Before I post this blog, I want to inform the reader that I speak only for myself. Do not take my views as, necessarily, the views of many people in the Tea Party Movement.
Recently, there have been several media attacks against Tea Party organizations. I have explained the basis for these attacks in my blogs entitled “Understanding Obama”, “The Altruism Bomb” and “Whose Shilling for Dictatorship?” to name a few. Finally, some American citizens have stated openly that President Obama is a socialist. More and more intelligent people are saying it. This is progress for the fight against slavery. But, in my opinion, the truth is that he is destroying the capitalist system and replacing it with a fascist dictatorship.
One point the left keeps making is that it represents the height of bigotry to connect Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. They claim that only a bigot would make such a connection. I say we are in the “smiley face” stage of the coming dictatorship, when the leader must make us think he is really just a nice person who loves his country and wants to make a better world. This is the stage when the killer disarms his intended victim so he can strike.
Leftists all over the country are howling at people who think that the Obama administration is moving us toward a fascist state. Yet, I’m certain that many responsible people have been thinking similar thoughts and they wonder at what Dr. Leonard Peikoff called “The Ominous Parallels” between post-Weimar Germany and our country in his famous book.
You should wonder, like me, why, even today, we have a tremendous curiosity about Nazi Germany. Thousands of documentaries have been made about Hitler and the Nazis during the 65 years since we defeated them in World War II. We ask ourselves, how did this madman manage to fool one of the most advanced and sophisticated cultures in history? Remember, we are an advanced and sophisticated culture too. How did he get away with his blind barbarous murder of innocents? Is this sort of thing in our future? Why didn’t anyone stop him as he gained more and more power? No one seems able to stop President Obama while his policies increase government power. How was he able to just take over and rule by decree? President Obama seems to be making lots of unilateral rulings too. Why did the Germans allow Hitler to violate the rule of law? Why are we allowing President Obama to violate the rule of law?
We tell ourselves that we want to understand what caused Hitler’s ascendancy so we don’t repeat the same mistakes. Dr. Leonard Peikoff has told us about the basic premises of the Nazis and how they exploited the cultured philosophy of the Germans. He tells us of their view of morality, that they considered proper action to be based in sacrifice. He tells us of their collectivism, and how they tied German morality to sacrifice for the collective. He tells us of the Nazi’s aversion for capitalism and how they used anti-capitalism in order to denigrate, isolate and murder the Jews. And he tells us of the various ideas and principles that enabled the Nazis to argue for dictatorship. In fact, the book is peppered with quotes from Hitler and leading intellectuals of the age that sound remarkably similar to the ideas being broadcast today in the media.
Today’s intellectual and political establishment, like that of the Nazis, practices a grim pragmatism that sees all issues and events as merely about politics. They tell us that those who question the administration just hate the President. They tell us that in our time, in our country, it is not possible for an American leader to be a fascist.
While the Nazi’s preached sacrifice as the highest ideal, President Obama speaks of shared sacrifice as the highest ideal. While the Nazi’s preached anti-capitalism and denigrated successful Jewish businessmen and intellectuals, President Obama preaches anti-capitalism and promises to make the rich pay more taxes (and he is thought to favor the Palestinians and Iranians over the Jews). While the Nazis created emergencies in order to justify their pursuit of dictatorial power, President Obama proclaims numerous emergencies that justify immediate action without the support of law or the Constitution. While the Nazis sought out large industrial enterprises to help build its massive army, President Obama seeks out large industrial enterprises to fight a "collective" war against carbon emissions. While the Nazis used propaganda to justify their power grabs, President Obama uses a compliant and propagandistic media to keep the facts from reaching the public. While the Nazis sought to enlist and educate youth in Nazi principles, President Obama uses the educational system to teach young people that the Democrats are cool and the Republicans are in the pay of capitalists. And he suggests that young people should choose to serve (sacrifice) for the sake of the collective rather than pursue productive careers.
The left tells us, through countless articles and blogs, that using the “fascist” charge is a vicious political slur. They want to ensure that the American people do not discover that the term is really a description of a sinister political and economic system that has destroyed several societies. Fascism is a political and economic system that allows private property but determines, through government, how that property will be used. They don’t want you to know that fascism is the actual system that we have in our nation today. They are afraid that if you recognized it, you will reject them wholesale.
And they don’t want you to predict the future. If you truly knew the direction in which they are taking us you will see the coming nightmare. You see, fascism requires an evil enemy…the group or person who is to be made responsible for all the “emergencies” that the fascists promise to fix. Fascism needs you to hate this enemy and see him as someone who must be crushed (as the Nazis crushed the Jews). The enemy who the fascists offer up for you will be the successful, the rich and the intelligent. They need you to hate this person so they (the fascists) can make you into slaves. And since this enemy is really the individual who provides value in society, you are destined to starve when he is destroyed. This is the future they don’t want you to predict.
We are in the midst of a new McCarthy era. Once again, the fighters for freedom are being denigrated and disenfranchised in order to protect the advance of tyranny. Today, they call us bigots and racists in order to silence our voices. Today, in the midst of the one administration that has gained unprecedented control over our lives, they tell us everything is getting better, nothing really has changed and it is a crime to say that our leaders are fascists.
This effort to silence and discredit the Tea Party protesters has nothing to do with black and white, Democrat or Republican; it is an effort to bury the individual rights for which the protesters stand. It is an effort to establish a fascist dictatorship.
There I’ve said it and I won’t take it back.
Does it take a bigot to see the truth today?
Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Go to Cuba, Mr. Gochez
As a Tea Party protester, I've come to the protests because of many years of study of such subjects as economics, history and philosophy. Since I was a young man, I considered it my responsibility to understand the world. My goal was to find truth, to understand ideas, to be informed, and more importantly, to connect ideas to their real life consequences. I’ve studied philosophers, from Jesus to Augustine, to Aquinas, to Locke and with stops at Plato, Aristotle, Rand, Hegel, Hume and Kant to name a few. I’ve tried to understand the good from the evil, the practical from the impractical and the honest from the dishonest.
This is why, now as an older American, it pains me to hear the following words from a young American history teacher:
“I want to start by saying that the young man who spoke a little while ago is one of my students and I am so proud because I know our people have strong leaders for years and years to come. (Name of the organization) a revolutionary Mexican organization here, we understand what the (name) are saying, you’re right, this is not just about Mexico, this is about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism but we know that all of that is happening in the context that where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico and the message that we bring is that we want to bring a little more of a revolutionary context to this. Why is it that these people, these shrill, racist white people want to keep us out of this country; it is not because simply the color of our skin; it’s not because they simply want to exploit us; let me tell you why. Because on this planet right now is six billion people at the forefront of the revolutionary movement is the Raza. We have a long history and example of our commandante, Fidel Castro Ruz, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, we have Brazil, Equador, you name it, we have nine, nine, left of center governments in Latin America right now and they know something that one young Argentine called Che Guevarra said, it’s called the domino theory, and he knew that every single country would go revolutionary, one after the other after the other after the other. So what do they fear? They know that every single country; they know that we no longer will fall to these lies called borders, we know that a Salvadorian, that a Guatemalan, a Nicaraguan and a Mexicano; there’s no damn difference, we are all one people, so with that in mind, we see ourselves, all of us here, as the northern front of a Latin American Revolutionary movement. There are more than 40 million of our people north of the Rio Grande. That means to them that’s 40 million potential revolutionaries north of the border inside the belly of the beast, so when you think about why they want to keep us of all people out, that’s why, because they know that we now know the truth, they know that we are now raza, we’re professionals, we’re educators, we are revolutionary students. What does that mean? We are not just a regular culture any more, we are a culture of revolutionary spirit, and that’s the fear. So with that being said, I want to leave you with this, as a revolutionary, and with revolutionary context, let’s be clear about one thing, our enemy is not the minutemen, quote me, our enemy is not the minutemen, because the minutemen are not the ones who have killed over 4,600 people at those borders, our enemy is the same enemy that Hugo Chavez has, our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Africa poor, our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Asia poor, our enemy is capitalism and imperialism. If we are serious about making change, if you are serious about making change, let me tell you, the struggle will go on for many more years after we leave U.C.L.A.. Reading a book or writing a book, or teaching a class, that is not part of the movement. What you do 24 hours a day as a professional revolutionary, that is what will lead our people to liberation.”
This short speech, which is a famous youTube video, represents many of the basic questions that I struggled with as a young man. During my later teens, a widely publicized movement sought to convince me that its view of the world was correct. This movement also preached revolution against capitalism and it saw America as an imperialist nation bent on subjugating the world. These people rioted against the Vietnam War; some of them threw bombs and sought violence; but I realized that they were communist agitators using the War as a way of harming our country and destroying our freedoms. Their descendents are now in power, and they continue to poison the minds of young people.
The teacher who spoke the above words is Ron Gochez. He is a history teacher at LA Unified School District. In another video shot by Fox News he declares openly his advocacy of socialist revolution but claimed that he did not favor violent revolution. With assurances, he informs us that he never lets his revolutionary ideas interfere with his mandate as a teacher. Yet, I seriously doubt this claim. If you watch the video you see a couple of young students at this protest.
I think it is more than hypocritical for a history teacher in our time to claim that he can be objective when his “private” beliefs betray a serious lack of objectivity, a misunderstanding of history and a bias against the very system that feeds him.
In fact, Mr. Gochez is doing serious damage to his students. Even during the speech quoted above, he takes pride in one of his students who had spoken before him, saying “that the young man who spoke a little while ago is one of my students and I am so proud because I know our people have strong leaders for years and years to come.”
The problem for radical communist-leaning agitators like Mr. Gochez is that most Americans are decidedly anti-communist and anti-revolutionary; so much so that, in many circles, radicals have had to “mainstream” their radicalism and mimic “liberal” ideas in order to stay viable. In fact, even today, if you advocate revolution against the American system, most Americans will not listen to you. Do Mr. Gochez’ students know that radical communists in their communities are pretending to be mainstream and that their real goal is not to better the lives and educations of young hispanic people but to indoctrinate them against capitalism?
Probably not, which means they also do not know that radicals have sought to create enclaves that support radical views in their neighborhoods. What this means is that radical communist leaders like Mr. Gochez want to positively dispose young people, not to the truth, but to radical ideas that destroy their ability to do commerce and prosper. By raising young people to be "professional" revolutionaries, these communist teachers are making young people poor, then pointing to the poverty as the fault of capitalism. This, I submit, is a travesty. Where are the parents of these children?
Sometimes when I travel abroad, I encounter people with anti-capitalist views. I also meet honest people who want to improve their societies but don’t know how to do it. My travels provide me with a unique opportunity to understand how the same principles at play in America operate in a different context.
Those with anti-capitalist views that I’ve encountered tend to look to government in order to survive. Many of them are very wealthy but also protected in guarded communities against the poverty that exists just a few blocks from them. They devise business schemes that will make them wealthy; then they turn to government to ensure they receive subsidies, seed money, special privileges and business contracts. They will talk about the history of their country, point to the poverty, the corruption of government officials and then angrily rant against capitalism without a clear statement of just how capitalism did it, much less what their definition of capitalism happens to be. Their hatred is so strong that if you tried to defend capitalism in their presence you would be considered an advocate of slavery and jack boot fascism.
Yet, they know nothing about economics. To them capitalism is not an economic system, it is everything corrupt that has ever happened in their society. I think this is how their thinking goes: Those people who succeed in life have to be aggressive and predatory in order to acquire riches. They have to control natural resources, buy government officials, create monopolies, use slave labor and create favorable laws. Since capitalism is about success at any cost, every corrupt act is capitalism. This view, based on the false idea that self-interest drives people to brutality and plunder, misses the point that capitalism is not a government, it is not a country operating according to mercantilist principles or manifest destiny; it is not a military junta or a family of oligarchs controlling the natural resources of a country. Capitalism is nothing more than freedom for every individual and that means every capitalist transaction is based on voluntary exchange. Any effort to control capitalism by governments is coercion against individual citizens, a violation of their individual rights and an effort to control the decisions that they would otherwise make on their own.
It is important to understand this because many young people, particularly in hispanic communities, have been fed a lie. They are told that capitalism is a system of exploitation where capitalists seek to make fortunes off of workers and consumers and that this process makes everyone but the captitalists poor. They are taught that the opposing principles at work today are force (capitalism) vs. liberty (socialism) which is a reversal of the actual opposing principles. They are taught that self-interest (capitalism) is inferior to self-sacrifice and charity (welfare statism). They are told that our government should fight selfish interests in order to protect the people, that the government should throttle these selfish interests, take their money and give it to the people. They tell young people that every enemy is a capitalist group such as doctors, drug companies, oil companies, bankers, financial professionals, etc. The good people, according to these lies are people like Hugo Chavez, who are supposedly out to destroy this system of self-interest and install a system based on the good of the people (democracy).
What they miss is that they are being duped by people who want to use the arguments above to gain power. Among those are revolutionaries, community organizers, labor unions, politicians and highly placed financial experts who are using their power to plunder the wealth created by the capitalists, not for the sake of the poor, but for the sake of power, not to make a better society, but to establish the principle of re-distribution on such a massive scale that they can launder money (unseen) straight into their own pockets.
The real division in most countries is between individuals (including honest business people) who are increasingly taxed and impoverished versus government officials and oligarchs who use the government (and anti-capitalist propaganda) in order to control the citizens. The real division is between capitalism and liberty versus tyranny and dictatorship. If you've swallowed the poison that people like Hugo Chavez are really on the side of the people, you are being duped by your teachers and fed a lie. What they've missed is that in order for government to do good for "the people" it should leave the people alone to solve their own problems not interfere in those problems. Our nation was founded on this principle.
Those who want to create a better society in many South American countries, the truly honest people, have no idea about what it would take to make things better and they feel helpless, even if they are in government. Why don’t they know how to make things better? They too believe that capitalism is the system that has created so much evil. They’ve been taught that the imperialism of capitalist nations has created their poverty. They’ve been taught that capitalism is corrupt and that self-interest is evil. They have no idea what they should support because anything that is proposed must also compromise with the oligarchs who control the government and natural resources. The last thing they want to support is capitalism because they might be killed by the revolutionaries in their neighborhoods; most likely these revolutionaries are people financed by Castro or Chavez.
I once had a discussion with a foreign journalist from a South American country. I pointed out that in reading about his country, the key question that seemed to perplex most intellectuals was how to balance the forces in society among government bureaucrats who were associated with corruption and the private industrial sector that was regulated by these bureaucrats. It was common to find a debate between government control and private business; about how to maintain a balance so corruption could not get in the way of progress and jobs for the poor. Government regulations and constraints were always seen as necessary in order to protect the people from capitalist corruption, yet the protectors were also corrupt. It seemed to me that all of the negatives in this society were caused by government but that no one had the courage to say so…for fear of his life or job. I told this person that this balancing act was going on even in the United States. I pointed out that it was an aspect of fascism and that he should try to understand the nature of this system if he wanted to understand what was happening in his country. In particular, I suggested Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand as good reading. He had never heard of these people but he told me he would look them up.
This particular society was within the geographic circle around Venezuela. He told me that many people in his country did not like Chavez but others loved him and wanted to turn their government into a copy of what Chavez was building in Venezuela. Remember that Ron Gochez above also praised Chavez. You have to ask yourself how much Chavez money is going into LA neighborhoods to help support the “pro-Chavez” hypocrisy.
Another discussion, with a Venezuelan business person, somehow got around to President Chavez. I listened for a few minutes while he told me about the great things Chavez was doing in Venezuela and how he supported everything. I responded that I disliked Chavez because he was a dictator, whereupon this very same person spent the next half hour describing in detail the horrors of Chavez' rule and how he was ruining the country. His emotion and anger gushed out of him like a flood and I could tell which was his real opinion. He thanked me for giving him an opportunity to express how he really felt about Chavez.
Anti-capitalist views around the world betray a major thinking error that philosopher Ayn Rand sought to address in her writing. Self-interest is considered so evil in our cultural context that anything done for the sake of it is worthy of ridicule and anger. In some countries this view against self-interest is virulent and many people have never discovered that it is deficient and harmful. Everywhere, the ideas of pride, rational thinking, reason, anything created by the individual mind, are considered the cause of bad results, so much so that few people today would dare to claim self-interest as a motive. Rather, they go out of their way to claim that everything they do is for others. The result in economic decline is visible in the lives and neighborhoods of these people. If you are raised to have no pride in your work, if you think that doing anything for your own sake is evil, how can you have the courage and the self-confidence necessary to be successful? I agree with Rand that the self is the basic unit of humanity and that all good proceeds from the individual mind, that rational self-interest does not involve harming others; in fact, the practice of harming others to obtain values is not in anyone’s self-interest.
The Founding Fathers, when they created our country, did something unique. For the first time in history, they declared that man had a right to the pursuit of happiness. This ensured that the government could not interfere in men’s lives. Though few would admit it, this idea was the spark that unleashed self-interest in our society and liberated men to offer in trade their best products in return for the best products of other men. This idea created a society that was not zero-sum, as most societies of the past were. The result was a convergence of millions of men each pursuing happiness, each living according to their self-interest and offering value for value. Contrary to the Marxist view, our system was a system of liberation because it respected the freedom of man to do as he wished and it did not allow men to exploit one another.
The result of our system was civility, a government of laws not of men, ever-improving products, new products, new ideas, economies of scale, cleaner, tastier food, lower prices and jobs, jobs, jobs. The entire society became elevated and everyone saw his life as always getting better. People were happier, cleaner, more self-confident, more opinionated, and like typical Americans, always smiling because life had a surprise behind every corner. As time went by, even the ability to go anywhere one wanted, at a rapid pace, make business deals over broader areas, create massive industries that improved infrastructure, cleaned the environment and helped people live longer lives became commonplace. This was America and it was great because of freedom. Marx never invented a better more successful idea.
Exploitation, which is the hallmark of dictatorship, became impossible in our country because the government was prohibited from interfering in the rights and decisions of the people. Societies like communism and fascism, such as that of Hugo Chavez, became obsolete…until Kant. Kant, who was becoming influential in Europe, began teaching that man could not understand reality, that he had no means for connecting to reality and that his only way of acting was to invoke an imperative to duty. Kant, and others like him, including Hegel, provided the foundation for Marx who preached that the best way to make people do their “duty” was to create a government that acted on behalf of the people; that would direct people about what to do for the sake of the whole. This was the anti-happiness society based on service to others and its basic premise was that the best should take care of the least. Only conflict, resentment and anger could be the result of such a system.
Using misapplied economic principles, Marx acknowledged the power of capitalism to create machines and abundance but wanted government to own and manage the machines. He denigrated capitalists because, presumably they acted only on the basis of what was good for them rather than for the worker or society. For communists, capitalism was wasteful and needed a good dose of economic planning so the needs of the people could be met rather than the lust of the capitalists. Marx preached an overthrow of the capitalist system in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat. With Marx, every idea became its opposite, freedom became slavery, free speech became praising the leaders, voluntary action became joining the labor union, and free choice became doing as the national economic plan required. Morality became acquiesence and immorality became wanting anything for your own private desires; and finally, abundance and plenty became poverty in the form of products that no one wanted and scarcity of the things people wanted.
Marx wrongly saw economic transactions as zero-sum. In other words, when the capitalist made a trade, according to Marx, he gained and you lost. In this circumstance, it was thought, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This idea, broadcast millions of times and taught to our children in schools, was a lie. Capitalism actually elevated everyone who participated because the products offered by capitalists actually made peoples’ lives better. And the decider on value was not a government bureaucrat but the individual who evaluated products based upon what was good for him as an individual. In capitalism everyone improved his/her life and poverty was eliminated for the vast majority.
Those influenced by Marx sought to undermine capitalism in order to take over the machines, under the false premise that government can take over the power of production, eliminate the capitalist, and create a new abundance based on what is good for ‘the people’ rather than the evil capitalist. According to this theory, government could become the de facto capitalist and institute collectivism without any damage to the system, without any harm to the principle of supply and demand, or the pricing system, or the banking system, or production, or the happiness of the people. To convince people that capitalism was the problem, their critique of history under capitalism accused the capitalist system of being for slavery, imperialism, exploitation, child labor, the breakup of the family, insanity, alienation and poverty - all hallmarks of the pre-capitalist and communist systems. Every conceivable lie that could be told by these propagandists was told about capitalism. The result: the communist system under "enlightened" leadership and control, brought about the plundering of capital investment(which leads to economic depression and decaying factories and cities), the disruption of supply and demand, the inefficiency of government price controls, the inefficiency of the banking system, less production, less happiness among the people.
And now, after decades of decimation by revolutionary ideas, Mr. Gochez, apparently unaware of this history, praises, in the company of young hispanics, one of the most brutal collectivist thugs (Chavez) on the planet, calls him a liberator and seeks to do to South and North America what Lenin and Stalin did to Russia, through a new revolution in a society full of capitalist goods and self-confident, independent people. Does he really think that hispanic people are that stupid?
Apparently, Mr. Gochez has wiped out of his mind the city of Berlin where people braved guns, barbed wire and concrete in order to escape to the evil capitalist system. I have been to this city (in 1990) and compared the squalor of communist East Berlin with the vibrancy of capitalist West Berlin. Perhaps Mr. Gochez should bring to class some of these stories and pictures of Soviet guards shooting at East German people escaping the revolution that he loves. Then let's see for whom his students will cheer, the escaping citizens seeking freedom or the shooting soldiers trying to protect the revolution.
Or how about stories I was told in Germany about families in the West who allowed relatives from the East to visit their homes. One thing they noticed is how poorly groomed their eastern relatives were, how unkempt, uncut and unshaved were the men and women. Many examples are known that one day these West German professionals returned to their homes to find them burglarized with all possessions gone. Their communist relatives, in many cases, had the courtesy to leave a note behind that said something to the effect, "We've had nothing all these years. Now it is time for us to have something." Perhaps Mr. Gochez can tell his students about this history. There really is plenty of material about this revolution.
Or, to keep it interesting for the kids, perhaps Mr. Gochez can tell his students about "The Moonwalk Revolution" in 1988 during a Michael Jackson concert held in West Berlin, when the Stasi (East German Secret Police) brutalized East German teenagers for screaming "the wall must go, the wall must go" and hauled them off to Stasi headquarters for interrogation. Why would the good communist revolutionaries do that to teenagers, Mr. Gochez? Is this the kind of future you promise to your young students?
What few communists and progressives realized is that this scheme, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, was unworkable. Collectivism required the sacrifice of the able to the unable. This principle caused decline because hard working people soon realized that the system was another form of slavery. The harder they worked, the less they received. So, typically, as happened in the Soviet Union and Communist China, they produced less. The poor, on the other hand, knew that they would be taken care of and so had no incentive to produce. With the decline in production, no one thought to question the immorality of the system (who could possibly question sacrifice for society?). If sacrifice did not work, someone was to blame. As always with collectivism, the able aren't working hard enough or the capitalists are sabotaging the system, there are enemy spies everywhere; someone must be purged, imprisoned or killed. The communist system which promised to liberate the people and make them affluent becomes millions of dead bodies. Yet, even the pictures of the past that prove the unworkability of communism, the pictures of dead starving peasants or concentration camps or firing squads, are not convincing for Mr. Gochez. History means nothing as long as you can blame it on capitalism or manifest destiny or imperialism. So much for honesty in the world of history teachers.
A society based on re-distribution, such as communism or socialism, can never succeed because it does not acknowledge a person’s right to act in his own self-interest. With the heavy antipathy toward self-interest due to Kant’s influence, as well as that of religion, any society (such as Venezuela or Cuba for instance) that descends to re-distribution as foundational, must necessarily have an enemy in the United States, the symbol of the pursuit of happiness. That’s why all socialists accuse the United States of imperialism, war mongering, theft of resources and exploitation. Chavez hates the United States because he cannot exist without a scapegoat, without some other nation to blame for his own mistakes. The lies of Chavez are really about creating cover for his power grab not about some evil done by the USA. No one should be confused about that. What’s your excuse Mr. Gochez?
Notice also the blindness on the part of the ruling progressives today who are nothing more than closet Marxists. Government officials, convinced that the best principle of a proper government is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, expect that every time this principle is implied in an action of government, it will necessarily produce positive results. They are blind to the history which has shown that this principle has never created abundance. To them government-imposed altruistic sacrifice is a magic formula. Needless to say, they are always disappointed when reality will not comply and things actually get worse. A case in point is the near trillion dollar Stimulus Package of 2009 that produced not one single new job.
Capitalism has nothing to do with exploitation and imperialism. It has nothing to do with concentration camps and jackboots or manifest destiny. On the other hand, Chavez, Castro, Morales (and their enabler Ron Gochez) and those other dominos are about one thing, separating people from their values, destroying their values, destroying their freedoms and their future for the sake of one thing: their thuggish life-long power over helpless victims. Why do they hate capitalism? Free people don’t want to live under dictatorship. Free people can think for themselves. Free people know when they are being lied to. Free people have a strong enough government to squash the cockroaches of socialism.
Mr. Gochez, with the great life he lives in America, as a respected school teacher in LA, for some reason has missed all this. You have to wonder why. Certainly, someone in his past decided to escape the dirt roads, the dirt floors, the tin roofs and the abject poverty found in Mexico. These people did not come to America to escape capitalist exploitation. They voted for America and capitalism. Why not Mr. Gochez? I’m sure he’d say that he’s seen the evils of capitalism, much like other anti-capitalists who don’t have a clue about history. I’d say he’s intellectually blind.
People like Mr. Gochez are blind dupes of the enemies of man and human progress. They are dupes of Marx and today’s equivalent of Hitler in his various disguises. Because he cannot think for himself, Mr. Gochez encourages young people in LA to admire criminals like Chavez and Castro. Ask the Cubans about Mr. Castro. Try praising Castro in a Miami school district and see how many pitchforks come after you.
You have to ask yourself; why would an American school teacher think he is doing good by praising thugs and murderers to knowledge-hungry school children? Why would a history teacher ignore the devastation, poverty, concentration camps, murder and the outright raping of the people that will take place if Latin America goes communist? What convinces him that everything will become peaceful in a communist Latin America when history has shown that communism always degenerates into conflict and theft, murder and plunder…by the very communist revolutionaries that espouse liberation?
Where is this history teacher getting his history? Check his reading list.
As for other young hispanics north of the border, Mr. Gochez, that you encourage to be "professional" revolutionaries, I'd like to ask where they are getting their money. Given the lack of historical accuracy in your views, what productive value are they providing in society that earns them the status of "professional"? In this country of free people, a "professional" usually brings enough value to his job that he pays his own way. Are your "professional" revolutionaries making their own money or are they being paid by tax payer dollars? Or, just perhaps, is it possible they are being provided for by Hugo Chavez? You, and they, must be scamming someone in order to be able to wear new clothes, get haircuts, drive a car, eat at restaurants and preach to innocent young people your "unprofessional" and nonsensical lies. No honest person would pay you to dishonor and insult this wonderful country.
And, believe me, you are dreaming if you think a majority of hispanics will run to your corrupt cause. Many of our ancestors came to this country for freedom; many of us fought for freedom against people who said exactly the same lies as your buddies, Chavez, Castro and Morales. We will never fight for your revolution. We will, however, fight against it and, proudly, we will fight for capitalism and freedom.
You can go to Cuba for all I care.
This is why, now as an older American, it pains me to hear the following words from a young American history teacher:
“I want to start by saying that the young man who spoke a little while ago is one of my students and I am so proud because I know our people have strong leaders for years and years to come. (Name of the organization) a revolutionary Mexican organization here, we understand what the (name) are saying, you’re right, this is not just about Mexico, this is about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism but we know that all of that is happening in the context that where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico and the message that we bring is that we want to bring a little more of a revolutionary context to this. Why is it that these people, these shrill, racist white people want to keep us out of this country; it is not because simply the color of our skin; it’s not because they simply want to exploit us; let me tell you why. Because on this planet right now is six billion people at the forefront of the revolutionary movement is the Raza. We have a long history and example of our commandante, Fidel Castro Ruz, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, we have Brazil, Equador, you name it, we have nine, nine, left of center governments in Latin America right now and they know something that one young Argentine called Che Guevarra said, it’s called the domino theory, and he knew that every single country would go revolutionary, one after the other after the other after the other. So what do they fear? They know that every single country; they know that we no longer will fall to these lies called borders, we know that a Salvadorian, that a Guatemalan, a Nicaraguan and a Mexicano; there’s no damn difference, we are all one people, so with that in mind, we see ourselves, all of us here, as the northern front of a Latin American Revolutionary movement. There are more than 40 million of our people north of the Rio Grande. That means to them that’s 40 million potential revolutionaries north of the border inside the belly of the beast, so when you think about why they want to keep us of all people out, that’s why, because they know that we now know the truth, they know that we are now raza, we’re professionals, we’re educators, we are revolutionary students. What does that mean? We are not just a regular culture any more, we are a culture of revolutionary spirit, and that’s the fear. So with that being said, I want to leave you with this, as a revolutionary, and with revolutionary context, let’s be clear about one thing, our enemy is not the minutemen, quote me, our enemy is not the minutemen, because the minutemen are not the ones who have killed over 4,600 people at those borders, our enemy is the same enemy that Hugo Chavez has, our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Africa poor, our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Asia poor, our enemy is capitalism and imperialism. If we are serious about making change, if you are serious about making change, let me tell you, the struggle will go on for many more years after we leave U.C.L.A.. Reading a book or writing a book, or teaching a class, that is not part of the movement. What you do 24 hours a day as a professional revolutionary, that is what will lead our people to liberation.”
This short speech, which is a famous youTube video, represents many of the basic questions that I struggled with as a young man. During my later teens, a widely publicized movement sought to convince me that its view of the world was correct. This movement also preached revolution against capitalism and it saw America as an imperialist nation bent on subjugating the world. These people rioted against the Vietnam War; some of them threw bombs and sought violence; but I realized that they were communist agitators using the War as a way of harming our country and destroying our freedoms. Their descendents are now in power, and they continue to poison the minds of young people.
The teacher who spoke the above words is Ron Gochez. He is a history teacher at LA Unified School District. In another video shot by Fox News he declares openly his advocacy of socialist revolution but claimed that he did not favor violent revolution. With assurances, he informs us that he never lets his revolutionary ideas interfere with his mandate as a teacher. Yet, I seriously doubt this claim. If you watch the video you see a couple of young students at this protest.
I think it is more than hypocritical for a history teacher in our time to claim that he can be objective when his “private” beliefs betray a serious lack of objectivity, a misunderstanding of history and a bias against the very system that feeds him.
In fact, Mr. Gochez is doing serious damage to his students. Even during the speech quoted above, he takes pride in one of his students who had spoken before him, saying “that the young man who spoke a little while ago is one of my students and I am so proud because I know our people have strong leaders for years and years to come.”
The problem for radical communist-leaning agitators like Mr. Gochez is that most Americans are decidedly anti-communist and anti-revolutionary; so much so that, in many circles, radicals have had to “mainstream” their radicalism and mimic “liberal” ideas in order to stay viable. In fact, even today, if you advocate revolution against the American system, most Americans will not listen to you. Do Mr. Gochez’ students know that radical communists in their communities are pretending to be mainstream and that their real goal is not to better the lives and educations of young hispanic people but to indoctrinate them against capitalism?
Probably not, which means they also do not know that radicals have sought to create enclaves that support radical views in their neighborhoods. What this means is that radical communist leaders like Mr. Gochez want to positively dispose young people, not to the truth, but to radical ideas that destroy their ability to do commerce and prosper. By raising young people to be "professional" revolutionaries, these communist teachers are making young people poor, then pointing to the poverty as the fault of capitalism. This, I submit, is a travesty. Where are the parents of these children?
Sometimes when I travel abroad, I encounter people with anti-capitalist views. I also meet honest people who want to improve their societies but don’t know how to do it. My travels provide me with a unique opportunity to understand how the same principles at play in America operate in a different context.
Those with anti-capitalist views that I’ve encountered tend to look to government in order to survive. Many of them are very wealthy but also protected in guarded communities against the poverty that exists just a few blocks from them. They devise business schemes that will make them wealthy; then they turn to government to ensure they receive subsidies, seed money, special privileges and business contracts. They will talk about the history of their country, point to the poverty, the corruption of government officials and then angrily rant against capitalism without a clear statement of just how capitalism did it, much less what their definition of capitalism happens to be. Their hatred is so strong that if you tried to defend capitalism in their presence you would be considered an advocate of slavery and jack boot fascism.
Yet, they know nothing about economics. To them capitalism is not an economic system, it is everything corrupt that has ever happened in their society. I think this is how their thinking goes: Those people who succeed in life have to be aggressive and predatory in order to acquire riches. They have to control natural resources, buy government officials, create monopolies, use slave labor and create favorable laws. Since capitalism is about success at any cost, every corrupt act is capitalism. This view, based on the false idea that self-interest drives people to brutality and plunder, misses the point that capitalism is not a government, it is not a country operating according to mercantilist principles or manifest destiny; it is not a military junta or a family of oligarchs controlling the natural resources of a country. Capitalism is nothing more than freedom for every individual and that means every capitalist transaction is based on voluntary exchange. Any effort to control capitalism by governments is coercion against individual citizens, a violation of their individual rights and an effort to control the decisions that they would otherwise make on their own.
It is important to understand this because many young people, particularly in hispanic communities, have been fed a lie. They are told that capitalism is a system of exploitation where capitalists seek to make fortunes off of workers and consumers and that this process makes everyone but the captitalists poor. They are taught that the opposing principles at work today are force (capitalism) vs. liberty (socialism) which is a reversal of the actual opposing principles. They are taught that self-interest (capitalism) is inferior to self-sacrifice and charity (welfare statism). They are told that our government should fight selfish interests in order to protect the people, that the government should throttle these selfish interests, take their money and give it to the people. They tell young people that every enemy is a capitalist group such as doctors, drug companies, oil companies, bankers, financial professionals, etc. The good people, according to these lies are people like Hugo Chavez, who are supposedly out to destroy this system of self-interest and install a system based on the good of the people (democracy).
What they miss is that they are being duped by people who want to use the arguments above to gain power. Among those are revolutionaries, community organizers, labor unions, politicians and highly placed financial experts who are using their power to plunder the wealth created by the capitalists, not for the sake of the poor, but for the sake of power, not to make a better society, but to establish the principle of re-distribution on such a massive scale that they can launder money (unseen) straight into their own pockets.
The real division in most countries is between individuals (including honest business people) who are increasingly taxed and impoverished versus government officials and oligarchs who use the government (and anti-capitalist propaganda) in order to control the citizens. The real division is between capitalism and liberty versus tyranny and dictatorship. If you've swallowed the poison that people like Hugo Chavez are really on the side of the people, you are being duped by your teachers and fed a lie. What they've missed is that in order for government to do good for "the people" it should leave the people alone to solve their own problems not interfere in those problems. Our nation was founded on this principle.
Those who want to create a better society in many South American countries, the truly honest people, have no idea about what it would take to make things better and they feel helpless, even if they are in government. Why don’t they know how to make things better? They too believe that capitalism is the system that has created so much evil. They’ve been taught that the imperialism of capitalist nations has created their poverty. They’ve been taught that capitalism is corrupt and that self-interest is evil. They have no idea what they should support because anything that is proposed must also compromise with the oligarchs who control the government and natural resources. The last thing they want to support is capitalism because they might be killed by the revolutionaries in their neighborhoods; most likely these revolutionaries are people financed by Castro or Chavez.
I once had a discussion with a foreign journalist from a South American country. I pointed out that in reading about his country, the key question that seemed to perplex most intellectuals was how to balance the forces in society among government bureaucrats who were associated with corruption and the private industrial sector that was regulated by these bureaucrats. It was common to find a debate between government control and private business; about how to maintain a balance so corruption could not get in the way of progress and jobs for the poor. Government regulations and constraints were always seen as necessary in order to protect the people from capitalist corruption, yet the protectors were also corrupt. It seemed to me that all of the negatives in this society were caused by government but that no one had the courage to say so…for fear of his life or job. I told this person that this balancing act was going on even in the United States. I pointed out that it was an aspect of fascism and that he should try to understand the nature of this system if he wanted to understand what was happening in his country. In particular, I suggested Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand as good reading. He had never heard of these people but he told me he would look them up.
This particular society was within the geographic circle around Venezuela. He told me that many people in his country did not like Chavez but others loved him and wanted to turn their government into a copy of what Chavez was building in Venezuela. Remember that Ron Gochez above also praised Chavez. You have to ask yourself how much Chavez money is going into LA neighborhoods to help support the “pro-Chavez” hypocrisy.
Another discussion, with a Venezuelan business person, somehow got around to President Chavez. I listened for a few minutes while he told me about the great things Chavez was doing in Venezuela and how he supported everything. I responded that I disliked Chavez because he was a dictator, whereupon this very same person spent the next half hour describing in detail the horrors of Chavez' rule and how he was ruining the country. His emotion and anger gushed out of him like a flood and I could tell which was his real opinion. He thanked me for giving him an opportunity to express how he really felt about Chavez.
Anti-capitalist views around the world betray a major thinking error that philosopher Ayn Rand sought to address in her writing. Self-interest is considered so evil in our cultural context that anything done for the sake of it is worthy of ridicule and anger. In some countries this view against self-interest is virulent and many people have never discovered that it is deficient and harmful. Everywhere, the ideas of pride, rational thinking, reason, anything created by the individual mind, are considered the cause of bad results, so much so that few people today would dare to claim self-interest as a motive. Rather, they go out of their way to claim that everything they do is for others. The result in economic decline is visible in the lives and neighborhoods of these people. If you are raised to have no pride in your work, if you think that doing anything for your own sake is evil, how can you have the courage and the self-confidence necessary to be successful? I agree with Rand that the self is the basic unit of humanity and that all good proceeds from the individual mind, that rational self-interest does not involve harming others; in fact, the practice of harming others to obtain values is not in anyone’s self-interest.
The Founding Fathers, when they created our country, did something unique. For the first time in history, they declared that man had a right to the pursuit of happiness. This ensured that the government could not interfere in men’s lives. Though few would admit it, this idea was the spark that unleashed self-interest in our society and liberated men to offer in trade their best products in return for the best products of other men. This idea created a society that was not zero-sum, as most societies of the past were. The result was a convergence of millions of men each pursuing happiness, each living according to their self-interest and offering value for value. Contrary to the Marxist view, our system was a system of liberation because it respected the freedom of man to do as he wished and it did not allow men to exploit one another.
The result of our system was civility, a government of laws not of men, ever-improving products, new products, new ideas, economies of scale, cleaner, tastier food, lower prices and jobs, jobs, jobs. The entire society became elevated and everyone saw his life as always getting better. People were happier, cleaner, more self-confident, more opinionated, and like typical Americans, always smiling because life had a surprise behind every corner. As time went by, even the ability to go anywhere one wanted, at a rapid pace, make business deals over broader areas, create massive industries that improved infrastructure, cleaned the environment and helped people live longer lives became commonplace. This was America and it was great because of freedom. Marx never invented a better more successful idea.
Exploitation, which is the hallmark of dictatorship, became impossible in our country because the government was prohibited from interfering in the rights and decisions of the people. Societies like communism and fascism, such as that of Hugo Chavez, became obsolete…until Kant. Kant, who was becoming influential in Europe, began teaching that man could not understand reality, that he had no means for connecting to reality and that his only way of acting was to invoke an imperative to duty. Kant, and others like him, including Hegel, provided the foundation for Marx who preached that the best way to make people do their “duty” was to create a government that acted on behalf of the people; that would direct people about what to do for the sake of the whole. This was the anti-happiness society based on service to others and its basic premise was that the best should take care of the least. Only conflict, resentment and anger could be the result of such a system.
Using misapplied economic principles, Marx acknowledged the power of capitalism to create machines and abundance but wanted government to own and manage the machines. He denigrated capitalists because, presumably they acted only on the basis of what was good for them rather than for the worker or society. For communists, capitalism was wasteful and needed a good dose of economic planning so the needs of the people could be met rather than the lust of the capitalists. Marx preached an overthrow of the capitalist system in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat. With Marx, every idea became its opposite, freedom became slavery, free speech became praising the leaders, voluntary action became joining the labor union, and free choice became doing as the national economic plan required. Morality became acquiesence and immorality became wanting anything for your own private desires; and finally, abundance and plenty became poverty in the form of products that no one wanted and scarcity of the things people wanted.
Marx wrongly saw economic transactions as zero-sum. In other words, when the capitalist made a trade, according to Marx, he gained and you lost. In this circumstance, it was thought, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This idea, broadcast millions of times and taught to our children in schools, was a lie. Capitalism actually elevated everyone who participated because the products offered by capitalists actually made peoples’ lives better. And the decider on value was not a government bureaucrat but the individual who evaluated products based upon what was good for him as an individual. In capitalism everyone improved his/her life and poverty was eliminated for the vast majority.
Those influenced by Marx sought to undermine capitalism in order to take over the machines, under the false premise that government can take over the power of production, eliminate the capitalist, and create a new abundance based on what is good for ‘the people’ rather than the evil capitalist. According to this theory, government could become the de facto capitalist and institute collectivism without any damage to the system, without any harm to the principle of supply and demand, or the pricing system, or the banking system, or production, or the happiness of the people. To convince people that capitalism was the problem, their critique of history under capitalism accused the capitalist system of being for slavery, imperialism, exploitation, child labor, the breakup of the family, insanity, alienation and poverty - all hallmarks of the pre-capitalist and communist systems. Every conceivable lie that could be told by these propagandists was told about capitalism. The result: the communist system under "enlightened" leadership and control, brought about the plundering of capital investment(which leads to economic depression and decaying factories and cities), the disruption of supply and demand, the inefficiency of government price controls, the inefficiency of the banking system, less production, less happiness among the people.
And now, after decades of decimation by revolutionary ideas, Mr. Gochez, apparently unaware of this history, praises, in the company of young hispanics, one of the most brutal collectivist thugs (Chavez) on the planet, calls him a liberator and seeks to do to South and North America what Lenin and Stalin did to Russia, through a new revolution in a society full of capitalist goods and self-confident, independent people. Does he really think that hispanic people are that stupid?
Apparently, Mr. Gochez has wiped out of his mind the city of Berlin where people braved guns, barbed wire and concrete in order to escape to the evil capitalist system. I have been to this city (in 1990) and compared the squalor of communist East Berlin with the vibrancy of capitalist West Berlin. Perhaps Mr. Gochez should bring to class some of these stories and pictures of Soviet guards shooting at East German people escaping the revolution that he loves. Then let's see for whom his students will cheer, the escaping citizens seeking freedom or the shooting soldiers trying to protect the revolution.
Or how about stories I was told in Germany about families in the West who allowed relatives from the East to visit their homes. One thing they noticed is how poorly groomed their eastern relatives were, how unkempt, uncut and unshaved were the men and women. Many examples are known that one day these West German professionals returned to their homes to find them burglarized with all possessions gone. Their communist relatives, in many cases, had the courtesy to leave a note behind that said something to the effect, "We've had nothing all these years. Now it is time for us to have something." Perhaps Mr. Gochez can tell his students about this history. There really is plenty of material about this revolution.
Or, to keep it interesting for the kids, perhaps Mr. Gochez can tell his students about "The Moonwalk Revolution" in 1988 during a Michael Jackson concert held in West Berlin, when the Stasi (East German Secret Police) brutalized East German teenagers for screaming "the wall must go, the wall must go" and hauled them off to Stasi headquarters for interrogation. Why would the good communist revolutionaries do that to teenagers, Mr. Gochez? Is this the kind of future you promise to your young students?
What few communists and progressives realized is that this scheme, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, was unworkable. Collectivism required the sacrifice of the able to the unable. This principle caused decline because hard working people soon realized that the system was another form of slavery. The harder they worked, the less they received. So, typically, as happened in the Soviet Union and Communist China, they produced less. The poor, on the other hand, knew that they would be taken care of and so had no incentive to produce. With the decline in production, no one thought to question the immorality of the system (who could possibly question sacrifice for society?). If sacrifice did not work, someone was to blame. As always with collectivism, the able aren't working hard enough or the capitalists are sabotaging the system, there are enemy spies everywhere; someone must be purged, imprisoned or killed. The communist system which promised to liberate the people and make them affluent becomes millions of dead bodies. Yet, even the pictures of the past that prove the unworkability of communism, the pictures of dead starving peasants or concentration camps or firing squads, are not convincing for Mr. Gochez. History means nothing as long as you can blame it on capitalism or manifest destiny or imperialism. So much for honesty in the world of history teachers.
A society based on re-distribution, such as communism or socialism, can never succeed because it does not acknowledge a person’s right to act in his own self-interest. With the heavy antipathy toward self-interest due to Kant’s influence, as well as that of religion, any society (such as Venezuela or Cuba for instance) that descends to re-distribution as foundational, must necessarily have an enemy in the United States, the symbol of the pursuit of happiness. That’s why all socialists accuse the United States of imperialism, war mongering, theft of resources and exploitation. Chavez hates the United States because he cannot exist without a scapegoat, without some other nation to blame for his own mistakes. The lies of Chavez are really about creating cover for his power grab not about some evil done by the USA. No one should be confused about that. What’s your excuse Mr. Gochez?
Notice also the blindness on the part of the ruling progressives today who are nothing more than closet Marxists. Government officials, convinced that the best principle of a proper government is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, expect that every time this principle is implied in an action of government, it will necessarily produce positive results. They are blind to the history which has shown that this principle has never created abundance. To them government-imposed altruistic sacrifice is a magic formula. Needless to say, they are always disappointed when reality will not comply and things actually get worse. A case in point is the near trillion dollar Stimulus Package of 2009 that produced not one single new job.
Capitalism has nothing to do with exploitation and imperialism. It has nothing to do with concentration camps and jackboots or manifest destiny. On the other hand, Chavez, Castro, Morales (and their enabler Ron Gochez) and those other dominos are about one thing, separating people from their values, destroying their values, destroying their freedoms and their future for the sake of one thing: their thuggish life-long power over helpless victims. Why do they hate capitalism? Free people don’t want to live under dictatorship. Free people can think for themselves. Free people know when they are being lied to. Free people have a strong enough government to squash the cockroaches of socialism.
Mr. Gochez, with the great life he lives in America, as a respected school teacher in LA, for some reason has missed all this. You have to wonder why. Certainly, someone in his past decided to escape the dirt roads, the dirt floors, the tin roofs and the abject poverty found in Mexico. These people did not come to America to escape capitalist exploitation. They voted for America and capitalism. Why not Mr. Gochez? I’m sure he’d say that he’s seen the evils of capitalism, much like other anti-capitalists who don’t have a clue about history. I’d say he’s intellectually blind.
People like Mr. Gochez are blind dupes of the enemies of man and human progress. They are dupes of Marx and today’s equivalent of Hitler in his various disguises. Because he cannot think for himself, Mr. Gochez encourages young people in LA to admire criminals like Chavez and Castro. Ask the Cubans about Mr. Castro. Try praising Castro in a Miami school district and see how many pitchforks come after you.
You have to ask yourself; why would an American school teacher think he is doing good by praising thugs and murderers to knowledge-hungry school children? Why would a history teacher ignore the devastation, poverty, concentration camps, murder and the outright raping of the people that will take place if Latin America goes communist? What convinces him that everything will become peaceful in a communist Latin America when history has shown that communism always degenerates into conflict and theft, murder and plunder…by the very communist revolutionaries that espouse liberation?
Where is this history teacher getting his history? Check his reading list.
As for other young hispanics north of the border, Mr. Gochez, that you encourage to be "professional" revolutionaries, I'd like to ask where they are getting their money. Given the lack of historical accuracy in your views, what productive value are they providing in society that earns them the status of "professional"? In this country of free people, a "professional" usually brings enough value to his job that he pays his own way. Are your "professional" revolutionaries making their own money or are they being paid by tax payer dollars? Or, just perhaps, is it possible they are being provided for by Hugo Chavez? You, and they, must be scamming someone in order to be able to wear new clothes, get haircuts, drive a car, eat at restaurants and preach to innocent young people your "unprofessional" and nonsensical lies. No honest person would pay you to dishonor and insult this wonderful country.
And, believe me, you are dreaming if you think a majority of hispanics will run to your corrupt cause. Many of our ancestors came to this country for freedom; many of us fought for freedom against people who said exactly the same lies as your buddies, Chavez, Castro and Morales. We will never fight for your revolution. We will, however, fight against it and, proudly, we will fight for capitalism and freedom.
You can go to Cuba for all I care.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
My Ignorant “Fascism” Rant
“…could we please not exploit the emotional elements of words like fascism and slavery? I find it an insult to think that I could be manipulated in any such way. I find it very hard to believe that intelligent grown men such as you seem to be drawn into your own somewhat childish conspiracy theories.”
This was written to me (and a friend) in an email by a progressive who took issue with a statement I made that progressives are leading us on a path toward fascism. This rebuttal was also made by an educated man who wants you to think that he is taking the intellectual high road, that he does not jump to conclusions and resort to conspiracy theories, that he is too high minded to stoop to the use of emotional phrases in order to scare and manipulate people (progressives never do that). Indeed, I must be a pretty ignorant person to be ranting the way I am.
This progressive thinks that his criticism exposes me and my friend as uncouth and ignorant, conspiracy theorists without intellectual training who merely jump to conclusions for the sake of insulting our opponents, but who have no education and no credibility. Anyone who argues that progressives are shadow fascists is a person not welcomed into intellectual discussions among the elite who know better. So anyone in the Tea Parties should be dismissed out of hand because they claim that fascism is the system of our government. What ignorant dolts we are.
But are the warnings that fascism is coming really the rantings of an ignorant person? Or are they a warning based on solid historical analysis that identifies the fundamental premises of the progressives and the movement of ideas through out history? In fact, philosophical analysis, if done properly can teach us alot and can help us avoid the mistakes of the past. What about intelligent books such as “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg or the classic scholarly work, “The Ominous Parallels” by Dr. Leonard Peikoff? In fact, scholars were warning about our fascist tendencies even during the early Roosevelt Presidency (a time when progressives were praising fascism) and some very intelligent economists, such as Ludwig von Mises and others, had said as much in their writings decades ago. Why do the progressives want to get rid of this “fascist” charge?
Certainly, the word is charged emotionally. When you hear the word “fascist”, you think of Adolph Hitler and his genocides, you think of Mussolini and his fascist dictatorship and the atrocities committed during World War II. You think of other dictatorships such as in Spain, Iraq, Cuba and Venezuela and you think about a group of people that historians have made, because they rightly deserved it, into the most evil and hateful men in history. Don’t you even think about connecting these men to today’s progressives who only want to establish a fair balance between economic regulations and freedom. Nope, that’s not them.
But some progressives are ignorant of history themselves. They don't understand their own place in the past, their own contributions to the decline of liberty. They think that progressivism is just as good as Americanism, in fact, better, more intelligent, more scientific and more benign than those who somehow still think that capitalism is the best system for people. They are brilliant, intelligent people who somehow have never noticed that at one time progressives fostered some of the most heinous ideas. Euthanasia, eugenics and racial purity are progressive ideas that history has forced them to disavow. Progressives could not be about that. They just want to make society better and they have intelligent ways to do that. Well, we'll get to that.
In fact, I’ve been called ignorant so many times for bringing up the words fascist and Hitler that you’d think there is a method to the criticism. It is part of the Alinsky strategy of ridiculing one’s opponent. If you can convince people that an opponent is hateful, racist, evil, vengeful…any of the terrible things that ignorant people do, well, then you’ve eliminated what may otherwise be a strong opponent.
So, let’s look at history. I will try to condense many centuries of thought and debate into just a few words so we can see the essentials and come to an understanding of why the charge of “fascist” against the progressives is indeed, a valid one made by intelligent people who just happen to understand history.
The overall goal of progressives has been to establish government control over society where the government regulates all private and business activity for the sake of “the common good.” Some more honest progressives of the past have thought that government could indefinitely maintain a balance between private and public interests and that this system does not have to lead to dictatorship...even though, because of those evil men, it has led to dictatorship in the past. Though this progressive goal of a mixed economy is often tinged with kind words about doing good for people who otherwise would die, the basic premise of the progressives is the false view that capitalism is ineffective at solving “social” problems, that capitalism, being based on private self-interest, is not able to advance collective interests. We can discuss these issues forever but the basic truth is that, no matter how nice they appear to be, all progressives believe that capitalism fails, that it is exploitive, that it cannot meet the needs of people, and that profit is evil, or at the very least, it needs to be regulated for the sake of the greater good. I, and many others, have elsewhere taken on the fallacies and lies that these views represent. What is important here is that progressives and their coercive measures against private individuals fall within the general principle of “statism”; the idea that the state is the principal component of society that should regulate private activities for the sake of the “public good.”
The rationale for the takeover of private activity was first propagated by some ancient Greeks. The Greeks held that democracy was ineffective during war and that a strong central control was necessary to get a city through an emergency of this kind. This required the establishment of a “tyrant” (who controlled everything) and the suspension of all freedoms until the war had been won. At that point, the city could once again reestablish democratic rule. This is the genesis of our modern day “tyrannies”.
Yet, even some of the Greeks wondered why people wanted to return to democracy when the “tyranny” had been so efficient. Couldn’t a tyranny work during peacetime? In fact, Plato’s recommended “Republic” was a tyranny of the philosophers where the most intelligent men controlled and planned all elements of society in order to advance a common and greater good. Plato’s ideas were forged out of the anger and despair he felt over seeing his beloved mentor and teacher Socrates drink the hemlock at the behest of “the people” who voted that he should die. Plato’s work has served as a blueprint for dictatorships ever since it was written so many centuries ago.
Later, as time went on, through the influence of philosophers such as Hegel and Nietzsche among others, the idea that dictatorship might be a better way of solving social problems during peace time began to gain support. In order to advance this idea, the supporters of “tyranny” began to attack democratic rule as inefficient and wasteful and they idealized the strong leaders who possessed a unique speaking ability that motivated large numbers of people to work together for collective goals. The idea of “collective goals” was a myth, of course. There is no such thing as a collective, there are only individuals. Collectivism always requires that force (or ostracism) be imposed upon people who refuse to go along. But this didn’t matter to the collectivists who saw the idea as a way of corralling human beings and forcing them to work toward what they considered to be the good (which many times was nothing more than their personal enrichment).
The result was the idea that “power” in the hands of a few was the most efficient way to advance civilization. It was thought that powerful leaders had the knowledge and the courage necessary to identify the “social” goals upon which a society should be based. An outgrowth of these ideas was the establishment of social systems called dictatorships. At one time, the term “dictatorship” was considered the latest trend, a new advanced way to get things done in a world with so many problems. This was not too long ago. Of course, it doesn't take a scholar to realize what the people had talked themselves into; they opened the door for scoundrels like Hitler and Mussolini who pretended to be those "strong men".
Because of the arguments of the philosophers about the value of a “dictatorship”, the bulk of university scholars, intellectuals and even the masters of the arts became vocal supporters of dictatorship. A tremendous propaganda machine was built up that made this movement toward a more powerful government inevitable. This was the birth of the progressive movement. All the greatest minds were talking of the glorious future that could be had if the progressives could just get rid of the inefficient ideas of the past such as individual rights, capitalism, profit, etc. and mimick the political ideas of Mussolini and other brilliant leaders from Europe.
Throughout the various periods of progressive propaganda, parliamentary societies loosely based upon democratic controls over power, began to be criticized as weak and ineffectual. They could not accomplish the lofty goals that were possible under tyrannies, it was thought. The progressives argued that selfishness had been let loose by democratic governments; the good of society as a whole was being ignored for the sake of “petty” profits.
Mussolini was considered a genius because he came up with an entirely new way to create efficiencies in society. In early propaganda, fascism was the coming new way. The progressives argued that it would be so efficient that it would replace capitalism. It would, they thought, create a society that was even more efficient because it would eliminate the elements of capitalism that were wasteful. Mussolini was a master at “making the trains run on time”. How did he do it? By means of establishing government bureaucracies of very "competent" men who made sure “social” goals had precedence for all individuals and businesses.
A strong leader like Mussolini was a man who could excite the passions of the people and, by decree and regulation, ensure that businesses were making good products that the government approved. In short, a fascist system is one where private property is in the hands of the business owners but is regulated by the government, presumably to ensure that such property (factories and machines) is used to advance the goals of the collective as defined by the leader.
Capitalism on the other hand, was seen as a system of waste and fraud. Businessmen, it was thought, only cared about profit. They were considered to be scoundrels who did not care about quality…they were just out for the buck, and they didn’t care about the greater good, about social goals, about ensuring that the people were well served. Because capitalists took profits, those profits were considered wasteful and it was thought the government could better use those profits to establish social services rather than have that money spent by the lustful and materialistic tycoons.
As it turned out the lofty goals of the dictators turned into the need for total power. In order to accomplish the common good they had to ridicule, disenfranchise and murder those who would oppose them; and they had to control the means of production in order to build the armaments necessary to gain new territories; in order to “save” the people against its enemies. And the economic decline caused by their regulations became so obvious that they had to propagandize even more violently against capitalism in order to cover their own tracks – it was not long before prosecutions, imprisonment and purges became necessary. The idea that only a dictator could run an efficient peace time society became the idea that only a dictator could eliminate the so-called enemies that were thwarting progress – including internal enemies. Throughout this period, there was near unanimous support for fascism among intellectuals and journalists. They argued that before the dictator could establish universal medical care, income re-distribution, an improvement of the race, and other benefits, the masses had to dutifully sacrifice for the nation in war.
The crowning monument to dictatorship was the 20th Century where millions of people were killed because, presumably, they did not adequately contribute to the goals of the collective. After this bloodbath, the progressives scurried into the depths and waited. Over time, they emerged with new colors (blue instead of red), but without changing a single basic premise. They still believed capitalism was evil, but they stopped overtly challenging it; they chose to seek “a balance” between private interests and public interests. They still believed in collectivism, but talked only about “the people”, the tribe, the group, etc. They still believed in a strong central control, but only discussed democratic action to achieve a better future. They still believed in a strong leader and focused their efforts on “Presidential Power”. They still hated individual rights but started talking about entitlements paid for by the government (the taxpayer). And instead of advocating violent revolution, they became "liberals", people who worked within the system to bring about the same goals as violent revolution, eventual, incrementally instituted, collective action (dictatorship). The progressives grew more powerful merely by changing their language, eliminating the use of their old propaganda terms, and by divorcing themselves from all the negatives associated with their now dead child, dictatorship. And, in an even more brazen twist, they began calling their political enemies “fascists”. Yes, they are so intelligent that they must call their opponents by the very name that they once considered to be the beacon of a shiny bright future for man.
Today’s progressives are operating within the tradition of this movement toward a more powerful government. Over a century ago, many progressives bought into the ideas that promoted fascism. Where Mussolini, through masterful political moves, gained control of the means of production, today the progressives engage in masterful political moves such as backroom meetings, political payoffs, promises of jobs, bashing capitalism and shakedowns of businessmen. Although they’ve educated many Americans to think that fascism was about racism and accomplishing evil intentions through treachery and force, at one time they praised Mussolini’s fascism and sold it to people as a great idea. In America, some progressives even praised Hitler before his military violations and his genocide were known about.
What was so good about fascism that it would make early progressives call it their own? Why did they once use language that glorified dictatorship, collectivism, statism and other coercive “isms” in the past…and why do they now refuse to use those words to describe themselves? They still believe that you can establish a just society by means of force imposed on individuals. They still think that collectivism and re-distribution of income are the only ways to foster the collective goals that have never been accomplished by their coercive means. In their very small minds, they do not realize that their intentions can never be accomplished by the means they advocate. They have lost the connection between their thoughts and reality. But more importantly, they believe in fascist ideas because they know (consciously or sub-consciously) that coercion is the only way that they can gain control of peoples' lives, the only way that they can establish their dictatorship. They’ve just don’t call it dictatorship; they call it "democracy".
Today, what was once fascism is now “the government/business alliance” that is being fostered, promoted, and put into place by progressives. All current government takeovers and bailouts are derivatives of this fascist principle. Cap and Trade, Health Care, the automotive takeover, financial regulations, card check, extra-constitutional czars...all of these moves by the current administration are government control and management over private businesses; fascism. The fact is, today’s progressives believe in the same body of fundamental ideas as the fascists, the same goals, the same methods and the same anti-capitalism as Mussolini and his fascists. Except today they don’t call it fascism. They call it service to society.
They call it “change”.
Of course, many progressives today, consider themselves much more refined and educated than men in the past and they tell us they understand that dictatorship can lead to wars and genocide and they assure us that they are not at all in favor of such un-civilized behavior. Draw a conclusion about anything and they'll ask you for the study that proves it and since there is no study, just your considered and educated judgment, well, they're too educated to ever draw their own conclusions. Hume has told them there is no connection between fact and judgment. It's all a matter of consensus and there is no consensus among progressive intellectuals that fascism is related to progressivism. Today progressivism is not about fascism, they tell us gently. It is about striking a balance (emphasis on “balance”) between private action and public action, establishing a fair mix of interventionist policies and free markets that can be maintained indefinitely without ever plunging society into the depths of barbarism and plunder and murder – not ever again. They are really just good guys trying to make things better. Don't you feel better?
Fascism hidden beneath protestations of love for mankind is still fascism by any other name. And fascism has always had one fatal problem. It has never and will never work. Fascism is the refuge of the pragmatist, the progressive and the neo-conservative who all claim to be after the “common good” but who practice methods that achieve destruction. The economic controls fostered by fascism distort the operations of otherwise free markets. These distortions cause economic pain to people and these problems necessitate more controls to fix the problems created by previous controls. Fascists seldom remove controls…they always increase controls that, with each iteration, become more powerful and more onerous over time. At the end of the fascist state is economic collapse and, you guessed it, dictatorship.
Why is this so? A fascist state, like that which we have today, as it destroys more freedom incrementally, drags society into increased levels of immorality, hatred of values, envy, group warfare (as different groups vie to be favored by government), graft, corruption, racism, theft, shakedowns, bailouts, czars with extra-constitutional powers, until, like the Roman Empire, the productive people are gone. Society becomes a mixture of those who live in poverty with the leaders who live in opulence (remember the dark ages that followed the collapse of Rome). Do you wonder why Mussolini was hanged by the very same people who once worshipped his magnificent charismatic control over them?
So, the question to ask is, are the people who warn us that we are on a road to fascism, really just a bunch of uneducated idiots who use such charges for emotional political effect? Or are they screaming out that disaster is coming if we continue on the same path as the fascists in the past?
What do you think?
This was written to me (and a friend) in an email by a progressive who took issue with a statement I made that progressives are leading us on a path toward fascism. This rebuttal was also made by an educated man who wants you to think that he is taking the intellectual high road, that he does not jump to conclusions and resort to conspiracy theories, that he is too high minded to stoop to the use of emotional phrases in order to scare and manipulate people (progressives never do that). Indeed, I must be a pretty ignorant person to be ranting the way I am.
This progressive thinks that his criticism exposes me and my friend as uncouth and ignorant, conspiracy theorists without intellectual training who merely jump to conclusions for the sake of insulting our opponents, but who have no education and no credibility. Anyone who argues that progressives are shadow fascists is a person not welcomed into intellectual discussions among the elite who know better. So anyone in the Tea Parties should be dismissed out of hand because they claim that fascism is the system of our government. What ignorant dolts we are.
But are the warnings that fascism is coming really the rantings of an ignorant person? Or are they a warning based on solid historical analysis that identifies the fundamental premises of the progressives and the movement of ideas through out history? In fact, philosophical analysis, if done properly can teach us alot and can help us avoid the mistakes of the past. What about intelligent books such as “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg or the classic scholarly work, “The Ominous Parallels” by Dr. Leonard Peikoff? In fact, scholars were warning about our fascist tendencies even during the early Roosevelt Presidency (a time when progressives were praising fascism) and some very intelligent economists, such as Ludwig von Mises and others, had said as much in their writings decades ago. Why do the progressives want to get rid of this “fascist” charge?
Certainly, the word is charged emotionally. When you hear the word “fascist”, you think of Adolph Hitler and his genocides, you think of Mussolini and his fascist dictatorship and the atrocities committed during World War II. You think of other dictatorships such as in Spain, Iraq, Cuba and Venezuela and you think about a group of people that historians have made, because they rightly deserved it, into the most evil and hateful men in history. Don’t you even think about connecting these men to today’s progressives who only want to establish a fair balance between economic regulations and freedom. Nope, that’s not them.
But some progressives are ignorant of history themselves. They don't understand their own place in the past, their own contributions to the decline of liberty. They think that progressivism is just as good as Americanism, in fact, better, more intelligent, more scientific and more benign than those who somehow still think that capitalism is the best system for people. They are brilliant, intelligent people who somehow have never noticed that at one time progressives fostered some of the most heinous ideas. Euthanasia, eugenics and racial purity are progressive ideas that history has forced them to disavow. Progressives could not be about that. They just want to make society better and they have intelligent ways to do that. Well, we'll get to that.
In fact, I’ve been called ignorant so many times for bringing up the words fascist and Hitler that you’d think there is a method to the criticism. It is part of the Alinsky strategy of ridiculing one’s opponent. If you can convince people that an opponent is hateful, racist, evil, vengeful…any of the terrible things that ignorant people do, well, then you’ve eliminated what may otherwise be a strong opponent.
So, let’s look at history. I will try to condense many centuries of thought and debate into just a few words so we can see the essentials and come to an understanding of why the charge of “fascist” against the progressives is indeed, a valid one made by intelligent people who just happen to understand history.
The overall goal of progressives has been to establish government control over society where the government regulates all private and business activity for the sake of “the common good.” Some more honest progressives of the past have thought that government could indefinitely maintain a balance between private and public interests and that this system does not have to lead to dictatorship...even though, because of those evil men, it has led to dictatorship in the past. Though this progressive goal of a mixed economy is often tinged with kind words about doing good for people who otherwise would die, the basic premise of the progressives is the false view that capitalism is ineffective at solving “social” problems, that capitalism, being based on private self-interest, is not able to advance collective interests. We can discuss these issues forever but the basic truth is that, no matter how nice they appear to be, all progressives believe that capitalism fails, that it is exploitive, that it cannot meet the needs of people, and that profit is evil, or at the very least, it needs to be regulated for the sake of the greater good. I, and many others, have elsewhere taken on the fallacies and lies that these views represent. What is important here is that progressives and their coercive measures against private individuals fall within the general principle of “statism”; the idea that the state is the principal component of society that should regulate private activities for the sake of the “public good.”
The rationale for the takeover of private activity was first propagated by some ancient Greeks. The Greeks held that democracy was ineffective during war and that a strong central control was necessary to get a city through an emergency of this kind. This required the establishment of a “tyrant” (who controlled everything) and the suspension of all freedoms until the war had been won. At that point, the city could once again reestablish democratic rule. This is the genesis of our modern day “tyrannies”.
Yet, even some of the Greeks wondered why people wanted to return to democracy when the “tyranny” had been so efficient. Couldn’t a tyranny work during peacetime? In fact, Plato’s recommended “Republic” was a tyranny of the philosophers where the most intelligent men controlled and planned all elements of society in order to advance a common and greater good. Plato’s ideas were forged out of the anger and despair he felt over seeing his beloved mentor and teacher Socrates drink the hemlock at the behest of “the people” who voted that he should die. Plato’s work has served as a blueprint for dictatorships ever since it was written so many centuries ago.
Later, as time went on, through the influence of philosophers such as Hegel and Nietzsche among others, the idea that dictatorship might be a better way of solving social problems during peace time began to gain support. In order to advance this idea, the supporters of “tyranny” began to attack democratic rule as inefficient and wasteful and they idealized the strong leaders who possessed a unique speaking ability that motivated large numbers of people to work together for collective goals. The idea of “collective goals” was a myth, of course. There is no such thing as a collective, there are only individuals. Collectivism always requires that force (or ostracism) be imposed upon people who refuse to go along. But this didn’t matter to the collectivists who saw the idea as a way of corralling human beings and forcing them to work toward what they considered to be the good (which many times was nothing more than their personal enrichment).
The result was the idea that “power” in the hands of a few was the most efficient way to advance civilization. It was thought that powerful leaders had the knowledge and the courage necessary to identify the “social” goals upon which a society should be based. An outgrowth of these ideas was the establishment of social systems called dictatorships. At one time, the term “dictatorship” was considered the latest trend, a new advanced way to get things done in a world with so many problems. This was not too long ago. Of course, it doesn't take a scholar to realize what the people had talked themselves into; they opened the door for scoundrels like Hitler and Mussolini who pretended to be those "strong men".
Because of the arguments of the philosophers about the value of a “dictatorship”, the bulk of university scholars, intellectuals and even the masters of the arts became vocal supporters of dictatorship. A tremendous propaganda machine was built up that made this movement toward a more powerful government inevitable. This was the birth of the progressive movement. All the greatest minds were talking of the glorious future that could be had if the progressives could just get rid of the inefficient ideas of the past such as individual rights, capitalism, profit, etc. and mimick the political ideas of Mussolini and other brilliant leaders from Europe.
Throughout the various periods of progressive propaganda, parliamentary societies loosely based upon democratic controls over power, began to be criticized as weak and ineffectual. They could not accomplish the lofty goals that were possible under tyrannies, it was thought. The progressives argued that selfishness had been let loose by democratic governments; the good of society as a whole was being ignored for the sake of “petty” profits.
Mussolini was considered a genius because he came up with an entirely new way to create efficiencies in society. In early propaganda, fascism was the coming new way. The progressives argued that it would be so efficient that it would replace capitalism. It would, they thought, create a society that was even more efficient because it would eliminate the elements of capitalism that were wasteful. Mussolini was a master at “making the trains run on time”. How did he do it? By means of establishing government bureaucracies of very "competent" men who made sure “social” goals had precedence for all individuals and businesses.
A strong leader like Mussolini was a man who could excite the passions of the people and, by decree and regulation, ensure that businesses were making good products that the government approved. In short, a fascist system is one where private property is in the hands of the business owners but is regulated by the government, presumably to ensure that such property (factories and machines) is used to advance the goals of the collective as defined by the leader.
Capitalism on the other hand, was seen as a system of waste and fraud. Businessmen, it was thought, only cared about profit. They were considered to be scoundrels who did not care about quality…they were just out for the buck, and they didn’t care about the greater good, about social goals, about ensuring that the people were well served. Because capitalists took profits, those profits were considered wasteful and it was thought the government could better use those profits to establish social services rather than have that money spent by the lustful and materialistic tycoons.
As it turned out the lofty goals of the dictators turned into the need for total power. In order to accomplish the common good they had to ridicule, disenfranchise and murder those who would oppose them; and they had to control the means of production in order to build the armaments necessary to gain new territories; in order to “save” the people against its enemies. And the economic decline caused by their regulations became so obvious that they had to propagandize even more violently against capitalism in order to cover their own tracks – it was not long before prosecutions, imprisonment and purges became necessary. The idea that only a dictator could run an efficient peace time society became the idea that only a dictator could eliminate the so-called enemies that were thwarting progress – including internal enemies. Throughout this period, there was near unanimous support for fascism among intellectuals and journalists. They argued that before the dictator could establish universal medical care, income re-distribution, an improvement of the race, and other benefits, the masses had to dutifully sacrifice for the nation in war.
The crowning monument to dictatorship was the 20th Century where millions of people were killed because, presumably, they did not adequately contribute to the goals of the collective. After this bloodbath, the progressives scurried into the depths and waited. Over time, they emerged with new colors (blue instead of red), but without changing a single basic premise. They still believed capitalism was evil, but they stopped overtly challenging it; they chose to seek “a balance” between private interests and public interests. They still believed in collectivism, but talked only about “the people”, the tribe, the group, etc. They still believed in a strong central control, but only discussed democratic action to achieve a better future. They still believed in a strong leader and focused their efforts on “Presidential Power”. They still hated individual rights but started talking about entitlements paid for by the government (the taxpayer). And instead of advocating violent revolution, they became "liberals", people who worked within the system to bring about the same goals as violent revolution, eventual, incrementally instituted, collective action (dictatorship). The progressives grew more powerful merely by changing their language, eliminating the use of their old propaganda terms, and by divorcing themselves from all the negatives associated with their now dead child, dictatorship. And, in an even more brazen twist, they began calling their political enemies “fascists”. Yes, they are so intelligent that they must call their opponents by the very name that they once considered to be the beacon of a shiny bright future for man.
Today’s progressives are operating within the tradition of this movement toward a more powerful government. Over a century ago, many progressives bought into the ideas that promoted fascism. Where Mussolini, through masterful political moves, gained control of the means of production, today the progressives engage in masterful political moves such as backroom meetings, political payoffs, promises of jobs, bashing capitalism and shakedowns of businessmen. Although they’ve educated many Americans to think that fascism was about racism and accomplishing evil intentions through treachery and force, at one time they praised Mussolini’s fascism and sold it to people as a great idea. In America, some progressives even praised Hitler before his military violations and his genocide were known about.
What was so good about fascism that it would make early progressives call it their own? Why did they once use language that glorified dictatorship, collectivism, statism and other coercive “isms” in the past…and why do they now refuse to use those words to describe themselves? They still believe that you can establish a just society by means of force imposed on individuals. They still think that collectivism and re-distribution of income are the only ways to foster the collective goals that have never been accomplished by their coercive means. In their very small minds, they do not realize that their intentions can never be accomplished by the means they advocate. They have lost the connection between their thoughts and reality. But more importantly, they believe in fascist ideas because they know (consciously or sub-consciously) that coercion is the only way that they can gain control of peoples' lives, the only way that they can establish their dictatorship. They’ve just don’t call it dictatorship; they call it "democracy".
Today, what was once fascism is now “the government/business alliance” that is being fostered, promoted, and put into place by progressives. All current government takeovers and bailouts are derivatives of this fascist principle. Cap and Trade, Health Care, the automotive takeover, financial regulations, card check, extra-constitutional czars...all of these moves by the current administration are government control and management over private businesses; fascism. The fact is, today’s progressives believe in the same body of fundamental ideas as the fascists, the same goals, the same methods and the same anti-capitalism as Mussolini and his fascists. Except today they don’t call it fascism. They call it service to society.
They call it “change”.
Of course, many progressives today, consider themselves much more refined and educated than men in the past and they tell us they understand that dictatorship can lead to wars and genocide and they assure us that they are not at all in favor of such un-civilized behavior. Draw a conclusion about anything and they'll ask you for the study that proves it and since there is no study, just your considered and educated judgment, well, they're too educated to ever draw their own conclusions. Hume has told them there is no connection between fact and judgment. It's all a matter of consensus and there is no consensus among progressive intellectuals that fascism is related to progressivism. Today progressivism is not about fascism, they tell us gently. It is about striking a balance (emphasis on “balance”) between private action and public action, establishing a fair mix of interventionist policies and free markets that can be maintained indefinitely without ever plunging society into the depths of barbarism and plunder and murder – not ever again. They are really just good guys trying to make things better. Don't you feel better?
Fascism hidden beneath protestations of love for mankind is still fascism by any other name. And fascism has always had one fatal problem. It has never and will never work. Fascism is the refuge of the pragmatist, the progressive and the neo-conservative who all claim to be after the “common good” but who practice methods that achieve destruction. The economic controls fostered by fascism distort the operations of otherwise free markets. These distortions cause economic pain to people and these problems necessitate more controls to fix the problems created by previous controls. Fascists seldom remove controls…they always increase controls that, with each iteration, become more powerful and more onerous over time. At the end of the fascist state is economic collapse and, you guessed it, dictatorship.
Why is this so? A fascist state, like that which we have today, as it destroys more freedom incrementally, drags society into increased levels of immorality, hatred of values, envy, group warfare (as different groups vie to be favored by government), graft, corruption, racism, theft, shakedowns, bailouts, czars with extra-constitutional powers, until, like the Roman Empire, the productive people are gone. Society becomes a mixture of those who live in poverty with the leaders who live in opulence (remember the dark ages that followed the collapse of Rome). Do you wonder why Mussolini was hanged by the very same people who once worshipped his magnificent charismatic control over them?
So, the question to ask is, are the people who warn us that we are on a road to fascism, really just a bunch of uneducated idiots who use such charges for emotional political effect? Or are they screaming out that disaster is coming if we continue on the same path as the fascists in the past?
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tea Party Protesters: America's Only Hope?
I’m sure my readers wonder when I will finish this book that is providing me with inspiration about our nation’s problems. Now Professor Mises has convinced me that the Tea Parties are more than a protest; they are a revolution…and possibly the only hope for a bright future for America.
To see this we need to understand fascism and how it has influenced our past and how it can destroy our future. To start, Professor Mises, writing of the time before World War II, implies that there is one view of political and economic policy that would have prevented this war and that is a policy based upon the “individual” which is Mises’ way of saying free market capitalism.
“For Nazism was not the only conceivable means of dealing with the problems that concern present-day Germany. There was and there is another solution; free trade. Of course, the adoption of free-trade principles would require the abandonment of interventionism and socialism and the establishment of an unhampered market economy. But why should this be brushed aside as out of the question? Why did the Germans fail to realize the futility of interventionism and the impracticability of socialism?”(1)
The professor reminds us what might have happened had Germany gone to free trade rather than embarked on statism some years before.
“If forty to sixty years ago Germany had adopted, unconditional free trade, Great Britain, its crown colonies, British India, and some smaller European nations would not have abandoned free trade either. The cause of free trade would have received a mighty propulsion. The course of world affairs would have been different. The further progress of protectionism, monetary particularism, and discrimination against foreign labor and foreign capital would have been checked. The tide would have been stemmed. It is not unlikely that other countries would have imitated the example set by Germany. At any rate, Germany’s prosperity would not have been menaced by the further advance of other nations toward autarky.”(2)
But the political climate in Europe was not conducive to free markets and this very fact is why they went into war.
“But the Germans did not even consider this alternative. The handful of men advocating unconditional freedom both in foreign and in domestic trade were laughed at as fools, despised as reactionaries, silenced by threats. In the ‘nineties of the past century Germany was already almost unanimous in its support of policies which were designed as the preparation for the impending war for more space, the war for world hegemony.”(3)
According to Mises, the rest of Europe was also part of the problem, and their policies left them too weak to fight Germany.
“Etatism (statism) not only brought about a situation from which the German nationalists saw no way out but conquest, but also rendered futile all attempts to stop Germany in time. While the Germans were busy arming for the “day,” Great Britain’s main concern was to injure the interests of the French and of all other nations by barring their exports to Great Britain. Every nation was eager to use its sovereignty for the establishment of government control of business. This attitude necessarily implied a policy of insulation and economic nationalism.”(4)
We had in Europe a political and philosophical context that, considering the possibilities, thought the only way forward for each country was statism and government control of the economy. Clearly, of the two possible options, the one option that would have brought a more peaceful world, a world of free trade and respect for the individual, was not even considered as a viable possibility. The one country that followed statist ideas more consistently was Germany, a nation that saw in statism an opportunity, not for a better world, but to establish its own dominance and control.
In the view of Professor Mises:
“It did not seem to occur to anyone (in Europe) that free trade begins at home. For nearly everyone favored government control of business within his own country.”(5)
I think we are in a similar position today. Few in government will consider free trade as a viable option. In fact, they’ve already decided that the day for free trade is over, that, once again (in their view) capitalism has failed and it is time for a new world of government regulation of the economy. In short, it is time for statism, the very system that characterized Europe before it thrust the world into destruction.
As it was for Mises,
“Faced with a serious problem, the nations chose the way to disaster.”(6)
Indeed they did. Hidden beneath the rubble outside of Munich is one lesson that was never learned in the war and it involves a mistake that we are repeating today. It is that with the defeat of the German fascists, fascism was not destroyed; the method of government, the idea that the government has a right to regulate business and the lives of individuals, prevailed. It was not “living space” that Germany needed, it was free markets. It was not a bad Versailles treaty that caused Germany’s economic problems and racism, it was statism that made the lives of the entire continent miserable.
Once again, in the U.S.A, we have chosen the way to disaster. The policies of the Obama administration are at base fascist. They involve a control of businesses by the government and a so-called “cooperation” between government and corporations, precisely the same type of government that existed in Germany and the rest of Europe over 70 years ago; the method of government that led to a great conflagration. And as with Europe before the war, the ideas that could save us, the ideas of free markets and individual rights, are not options.
There is one difference today, between pre-war Europe and the United States, and it involves a situation that did not exist in Europe. Today, there is a group of people that refuses to be "laughed at as fools, despised as reactionaries, silenced by threats"; it is a group of people who understands that our country was founded on the idea of individual rights and free markets and that these are the greatest, most advanced and most intelligent ideas mankind has ever created. Contrary to the Europeans, they have seen with their own eyes what a free market can create in terms of affluence, leisure and capital accumulation. They know that we cannot have a vibrant economy through a system that virtually blocks economic progress at every turn and makes citizens into slaves sacrificing for the collective. These people know that government intervention in the economy will not create a better world. They know that statism is a threat to their lives and futures. They know their government is taking us down the road to disaster. Who are they? They are certainly not the Republicans or the Democrats. They are the Tea Party protestors.
They may be our only hope.
(1)Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises, Libertarian Press Page 234
(2)Ibid
(3)Ibid, Page 235
(4)Ibid, Page 236
(5)Ibid, Page 237
(6)Ibid
To see this we need to understand fascism and how it has influenced our past and how it can destroy our future. To start, Professor Mises, writing of the time before World War II, implies that there is one view of political and economic policy that would have prevented this war and that is a policy based upon the “individual” which is Mises’ way of saying free market capitalism.
“For Nazism was not the only conceivable means of dealing with the problems that concern present-day Germany. There was and there is another solution; free trade. Of course, the adoption of free-trade principles would require the abandonment of interventionism and socialism and the establishment of an unhampered market economy. But why should this be brushed aside as out of the question? Why did the Germans fail to realize the futility of interventionism and the impracticability of socialism?”(1)
The professor reminds us what might have happened had Germany gone to free trade rather than embarked on statism some years before.
“If forty to sixty years ago Germany had adopted, unconditional free trade, Great Britain, its crown colonies, British India, and some smaller European nations would not have abandoned free trade either. The cause of free trade would have received a mighty propulsion. The course of world affairs would have been different. The further progress of protectionism, monetary particularism, and discrimination against foreign labor and foreign capital would have been checked. The tide would have been stemmed. It is not unlikely that other countries would have imitated the example set by Germany. At any rate, Germany’s prosperity would not have been menaced by the further advance of other nations toward autarky.”(2)
But the political climate in Europe was not conducive to free markets and this very fact is why they went into war.
“But the Germans did not even consider this alternative. The handful of men advocating unconditional freedom both in foreign and in domestic trade were laughed at as fools, despised as reactionaries, silenced by threats. In the ‘nineties of the past century Germany was already almost unanimous in its support of policies which were designed as the preparation for the impending war for more space, the war for world hegemony.”(3)
According to Mises, the rest of Europe was also part of the problem, and their policies left them too weak to fight Germany.
“Etatism (statism) not only brought about a situation from which the German nationalists saw no way out but conquest, but also rendered futile all attempts to stop Germany in time. While the Germans were busy arming for the “day,” Great Britain’s main concern was to injure the interests of the French and of all other nations by barring their exports to Great Britain. Every nation was eager to use its sovereignty for the establishment of government control of business. This attitude necessarily implied a policy of insulation and economic nationalism.”(4)
We had in Europe a political and philosophical context that, considering the possibilities, thought the only way forward for each country was statism and government control of the economy. Clearly, of the two possible options, the one option that would have brought a more peaceful world, a world of free trade and respect for the individual, was not even considered as a viable possibility. The one country that followed statist ideas more consistently was Germany, a nation that saw in statism an opportunity, not for a better world, but to establish its own dominance and control.
In the view of Professor Mises:
“It did not seem to occur to anyone (in Europe) that free trade begins at home. For nearly everyone favored government control of business within his own country.”(5)
I think we are in a similar position today. Few in government will consider free trade as a viable option. In fact, they’ve already decided that the day for free trade is over, that, once again (in their view) capitalism has failed and it is time for a new world of government regulation of the economy. In short, it is time for statism, the very system that characterized Europe before it thrust the world into destruction.
As it was for Mises,
“Faced with a serious problem, the nations chose the way to disaster.”(6)
Indeed they did. Hidden beneath the rubble outside of Munich is one lesson that was never learned in the war and it involves a mistake that we are repeating today. It is that with the defeat of the German fascists, fascism was not destroyed; the method of government, the idea that the government has a right to regulate business and the lives of individuals, prevailed. It was not “living space” that Germany needed, it was free markets. It was not a bad Versailles treaty that caused Germany’s economic problems and racism, it was statism that made the lives of the entire continent miserable.
Once again, in the U.S.A, we have chosen the way to disaster. The policies of the Obama administration are at base fascist. They involve a control of businesses by the government and a so-called “cooperation” between government and corporations, precisely the same type of government that existed in Germany and the rest of Europe over 70 years ago; the method of government that led to a great conflagration. And as with Europe before the war, the ideas that could save us, the ideas of free markets and individual rights, are not options.
There is one difference today, between pre-war Europe and the United States, and it involves a situation that did not exist in Europe. Today, there is a group of people that refuses to be "laughed at as fools, despised as reactionaries, silenced by threats"; it is a group of people who understands that our country was founded on the idea of individual rights and free markets and that these are the greatest, most advanced and most intelligent ideas mankind has ever created. Contrary to the Europeans, they have seen with their own eyes what a free market can create in terms of affluence, leisure and capital accumulation. They know that we cannot have a vibrant economy through a system that virtually blocks economic progress at every turn and makes citizens into slaves sacrificing for the collective. These people know that government intervention in the economy will not create a better world. They know that statism is a threat to their lives and futures. They know their government is taking us down the road to disaster. Who are they? They are certainly not the Republicans or the Democrats. They are the Tea Party protestors.
They may be our only hope.
(1)Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises, Libertarian Press Page 234
(2)Ibid
(3)Ibid, Page 235
(4)Ibid, Page 236
(5)Ibid, Page 237
(6)Ibid
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Sure, Let's Build a Fence on the Border
Take note; if you care about freedom. Fences and closed borders not only keep people out...they also keep people in. Closed borders and onerous immigration requirements are a sign that a country is becoming more authoritarian, less free.
People move to countries where there is opportunity and openness...they don't move to places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Cuba...they escape from them if they can...to America. Maybe not for long. Soon they may be escaping from America...if the Obama administration continues headlong toward fascism.
If the government continues to destroy our economy no one will want to live here, even us. Why complain about people who want to get in?
Look at how many people want to get out. High valued executives for one. Doctors, nurses, medical industry professionals, automotive engineers, automotive parts manufacturers, car dealers, small business owners, bankers, entrepreneurs, technology developers, factory owners...the list will probably grow. These are the unemployed created by boondoggling politicians who are destroying their jobs for the sake of professional parasites. These people could be creating millions of jobs if the government would leave them alone and let them live as free citizens. In fact, they could create good jobs for educated Americans who will then hire immigrants for a pittance to mow their lawns and massage their backs. Instead, we'd rather complain about immigrants who will soon want to leave anyway...because there are no jobs. Why stand silently while talented people are taxed and regulated to death?
Wake up, America.
People move to countries where there is opportunity and openness...they don't move to places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Cuba...they escape from them if they can...to America. Maybe not for long. Soon they may be escaping from America...if the Obama administration continues headlong toward fascism.
If the government continues to destroy our economy no one will want to live here, even us. Why complain about people who want to get in?
Look at how many people want to get out. High valued executives for one. Doctors, nurses, medical industry professionals, automotive engineers, automotive parts manufacturers, car dealers, small business owners, bankers, entrepreneurs, technology developers, factory owners...the list will probably grow. These are the unemployed created by boondoggling politicians who are destroying their jobs for the sake of professional parasites. These people could be creating millions of jobs if the government would leave them alone and let them live as free citizens. In fact, they could create good jobs for educated Americans who will then hire immigrants for a pittance to mow their lawns and massage their backs. Instead, we'd rather complain about immigrants who will soon want to leave anyway...because there are no jobs. Why stand silently while talented people are taxed and regulated to death?
Wake up, America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)