The Immoral Roots of Anti-Capitalism

Intellectuals, historians, and economists of free market persuasion have asked themselves, "Why have the historians been predominantly anti-capitalist? Why have they sought to make capitalism appear to be such an evil system when it is responsible for so much good?" Indeed, the history of economic thought is full of intellectuals that have had a selective bias against the achievements of capitalism.

While reading a book on this subject, I noticed that the writers who were trying to defend capitalism offered little argument that completely discredited the profusion of anti-capitalist viewpoints. In fact, there was almost a condescending, apologetic attitude toward men whose words were but crass virulent hatred of capitalism. The book, “Capitalism and the Historians”, although excellent in many ways, is weak in one major area: It does not adequately answer the question, "Why do historians distort the facts about capitalism's development?"

None of the distinguished historians whose papers appear in the book attribute to anti-capitalist historians an evil intent. T. S. Ashton refers to "pessimistic views of the effect of industrial change" and says such historians "are not informed by any glimmering of economic sense." Another problem for Ashton is that certain commentators preferred political interpretation of an interventionist nature. He notes also the threading of "facts on a Marxist string." And finally, "The truth is (as Professor Koebner has said) that neither Marx nor Sombart (nor, for that matter, Adam Smith) had any idea of the real nature of what we call the Industrial Revolution. They overstressed the part played by science and had no conception of an economic system that develops spontaneously without the help of either the state or the philosopher. It is, however, the stress on the capitalist spirit that has, I think, done most harm, for, from being a phrase suggesting a mental or emotional attitude, it has become an impersonal, super-human force. It is no longer men and women, exercising free choice, who effect change, but capitalism or the spirit of capitalism. 'Capitalism,' says Schumpeter, 'develops rationality.' 'Capitalism exalts the monetary unit.' 'Capitalism produced the mental attitude of modern science.' 'Modern pacificism, modern international morality, modern feminism, are products of capitalism.”

Whatever this is, it is certainly not economic history. It has introduced a new mysticism into the recounting of plain facts. "What should we do with a candidate who purports to explain why the limited-liability company came into being in England in the 1850's with the following words? I quote literally from the scripture: 'Individualism was forced to give way to laissez faire as the development of capitalism found the early emergent stage of entrepreneurial capitalism a hindrance to that rational expansive development which is the very ethos of capitalism.'" Professor Ashton's solution? "But I hold strongly that the future of the subject lies in closer cooperation with the work of economists and that phrases which perhaps served a purpose a generation ago should now be discarded."

L. M. Hacker, in his address, "Anticapitalist Bias of American History," holds that it was not so much Marxist influence that led to the anti-capitalist bias in America, but American political development, primarily, "the recurring struggle between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideas--that is, the creation and maintenance of a weak or a strong central authority; the intrusion of moral questions into the American public debates--slavery, women's rights, prohibition."

This explanation does not answer the question of why the supposed solutions to these matters involved an anti-capitalist bias. Why was capitalism always seen as morally wrong?

Bertrand De Jouvenal, in his "The Treatment of Capitalism by Continental Intellectuals," holds that the Western intelligensia dislike capitalism because of "a grafting of strong feeling onto a weak stem of positive knowledge." He then proceeds to discuss some ways that capitalism is "unpleasant to the intellectuals," and moves to a suggestion that social science may tell us, if it decides to look at such an issue, why the intellectuals act and think as they do. His basic argument is that the peculiar position in society held by the intellectuals could account for an anti-capitalist bias. The "market value of the intellectual's output is far below factor output."

And so it goes. You can read on and on, finding in the defenders of capitalism what appears to be an unwillingness to define the one factor, the one idea that gives rise to the hatred of capitalism. Most of the reasons given in the book are true, in a sense, and to a point, but they do not go far enough. The defenders of capitalism do not yet sufficiently understand the nature of capitalism and this makes it impossible for them to provide for it what its enemies have in profusion: a moral argument.

If one studies the arguments of capitalism's enemies throughout history, one will find, almost to a man, that they hold one philosophical viewpoint, specifically one moral premise: altruism, the idea that it is man’s duty to sacrifice for others. They sense, more than do the defenders of capitalism, that a capitalist economic system represents, for most men, an alien code and view of man. Compared to the defenders of capitalism, they know that capitalism is based on selfishness, not charity. They know that if capitalism were to remain pure, their moral code of ritualistic self-sacrifice, as well as their view of man as a helpless pawn under history's or God's or the government’s control, would hold no influence over men. If capitalism were allowed to be capitalism, in other words, if the defenders of capitalism were to defend man’s right to be moral, to live for his own sake, to be responsible for himself, proudly, passionately, with conviction and pride, the philosophies of Kant, Marx, Hegel and a host of modern offshoots, would be swept away. Men would no longer be intrigued by the ineffable, the vague and undefined, and would instead insist that ideas have a real value, a real application to their individual lives.

Once Americans begin to stand for their right to be moral; once they begin to fight against the idea that their role in society is to be dutiful sacrificial victims; once they realize that the motive and goal of the detractors of capitalism is nothing more than the destruction of freedom, which means the destruction of their right to live by means of their independent minds; once men begin to demand that government get out of their lives, only then will the progressives become part of the disastrous past that they have created.

That the defenders of capitalism do not know this is proof of the success that the altruist morality has had in keeping from men the fact that a rational, moral code of ethics is possible. The defenders of capitalism are, for the most part, altruists themselves (see the conservatives). They adhere to the ideas of altruistic self-sacrifice--so much so that it blinds them to the true nature of capitalism and forces them into the position of being condescending but cheery opponents of men who are neither condescending nor cheery in their hatred of freedom and capitalism.

Altruism is not the moral base of a capitalist system. We can’t have a successful capitalist system if we just want to help people. Capitalism requires an independent mind. We must want men to be successful, we must know that it requires work, we must honor the independent mind and we must give credit where credit is due. Altruism requires a mind ruled by the edicts of superiors and it tells man that to be moral he only needs to follow the easiest path of all: the road that preaches sacrifice as virtue.

Capitalism requires integrity. Altruism requires that man fight his bodily nature with his spiritual self-sacrificial code. Capitalism requires honesty. Altruism requires that one deceive one's own mind. Capitalism requires justice. Altruism requires that justice be suspended among men, that men do society's work by being unjust towards those who refuse to sacrifice. Capitalism requires productiveness. Altruism requires that the productive are not as important as those who give away the confiscated money of the productive. Capitalism requires pride. Altruism requires both humility in some men and pretentiousness in others. Capitalism requires principled action based on abstract concepts that are tied to reality. Altruism requires Kantian mush, vague, disconnected equivocation, switching contexts, unintelligibility, one reality that is inaccessible by the mind and a second mental universe that is incompetent. Capitalism is a challenge to the individual and it demands his best effort. Altruism demands only envy and hatred of capitalism.

Certainly, the detractors of capitalism have a massive blind spot. Their altruistic premises color their interpretation of historical facts to such a degree that they believe reality conforms to their views. But the defenders of capitalism have a more devastating yet hardly noticed, blind spot. Their evasion of the evil of altruism has kept them from discovering that capitalism is the moral system--the system to be advocated with fire and vigor and enthusiasm. It is, after all, freedom among men that makes capitalism successful. It is the possibility of moral living that makes capitalism the moral system.

It is the idea that no man should live as a serf that liberated our country and made it the most successful in the history of the planet. Freedom is what makes America a better place to live. Freedom is what makes Americans the happiest and most tolerant people on this earth. Freedom is what makes us the envy of the world. Freedom is what makes us hated, not because we are decadent, but because, as a nation, we give every citizen the possibility of creating his own happiness in his own way. We are the first nation since the Greeks that made moral living possible on earth.

The mortal enemies of freedom are those who believe that men are moral only when they perform ritual sacrifice. Freedom is the enemy of the man who believes deep down in the core of his being that if men were free, he would not be able to survive.

Are most intellectuals and economists biased against capitalism? Yes, as long as they hold that altruistic self-sacrifice is the proper morality for man and for an economic system. Are they right? No, and no amount of condescending argument that says capitalism will achieve the goals of altruists will work against intellectuals who hate themselves and men. No amount of cheery debate against people that want slavery for men will enable capitalism to win. The haters of capitalism must be exposed as haters of men and haters of freedom.

We must fight for capitalism based upon man’s right to be free, his right to property, his right to speak and think, and his right to happiness. Consequences, such as the fact that capitalism creates the most vibrant economy, are irrelevant. Capitalism is moral because only free men can be moral.

Why Van Jones Had to Go

One thing is certain, Van Jones was a political liability. But that is not why he should have resigned. Van Jones had to go because he is a communist and communists can do no good for this country. In fact, communists can do no good for any country. Communist philosophy is wrong in every respect, philosophically, economically, Constitutionally, historically, and most importantly, on the facts. There is no possible way that a person operating on the principles of Karl Marx could accomplish anything of value for a country.

First of all, in spite of what Marx said, Marxism is wrong because it is predominantly an economic theory rather than a theory of man. No economic theory can trump the Constitution. That document is not a document of economics; it is a philosophical and political document that defends individual rights. As such, hierarchically, it trumps any economic theory.

Marxism starts with a theory of historical development that sees class and economics as fundamental factors in history rather than man and his rights. The critique of capitalism that Marxism advances is wrong historically, philosophically and economically. For instance, a Marxist can claim to understand everything about you by means of identifying the economic class to which you belong. He assumes, under this premise, that you will always seek to defend your class and if you are a capitalist, you have no place in the future; you must be eliminated. Anyone who has this position is blind to reality. This view is completely untenable, it is discriminatory and it is a clear indication that the Marxist is going to make many bad decisions.

The Marxist critique of capitalism is supported by several intellectual tricks; one is called polylogism, the idea that every economic class has its own logic that cannot be understood by people of other classes. This view destroys intellectual debate and assigns some classes to the category of being wrong. The other trick is called historical materialism that assigns the class of “the rich” to a historical role that is supposedly being dissolved by history in favor of “the proletariat” that represents socialism or communism. On this basis alone, how could a Marxist create a “green jobs” program that accomplishes anything lasting or meaningful? At the outset, he is prejudiced about people with skills, training and genius because they are categorically on the wrong side of history.

The Marxist critique destroys intellectual intercourse between rich and poor and opens the door for some of the most vile lies and moral outrage by the Marxists. The intent of this anti-capitalist outrage is to ensure that “workers” (capitalists) who create affluence are not allowed a voice in society and to justify their exploitation or exclusion in society.

There are only two kinds of economic creatures that have a place in a “green jobs” program; oligarchs and racial minorities.

Oligarchs: Only companies that use government to capture markets can participate. These tend to be less productive companies that want to use government to overcome competitive weakness due to poor management or the adoption of obsolete technologies (Remember, the morning before this bill was proposed, an amendment was added to it that earmarked a large portion of new tax revenues for companies that would invest in green jobs specifically in the Midwest. Who are these companies? They are all companies that are involved in research and development of green technology, some of them financed by oligarchs from Russia, who expect to receive large infusions of investment capital from the Stimulus Package and government grants. None of these companies expect to compete in the open market. In fact, they will be propped up by the government that has a stake in their success. The Obama administration is hoping (beyond hope) that these new "green" companies will mitigate the negative impact of the Cap and Trade bill on coal and oil companies. The administration appears to be blind to the very real possibility that not only will this bill destroy those industries, but it will replace those companies with organizations providing less efficient energy alternatives).

Racial Minorities: A Marxist as the “green jobs” master, who has openly stated that capitalism is about white people poisoning black neighborhoods and white destruction of native tribes will operate, not like a capitalist with any eye on efficiency and profitability, but like a commissar. He will command that hiring decisions be based on social goals rather than job skills. He will ensure, specifically, that few competent white people will be given new "green" jobs. This will institutionalize racism as government policy and force these new green companies to hire people who will, in many cases, be less productive union employees with guaranteed jobs. Using Marxist theory, those people who are the "proletariat", meaning racial minorities, will be given preference for those jobs...which amounts to a re-distribution of jobs from coal and oil industry employees, who will not find jobs in the new eco-economy, to previously "excluded" groups. These will be permanent jobs paid for out of tax payer money.

A program like Cap and Trade can only collapse - forcing the government to backtrack on hundreds of unworkable policies in order to "fix" the myriad problems it has created, not to mention the resulting economic devastation and unemployment.

Although Marxists claim to be “scientific” due to their belief that religion is the opium of the masses; they are very religious in some major ways. First, their allegiance to science is really pseudo-science, a fake science that seeks to validate the “historical factors” that they have accepted on faith. For a Marxist, as a polylogist, all truth is “proletarian” while anything that comes from a true inductive process is “bourgeois” meaning capitalist and unworthy of consideration. Under this view, Van Jones would have been focused on science provided by "scientists" living off of government grants, people with a vested interest in bad global science; people who will act to solve a non-problem that has not been scientifically proven - in the name of science. If you don't understand the harm of this policy, you don't realize that real science, when it is free, discards false notions as soon as the facts disprove them. Our government will cling to global warming "science" forever because it will help them achieve "social" goals, not economic goals.

Yet, even though most Marxists reject religion, they have accepted a basic tenet of religion that “man is his brother’s keeper”; that it is man’s duty to sacrifice for the sake of others. This premise creates some of the most vicious cruelty that any political ideology has ever mustered. If you are a capitalist, in this view, you are a thief (exploitation theory), a liar (polylogism) and a throwback to the past (historical process). The solution for the Marxists is brutal repression and re-distribution. But, as has always been the case when Marxists rule a country, the money re-distributed becomes a shrinking pot that shrivels to nothing and throws the nation into chronic poverty.

This means that Marxist principles result in catastrophe for man. Classism is wrong because it seeks to identify an individual by means of whether he is part of a group. Marxists claim to be against racism of any kind but when they say that white people are the scourge of mankind, they don’t consider that kind of statement to be racist. Yet, the result of this view is the same regardless of whether the excluded group is made up of Jews or white people: social decline and genocide. By this view, you can make any individual into an enemy and justify his destruction. You can do it to Jews, to white people, to Hispanics, to businesspeople or any group that you decide is ripe for hatred. Mr. Jones' statements about white people expose the cruelty and exclusion that is to come from his view of history.

An even worse aspect of Marxism is the contention that Marxism is the only truth; that it can’t be denied, that a defender of individual rights is an enemy of the people, a cruel heartless fascist intent on subjugating mankind and stopping the advance of the next historical phase that belongs inexorably to socialism. Marxists insist that true freedom consists of sacrificing for the collective. Marxists do not question this lie; they act on it ruthlessly, making themselves into some of the most vicious man-hating advocates for the so-called “good” in history.

To justify their brutal repressions, Marxists have another argument to support their altruistic premises. This is called “exploitation theory”. It holds that any form of profit from land, money interest, labor, etc., is theft. For the Marxist, economic value comes only from the labor that is being expended on the capitalist’s property and this means that the capitalist, the owner of machines, factories, housing units, farms, etc. is nothing more than a robber. According to this view, the capitalist exploits the people he hires to work on his property and, because he expends no labor, he has no right to the surplus value created by the worker.

This doctrine created two of the most brutal and hateful dictatorships in human history. It justified the expropriation of every factory in Russia and China and the brutal suppression, murders and other forms of discrimination against the people who once owned these properties. Armed with exploitation theory, Marxists have historically destroyed the very people they need to create a working economy. These wrong headed policies have left Marxist societies without the benefit of the organizing skills and management genius needed to create affluence and prosperity. The result was a society that routinely operated according to the whims of ignorant savages like Stalin and Mao; as well as the decisions of "commissars" who routinely disregarded the principles of supply and demand, creating in the process massive waste, fraud and corruption. All of this in order to ensure that no worker was exploited.

Exploitation theory is a lie. Labor is a factor in production but there are other more important factors. These include capital accumulation (savings), management skills, efficient resource allocation, production planning, technology planning, business process planning and implementation, leadership, effective market planning, logistics, not to mention having the foresight to create and offer the best products for the best price; all of these are skills necessary for efficient production; all of which add value and justify the profits created by capitalists. Property in the hands of efficient managers is what creates value. The recognition of property rights, the very enemy of Marxist theorists, is the single most important factor in the creation of a society that works.

Yet, intellectuals like Van Jones praise themselves with romanticized notions about their being righteous defenders of downtrodden minorities who have been victimized by capitalism, forgetting, in the blindness of fanatics, that the supposed downtrodden also have a right to be left alone, that they have rights, that they should not be required to attend group meetings every night to be indoctrinated and evaluated; that they have a right to the results of their labor but no right to the results of the labor of property owners, and that forcing them to give up most of their production for the collective is immoral. Marxist intellectuals, for some reason, are blind to the fact that the real oppressors of men, the real slave drivers, the real imperialists and militarists, are Marxists.

We have a basic choice going forward as a nation. Should we have an expanding role for government, creating ever larger welfare programs for rich and poor alike? Should we accept the premises of Marxist ideologies while we wonder why things are getting worse and why our “bosses” don’t give a damn about us? Or should we roll all these nearly endless rights violations back and allow private capital and voluntary interests to predominate?

I question why we are having this debate at all. Marxism has been such a miserable failure throughout history that even a Marxist should know better...if there is any honesty left in the world. In fact, we’ve already answered these questions in our founding documents. The answer to Marxist ideas is individual and property rights. Van Jones? You've got to be kidding.