The Immoral Roots of Anti-Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honoring Life on Memorial Day

Notice that the President always mixes American values with his own twisted sense of them. For instance, today he talked about how our fallen soldiers sacrificed for others. Remember that he wants us all to agree about his brand of sacrifice - the sacrifice of the able to the unwilling. He never mentions that most of these fallen soldiers should be honored because they fought to protect their own freedoms. For Obama that would be selfish and not what the America he thinks he owns is about. He thinks that our fallen soldiers were merely "risking their lives for people they had never met." How cheap is that view of our soldiers!! What does that statement say about the depth of his judgment? I think Obama dishonors Veterans, the depth of their understanding and their love of country when he makes statements like that. Those words could be said of any soldier who died even for Soviet Communism. Sacrifice is not a value...it is a loss.

There is a better, more important reason why our fallen Veterans should be honored; they died for a new idea, and they were willing to put their lives on the line for it because they knew it was important. The American soldier is something entirely new in the history of the world; the American soldier is a philosopher who knows what it is for which he fights. Each soldier in a free country, must go into the depths of his conscience and decide for himself why he fights. He must question life and ask himself what principles are important enough for him to defend. For the first time in history, unlike all soldiers in the past, the American soldier was so unique that he would only fight for the good...he would only fight for a society that made good possible; a society that established the principles that made happiness and living possible, a society of reason, freedom, rights, the sanctity of contract; a society so constituted that it endured, not because of its people alone, but because of the principles it had established. Anyone who fights for America, in spite of Mr. Obama's words, knows that he is fighting for something special, not just giving up his life for others.

These philosopher soldiers died because, for the first time in history, there was an idea worth fighting for, an idea that meant self-sufficiency, prosperity and happiness for the living. Yes, they died because they wanted to live and they fought to the death those who would make them and their loved ones into slaves. They felt so strongly about this that the bodies of these philosophers lie near battle fields on virtually every continent on the planet. They didn't want you to take a lesson from their sacrifice; they wanted you to take a lesson from their desire for life.

Remember...the men we honor today fought, suffered and died so we could be free and they thought about why they were fighting. They were not just "bodies" or "grunts"; they were thinkers. They thought first about the kind of society in which they wanted to live; they thought about those they loved and they thought about how much they loved life. That arrogance of Americans that President Obama criticizes, that confidence and certainty for which the European intellectual hates us, is our moral certainty that when we fight, we are fighting for the best possible of worlds; a world of freedom. They didn't sacrifice for "people they had never met"; those people were represented by their fellow soldiers and they loved them as extensions of their own lives...as people like themselves who possessed the positive, life-giving sense of life for which American soldiers are known.

Remember that when you read about the President hiring and firing executives or bailing out his largest contributors with money stolen from you; or deciding what kind of car you should own or what kind of fuel you should use. Who would die for that? No American soldier in any war died so that Americans could be taxed to death. They didn’t die so that the government could destroy the value of their savings or the value of the dollar through inflation. They didn’t die so they could be honored for helping George Soros and his off shore clients or to protect General Electric’s monopoly on wind turbines or for the sake of 800 new IRS agents. Our soldiers did not die for the right to sacrifice. They fought for the right to live and be happy; they fought for freedom. Remember that, Mr. President. Remember that before you take your next step toward making us into slaves. Some of us do remember.

Find Your Voice Videos

I've I've linked to three YouTube videos on my blog that I've created on how to blog for the Tea Parties. I hope you enjoy them.

Find Your Voice Part 1

"Find Your Voice Part 1"

Find Your Voice Part 2

"Find Your Voice Part 2"

Find Your Voice Part 3

"Find Your Voice Part 3"

The Individual vs. the Collective

He stood one day upon a hill.
The crowd was standing very still.
He said something that startled them.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

The crowd, of course, then drew away.
Some asked with fear, “What did he say?
He said a word we do not know.
Quick, I think we’d better go.
He may be insane.
He may be insane.”

His structured face was very proud.
His eyes were blue without a cloud.
He looked around at mindless men.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

A scared, confused young man then came;
with eyes that held a hint of shame.
he reassured the startled throng.
“Please, now folks, let’s move along.
This man is insane.
This man is insane.”

The bloody soldiers came at once.
Their words were made of mindless grunts.
“We’ve found the hated enemy,
a man with his own sovereignty.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”

The man, of course, made his escape.
The soldiers stood around agape.
They looked off to the distance when
they heard it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

The scared, confused young man then said,
“That man has lost his bloody head.
Yes, he is full of many words.
They fly inside his head like birds.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”

He must have caught some mind’s disease.
We must prevent his mindless pleas.
If he meets many people then
those hateful words may ring again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

Copyright Robert Villegas 2009

Tea Party Impressions - What's Next?

I started protesting big government when I was in my twenties. I organized a group of friends to participate in an “Editorial” Club to write to local newspapers about a variety of issues. Our main goal was to advance a different perspective that respected individual rights and free markets. Each week, one member wrote a letter to a newspaper and read it to the group for comments and suggestions. Then, once improved, the letter would be mailed.

We succeeded in getting lots of editorials printed in the Indianapolis Star and other local papers because of the thoughtfulness and clear writing of the letters. After a time, the professional considerations of some of the members caused the group to break up; though some of us continued writing letters on our own, buoyed by our success and the improvements in our writing skills.

Since, then I’ve written lots of “letters” and even had some of them read on national television shows such as “The Factor” and “America’s Newsroom” to name a few. I’ve continued my advocacy of individual rights and freedom…but to a great extent, I’ve felt like a candle in the wind…until April 15, 2009.

What a glorious day it was in America. I am proud to have stood with so many patriotic Americans for the cause of freedom. Here are some of my impressions of the Indianapolis Tea Party.

The Tea Party protests were not about reforming the Republican Party. I hope the protesters do not buy that media line. If the Republican Party wants to reform itself that is fine; and if you want to participate in that reformation, great; but the Tea Party was a protest only. It was a cry, an emotional shout for freedom from oppressive government. It was a warning to all politicians that something is wrong; they are spending our money and giving us no voice in how it is spent. It was a drawing of the line.

The Indy Tea Party event was spectacular. Richard and Laura Behney should be congratulated and personally thanked by every person who attended. The Wright Brothers band and singers were incredible and I was especially inspired by the singing of the National Anthem. To be standing as close as 20 feet from such a beautiful rendition was a true honor.

I appreciated the tribute paid to military veterans like myself and I appreciate the public “thank you.” After all those years, this was only the second time that anyone has thanked me. It meant a lot. But let’s be clear, I was fighting for freedom not for the principle of sacrifice.

The speeches, for the most part, were great. I found this day to be exhilarating and I was proud to be part of it.

The Future

I think the Tax Day Tea Party may well be the beginning of a movement that could transform America for the better…but it could also die, much like my Editorial Club back in the ‘70s. We have to get our bearings and recognize some very critical facts before the “Tea Party” protests can bear fruit and bring back to our nation the principles of freedom, individual rights and truly representative government.

I am spooked by all of the "special interests" who are trying to turn the protests toward their own agendas. The Tea Parties were not about abortion, immigration or religion. Certainly, most people have definite ideas on these and other issues; and frankly, so do I. But these, and other issues, are tinged with negatives that would drive some people (like me) away with the sad realization that the protest was just a Republican ploy.

The Republicans are re-distributionists...they are part of the problem. They are responsible for the mistakes made by government and yet...here are Republican Party officials claiming the Tea Party as their issue too. These people, starting with G. W. Bush, squandered their opportunity when they had a majority. They thought they had to become more progressive than the progressives, while we, the people, were looking for them to stop the advance of big government. They paved the way for Obama by sanctioning the principles that made his boondoggles and re-distributions possible.

If the Tea Party momentum is to make a difference for us, we need to keep it simple...stay on one topic and avoid all the other divisive issues. We are protesting what the government is doing to our freedom...that’s it...nothing more. This implies that life is the standard, not sacrifice. We are not just concerned about the lives of our grand children…how about our lives, today, and what the government is doing to us now?

We can not let the success of the Tea Party protests be co-opted by some larger group with its own ax to grind. Let all the other organizations change their agendas to include our protest if they want; let’s not include their agendas in ours. Newt Gingerich, Karl Rove and Sean Hannity are not what the Tea Party is about. With all due respect, the protests are about individual rights, and no other issue. Through our continued protests, we can make the establishment start talking "our" language; let's not repeat their language. We need to create a new dialogue not repeat the old dialogue. I hope I'm not alone in this view.

I think a good jumping off point is to recognize the wisdom and genius of our Founding Fathers. What they created through our Constitutional Republic was revolutionary. Our American Revolution brought forward new ideas that are still barely understood by the majority of people on this planet. In other words, they are still new ideas; they are the real “change” that we need. They created a force for the good of almost unimaginable magnitude and power because, through freedom, they unleashed the energy of millions of people as they succeeded in making better lives for themselves and their loved ones. They were real "change" and everything that went before them was the status quo; tyranny, corruption and patronage.

Today's politicians represent the ideas that came before the ideas of the Founders. These frauds are doing everything they can to impose sacrifice on every man, woman and great grand child in this country. There is nothing new in that; that idea came from pre-historical times. In fact, the entire progressive movement (Democrats and Republicans) today is only about forced "sacrifice"...from Marx to Hillary to Bush to Obama...that is why every key phrase of theirs is a restatement that says sacrifice is a moral imperative...re-distribution, communism, statism, fascism, socialism, welfare-statism, "from each according to his ability;" even the Red Scare in China was a restatement of the message of sacrifice; the concentration camps were justified by it, the genocides and the murders of political dissidents were the result of it.

The basic premise of today’s politicians is forced sacrifice of the "good" for the sake of the "people." This means that your rights are secondary to their idea of what society should demand from you. They use this idea as a formula, magic words that are supposed to engender a set of responses that make possible their goals which are political victory and dividing the spoils. What will happen when the formula no longer works, when the people see what kind of plunder is really happening, when they recognize that the words, the restatements of sacrifice, are all hollow promises that deliver nothing but misery?

When people realize that capitalism is freedom and freedom is the use of the mind and rights are the expression of how we will deal with each other; when self-interest is seen as good – when Tea Party protesters say, “Enough, no more plunder” – that day will be the day when the media and politicians realize that this protest has teeth.

I'm beginning to understand what the Founders might have been thinking as they confronted all the special interests of their time and strove to create a society where everyone could live in freedom. I am not so much concerned with what another person thinks, it is more important that he be free to think so we can arrive at the truth through honest discourse. It is a grave responsibility to consider what might be best in order to accomplish something as new as freedom – when some people (over 230 years later) still don't seem to understand it. It will take discipline and a firm, singular goal for the Tea Party to have an impact that results in freedom. This next step, in my view, is crucial...we must make the message the medium through which freedom is accomplished. That message is “Laissez nous faire” – Leave us alone.

Introduction

Thanks for viewing my blog. I created this blog in order to provide my thoughts about events that will unfold in the coming years; events that are going to affect our lives tremendously. Will we continue to be a free people, deciding for ourselves the directions of our lives or will we be herded into groups and classes to be favored or rejected by the ruling elite in the government? Will we be free to start businesses, earn profits and keep those profits or will we be enslaved in order to provide the money that will feed the government as it advances ever-growing and ever-changing social engineering schemes? Will we pay high taxes of low taxes? Will we trust our government to defend our rights or fear our government for its high handed practices, its coercion, its ever-changing decrees? Will our money be strong and purchase a large array of fine products to improve our lives or will it be stolen and put into the coffers of financial thieves in the treasury and Cayman Islands? Who are the villains today; the hard working people who want better lives and enjoyment or the government that wants us to sacrifice for the sake of those who have no desire to work hard? Hopefully, you will enjoy my perspective and my hopes for the future.

A key component of this blog is my advocacy of the Tea Party Concept. I think it is important that hard working citizens take definitive action when they think the government is stepping out of bounds. The Constitution, as it was originally written, does not allow the government to violate the rights of citizens. When pork is created without discussion and approval by the people, when government passes laws without debate, creates programs without justification or approval, spends money that does not exist except through inflating and devaluing the money that does exist, then the government must be stopped by responsible dissent.