage slavery” of northern factory workers, was a flat out lie.
Again only a liar or a utter fool could pretend that free labour in a factory (or anywhere else) is the same as “slavery” or “serfdom”. Apologists for Jefferson Davis and co need not detain us.
Whilst I am here………
The idea of “corporations” is NOT the creation of the state – both in Canon Law (Church law was often used for business dealings) and private Law Merchant the idea of limited liability in commercial matters for bodies corporate (corporations) goes back, at least, to the Middle Ages. No one should be forced to trade with corporations (if you want to buy your insurance at a high price from an individual – go right ahead), but no one should be prevented from trading with limited liability corporations either.
Nor were the economies of scale developed by such people as J. Wedgewood (the anti slavery pottery man) during the industrial revolution somehow the creation of the state – or somehow wrong.
Nor is the wealth of such people as Jon Huntsman (senior) today somehow wrong.
Any more than the landed wealth of the Marquis of Rockingham or the Duke of Portland in the 18th century was somehow wrong.
Sure Jon Huntsman (senior) was born poor, and the 18th century Marquis of Rockingham and the Duke of Portland were born rich – but that does NOT mean that the wealth of the latter was not legitimate.
Nor is it the case that the collectivists would just rob “corporations” (such as churches and so on) – the followers of the Red Flag and the followers of the Black Flag would rob anyone.
And they certainly do not care if someone was born rich (like the “boo-hiss” brothers Koch) or born poor (like Jon Huntsman senior) – all the followers of the Red Flag and the followers of the Black Flag care about is finding stuff, finding stuff to steal.
They do not care if it is owned by a corporation or an individual, or if it is owned by someone who was born rich or born poor.
By the way…..
G. Kolko was not telling the truth when he implied that early 20th century Progressive regulations benefitted business more by reducing competition than the costs the regs imposed cost business.
Even a century ago (when regulation was far less than it is today) regulations were a net cost – even the largest business enterprises were hurt more than they were helped. And nor should this be a surprise – after all people like “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (and the German trained Richard Ely who was the mentor of BOTH men) were hardly friends of “big business”.
The late Murray Rothbard was clearly in error to cite G. Kolko – although, unlike Kevin, Rothbard’s intentions were good (Murray Rothbard wanted to win over people to the libertarian cause – he just did not care whether the arguments he used were always accurate, ends-justify-the-means thing, Kevin does not win people over to the cause of “big business” – quite the contrary).
In reality the position economics of Murray Rothbard was not really different from the position of Martin Van Buren – Rothbard did not really believe that government regulations were for the long term good of most “big business” operations, but he hoped he could get leftists to oppose big government by implying that big government was for the benefit of big business (after all leftists hate “big business”). The idea that the left could be won over did not work – as the leftists just respond by changing the name of big government to “the people” or some such.
It is much like an “easy money” policy.
A leftist (for the want of a better word) may agree that the Federal Reserve sysem is not a good idea – but this does NOT mean they come to support hard money (Rothbard style gold-as-money) and lending only from Real Savings – quite the contrary. The leftists (again for the want of a better word) will just say that printing money and spending it would be a good thing – if only “the people” were doing it rather than the “big business” Federal Reserve.
As for the position now – “how the real world is”.
In most Western nations regulations are crushing – they do not benefit “big business”, they are massive burden on business small and big (vastly outweighing any possible benefit from reducing competition).
And in most Western nations government spending takes up almost half the entire economy.
This money is mostly spent on the ever expanding Welfare States. These Welfare States were not set up to benefit Big Business, and they were not created in response to problems caused by “capitalism” – they are ideological creations, just as the regulations to “protect the consumer” and “protect the worker” are mainly ideological.
The basic problem of the modern world is not “capitalism” or “big business corporations” or “the rich” – the basic problem of the modern world is the ideology of statism. The ideology of evil known as “Social Justice”.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Trying again (comments under the old WordPress account I got logged into somehow keep getting caught in spam).
I guess this needs to be taken from the top, one or two howlers at a time.
Mr. Marks, you seem to be claiming that Kevin Carson has said:
1) that the Soviet Union was not really socialist; and
2) that Karl Marx was a nice man who supported human freedom
When or where did he say those things?
“Jack Kennedy… was murdered by a Marxist”
… allegedly.
Hello Thomas – actually, in the post that this comment was a reply to, Kevin claimed that various Eastern Europeans denounced the Soviet system as not proper Marxism – and implied that he agreed with them.
They may well have done exactly what Kevin says they did (I am not disputing that – after all I did not know every anti Soviet group in Eastern Europe) – what I am saying is that they (and Kevin – if he really does agree with them) were wrong.
Kevin’s also wrong about “capitalism” and the problems of the modern world – as I pointed out in my other comments on the thread.
No doubt I left out a lot in this comment – nothing on railways and roads for example (but then in his post Kevin did not repeat his false claim that large scale economies of scale was dependent on state intervention in transport), but I was in a hurry this morning.
I had an appointment (a high noon appointment no less) to see the restored monuments in Walkton Church – and that village is almost an hour’s walk from here.
I was pleased by the work that has been done – and by the people there.
Pity about all the “development” that is going to hit them……
But “mitigate, mitigate, mitigate”.
Actually there is stuff about that development that Kevin and myself might agree on – if I thought his official position (pro free market – but anti subsidies) was his real position, which I do not.
Lost Leonardo.
At least two bullets were from the marine (there is, of course, no such thing as an “ex” marine – “always faithful” means till violent or natural death) who had turned Red (turned traitor).
As for the one in the back of the head.
Well the only conspiracy theory I have ever been impressed by is not really a conspiracy theory at all.
You see the Secret Service people got drunk in a strip club the night before.
Nothing changes – the Secret Service still attracts people like that (as recent scandals show).
The only Secret Service agent not to go to the strip club was given the AR15 rifle in the morning (he seemed the logical choice – as he was not drunk). After all Jack Kennedy himself was on so many drugs (medical and other) that his escort were almost clean compared to him.
However, the one sober man (the one with the AR15 rifle) had no training with it at all – it was “hey you – take this”.
When Mr Oswald opened fire the man in the car behind President Kennedy raised that rifle to return fire – and ALLEGEDLY accidentally put a bullet in President Kennedy’s head.
He was not called to give evidence at the Warren Commission – everyone else spoke, but the man with the rifle was not called.
The rifle was withdrawn from Secret Service teams straight afterwards.
Perhaps there is nothing to the theory (nothing at all) – but it is the only “fringe” theory that has ever stood up to even mild questioning.
Anyways…….
President Kennedy was dying of Addison’s – one reason he was on so many drugs (although not all the drugs were medical).
When Johnson went around telling people (and he told virtually everyone – and their cat). that “I am going to be President soon” he did NOT mean he was going to have Kennedy killed.
Johnson did not have to do that – Kennedy was falling apart.
Had Kennedy someone had managed to live till the election of November 1964 no amount of drugs could have covered up the fact that he was falling apart.
He would have lost – no matter who the Republican candidate was.
So Kennedy would have been pushed into either retiring before then – or at least not running again.
Of course had Richard Nixon not had a fever during the debate in 1960 (the real reason he was sweating and looked so uncomfortable) no amount of ballot rigging in Chicago and Texas would have got the Kennedy the Presidency anyway.
Still Nixon was so awful (a Progressive, even if “Progressive Lite”, – he even had a picture of “Teddy” Roosevelt on his wall as a boy), that Jack Kennedy may have actually been the less bad choice in 1960.
Mr. Marks,
So, 729 words later, the answer to “where or when did Kevin Carson say the things you imply he said?” seems to be “he didn’t.” Or at least “if he did, I can’t or won’t tell you where or when.”
I see that this article is labeled a “response,” and in your reply to me you seem to be saying that it’s a response to some particular article of Carson’s. I would find it immensely helpful if someone could tell me which article of Carson’s you’re responding to.
Absent such a reference, I guess the next question is “when and where has Carson ever cited Schlesinger as an objective seeker after truth?” To the best of my knowledge, Carson has never displayed anything other than contempt for Schlesinger.
By the way my favourite election rigging story is allegedly how Johnson got in the U.S. Senate.
Extra votes to tip the balance is a standard thing – often done by Dems in places such as Washington State or Minnesota.
But, allegedly, Johnson (against a fellow Democrat – in the Primary) had the extra votes done in alphabetical order.
Alphabetical order – I hope that story is true (but I have never checked).
That attitude would be “not only am I going to rig this – I am going to rig it in such as way that everyone knows I rigged it, and YOU CAN NOT TOUCH ME”.
I do not know he did it – but it is a cool story.
And as Johnson (unlike Kennedy – who was actually a fairly conservative Democrat) was a bleeping New Dealer in every crooked bone in his body, I think him capable of it.
Paul,
You make a lot of interesting points, many of which I would dispute in various subtle ways… though I am reluctant to get into said topic on a libertarian forum… I was simply saying that you cannot convict a dead man… therefore, innocent until proven guilty… if the history books said “alleged assassin”…
Nixon – the President of “liberal” nightmares apparently – also abandoned Bretton-Woods and was in no small part responsible for the MASSIVE credit expansion that has occurred ever since that time.
Paul,
Yes, exactly. Unfortunately when the government allows itself to become corrupt, businessmen have to negotiate some sort of route between abandoning their principles or long-term interests (or both) and abandoning their businesses.
That is not to say that all businessmen would be honest and honourable if only the government were; but rather that it’s hard to stay in business when the laws are stacked against business. This does two things: It makes “regulatory capture” an important goal for those who want either worldly success or social or political power; and it fosters contempt for the law in society generally.
And when business is hamstrung, so that it must become corrupt if it is to remain business, society loses. Surely that is fairly obvious.
Thomas – I never put this up as a post, it was a comment (it got put up as post by someone else). As far as I know the Kevin article is still on this site somewhere.
Anyway I find the subjects that Kevin points to far more interesting that what he says about them – this was not always so, I used to go through Kevin articles line by line. But these days I am more interested in the general subjects.
Lost Leonardo – do not forget the police officer Mr Oswald murdered. No one seems to care about Officer J.D. Tippit – no more than people seem to care about Officer Wilson. Had Michael Brown managed to kill Officer Wilson (as he was trying to) it would not have five seconds on the national news.
“Blue Lives” do not matter. Instead we get a lot of B.S. from Mr Holder (and Mr Obama – “oppression” no less) about the “racist” police department in Ferguson, based on who they give traffic tickets to (and other such).
Julie
Julie – but it is a mistake.
Take all those “clever” insurance company managers who thought they had got a good deal from Mr Obama.
That deal is being unpicked – bit by bit (what can they do?).
And the “clever” drug company bosses will get the same betrayal (and why not?).
Comcast backed Obama in both 2008 and 2012 – and they still got “Net Neutrality” thrust down their throats.
The “lets make a deal” mentality does not work.
Because there is nothing you can do if the government breaks the deal – which it will.
And by making the deal with the government in the first place you have cut the ground from under your own feet – you have no principled place to stand.
As so often the “practical” people are not really practical.
The real practical thing to do is to oppose the intervention from the start.
Sure you may lose (but you may win – after all Obamacare passed by one vote).
But if you do lose at least (when it all goes horribly wrong) you can say “I warned you – I said this would happen”.
The medical insurance companies and the drug companies (and so on) can not say anything – because they (mostly) got into bed with the government, they “made a deal”.
Mistake – big mistake.
Perfectly true, Paul, but I stand by what I wrote, which in fact is part of the essential argument that Bradley and Donway wrote in their paper demolishing Kolko’s history.
Who the f-ck is Kevin Carson? Where in your article, Paul Marks, is a link to the original article to which you are responding? It’s meaningless unless these writing conventions are followed. I ask b/c it is devastating news—nay, infuriating— to find anyone on a libertarian site saying something remotely exculpatory about the greatest evil in history: Communism. The Nazis were cuddly in comparison. Ditto ISIS, etc.