The 'Communist Manifesto' on Individualism, Individual Liberty, and Economic Liberty

 

Capitalism is extremely friendly to individual happiness and societal wealth. Both rose significantly as the Industrial Revolution and capitalism changed the world radically in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Individual fulfillment, personal greatness, cultural richness, and social harmony also surged. Such was life under social and economic liberty.

Far fewer country farmers lived in isolation, desperation, poverty, and misery. Businesses blossomed in size and profitability, with former peasants eager for factory and assembly-line work. Whole armies of previously poor people moved to the city to get better jobs and live the good life. Karl Marx (1818-83), Friedrich Engels (1820-95), and many others noticed this – along with certain flaws in the new system – and tried to understand it all.

The 1689 English, 1776 American, and 1789 French Revolutions created an immense increase in individual rights or human liberty. This included political, personal, social, and economic freedom. Marx and Engels’ 1848 Communist Manifesto focused on examining the new economic liberty and emerging Big Businesses, especially as they impacted average workers in large companies. But their treatise smeared economic liberty, and confused the concept, with the term “capitalism”.

And yet the Communist Manifesto did fairly observe that the new capitalist era allowed the individual to dedicate himself far more to his own needs and wants – his own pleasures and delights. Such was the inevitable result of the breaking of human shackles and the rise in overall individual liberty.

Marx and Engels also observed that the new capitalist era created business enterprise, energy, ambition, creativity, variety, productivity, efficiency, change, progress, and wealth previously unknown in human history. But at best they considered these two new revolutions in human life – the dramatic surge in personal happiness and collective wealth – a mixed blessing.

In ironic language, the Communist Manifesto notes that the radical growth in the protection of the rights of man and the freedom of business activity “has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations”. This new liberty “has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism”. The capitalist era “has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked upon with reverential awe”. Finally, the expansion of the government defense of individual liberty has even “torn away from the family its sentimental veil”. Marx and Engels are certainly right about one thing: the rise of political liberalism in the late 1700s and early 1800s changed overall human life, and individual lifestyles, a great deal.

According to the Communist Manifesto, the ascent of political, social, and economic liberalism “left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’”. It plunged all of human life into “the icy waters of egotistical calculation”. The political pamphlet vaguely but ominously charged that the new liberty “has resolved personal worth into exchange value”. Marx and Engels even obscurely defend “the numberless, indefeasible, chartered freedoms” of traditional, pre-capitalist life. These, it seems, are far superior to what liberalism has substituted: “that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade”.

Why do Marx and Engels hate liberalism so much? Because it has reduced all of human life to “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation”. Economic liberation “has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage-laborers”. Economic capitalism has even “reduced the family relation to a mere money relation”.

* * *

But is any of this really true? Is liberty really such a terrible thing? Is its impact upon the individual, society, and business really so dreadful? Is political, social, and economic liberalism such a horror story, and so universally destructive to man, that one can only wish for its immediate and absolute termination?

Marx and Engels don’t seem to understand the nature of freedom. They don’t seem to realize its positive effects upon all aspects of life. They don’t comprehend how it enhances life, rationality, morality, thinking, feelings, ambition, hope, dreams, visions, health, wealth, work, play, family, friends, marriage, love, sex, philosophy, science, art, entertainment, recreation, conversation, vacation, relaxation, meditation, and more. There seems to be not a single area of human life which individual liberty doesn’t improve and uplift.

The idea that a free person and free society is reduced to caring only about economic activity and money is absurd. Under political, social, and economic liberalism, there’s more to life than just business.

Marx and Engels’ idea that free enterprise and free trade necessarily entails “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” is part of their crude, anti-capitalist bias, but this claim is baseless. Free enterprise enriches culture and productivity for every member of society. Free trade benefits both parties involved and exploits neither. There’s not a hint of oppression or brutality involved in either activity.

Marx and Engels’ claim that free trade is “unconscionable” is bizarre. Human beings have been finding, making, swapping, and bartering goods since time immemorial. They willingly, happily engage in such behaviors because because they tend to benefit and profit everyone involved.

Ultimately, Marx and Engels make many errors in their freedom-hating, freedom-destroying manifesto. But their attacks upon “self-interest” and “egoism” are especially monstrous. A proper man, and noble soul, lives for his own sake. The Enlightenment teaches us that every man is an end in himself – not a means to some other end. He and his life are sacred, priceless jewels not to be exchanged or sacrificed for anything or anyone. To say that individualism, self-interest, and egoism are morally wrong, as the Communist Manifesto claims, is a gigantic, intellectual error. Attacks upon the Holy Individual and his irreplaceable life are destructive to every person on earth and constitute evil incarnate.

The Communist Manifesto

 

The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels says: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." But in fact it’s the history of liberty struggles. More broadly, it’s the history of freedom vs. slavery, civilization vs. savagery, and liberalism vs. illiberalism.

The Communist Manifesto states that in human history: "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight…" But the fact is that thruout the 5300-year history of government, some people believed in a version of freedom, and wanted to live freely; while others believed in a version of tyranny, and wanted to enslave their brothers. Marx and Engels are the latter.

Their radical treatise argues that: "The modern bourgeois society" – by which Marx and Engels mean the economically free and large business-ownership society – "...has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones." This is actually true. Feudalism has died out. The failed, evil welfare state and crony capitalism has emerged. Wealthy individuals and groups today, often including Big Business owners, pressure and bribe government leaders to coerce their business competitors and the masses, to the unjust advantage of the rich. The business rivals and the consumers suffer. This is because this new type of regulation, like all regulation, is a form of tyranny.

The welfare state, or corporatist state, or crony capitalist government, is a type of slave state or authoritarianism. It’s plutocracy or oligarchy or fascism – not real economic liberty or capitalism. The more the welfare state regulates or coerces, the more it reduces everyone to slavery. The more it "helps" and "benefits" people, and the more it promotes and advances "the public interest" and "the common good", the more it destroys everyone and everything. Collectivism harms everybody. The simple truth is that the coercive welfare state – which violates rights and dictates to all – is hell on earth.

This phony and crony "capitalist" government attacks, damages, and destroys people and property. Personal happiness and social cooperation are mostly terminated. In a just and free society, such government regulation and coercion doesn’t exist.

But Marx and Engels don’t understand this. They think economic liberty – with its concomitant social and personal liberty – yields "oppression", "exploitation", and even "enslavement". To combat this horror, they actually advocate expanding the welfare state. Marx and Engels misunderstand, fear, and hate Big Business owners and propose to coercively eliminate them. They even propose to eliminate private property – which is the foundation of civilization and human liberty.

Max and Engels oddly label economic freedom "capitalism". They denominate business owners "the bourgeoisie" and business employees "the proletariat". Unfortunately, Western Civilization has accepted these misleading and hostile terms. Economic, social, personal, and political freedom has suffered badly because of it.

Marx and Engels claim that the capitalist world is divided up into these two permanently antagonistic groups or "classes". They say that the business owners, "bourgeoisie", "exploiters", and "oppressors" are naturally and inherently at the throats of the business employees, "proletariat", "exploited", and "oppressed". They say the employers are "dictators" and "parasites" while the employees are "slaves" and the only true "workers". The Communist Manifesto argues that no peace is possible between these "two great hostile camps" and that’s it’s vital for "the poor and working class" to win this war.

The absurdity and malevolence of these claims is hard to overstate.

In fact, under capitalism, company owners and employees naturally cooperate with each other, and live in great harmony. They’re business partners who easily work together to immense mutual benefit, profit, pleasure, and happiness. These two allegedly antagonistic "classes" also frequently switch sides or belong to both groups at once. Practically the only thing that prevents the "bourgeoisie" and the "proletarians" from living and working together in perfect peace and bliss is the welfare state and our crony capitalist society. Incredibly, this is what Marx and Engels seek to radically expand.

In the end, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have a great deal of difficulty understanding "giant, Modern Industry". The Scientific and Industrial Revolutions of the 1600s and 1700s leave them baffled. They see the tremendous and unprecedented size, organization, and wealth of the new commercial enterprises and foolishly conclude that the "industrial millionaires" which run them are "slave-masters" to the whole world.

But the truth is, in a free society – in a civilized society and government based upon economic, social, personal, and political liberty – no-one seriously exploits or oppresses another, and no-one is a master or a slave. Ultimately, Marx and Engel’s proposed "dictatorship of the proletariat" means tyranny, poverty, and misery for all.

Shoot to Kill

 

"Shoot to kill!" That’s the morally correct policy. That's the civilized response. Go after the wild animals, violent attackers, and subhuman monsters by shooting to kill.

In any decent or civilized society, social and political "protesters" aren’t allowed to become criminals. They aren’t allowed to turn into thugs, physical aggressors, and felonious assailants. Social and political "activists" – however passionate they are about their "cause" – aren’t allowed to rage out of control and engage in mayhem and murder. They can’t morally or legally riot, vandalize, loot, commit arson, commit assault, or slaughter innocents. But if they do – you blow them away.

The only proper societal, governmental, and police response to the problem is: Nip it in the bud. Stop it before it starts. End it for all time everywhere. If the "protesters" turn into rampaging thugs and murderous monsters, you blow them to Kingdom Come.

Proper societies and police forces do not negotiate with rioters. They do not tolerate their rapacious street crime or mob violence. The police must never "stand down". The bestial would-be protesters are never "allowed to vent". If these enemies of order and civilization insist upon having their Day of Rage, and physically expressing their apoplexy, then they should be given a few moments to riot and rampage – in order to show their nature – and then they should be terminated.

If these evil clowns feel some (usually pretend) horror over some (usually innocuous) social situation or political event – probably based upon their cockamamie, depraved ideology – then these lowlife bozos need to "write their congressman".

Ha-ha-ha! Got 'em good. But seriously: They need to speak or write to their family, friends, or local representatives, you might say. Or write a letter to the editor. These passionate crusaders can also protest and march and carry furious signs and listen to fiery speeches. But they may not riot.

They also can’t "occupy" property. Or block traffic. Or pose a danger to public safety and order. Or physically threaten social or political opponents. And especially they may not resist or attack the police.

But if they do, society should fall on them like a ton of bricks. The police should beat the living hell out of them.

And these cops should never wear "riot gear". This shouldn’t even exist. The police should never use water hoses, tear gas, or rubber bullets. If a rampaging mob forms, and the fiends inside it defiantly threaten to explode in fury and run wild – or even to become significantly disorderly and unruly – then the police need to call upon their two best buddies: Smith and Wesson.

At most the cops should use their bullhorns to order the dangerous criminals to cease and desist. Then they should fire a few warning shots over their heads. But if the criminal demons don’t immediately halt their riot, cease their attack, stop threatening people and property, run away, and go home, then – shoot to kill! The police need to do their job and deal with this situation properly.

In this way, probably 99% of physical assaults and property destruction will be prevented. So too 90% of "protester" injuries and deaths. And almost all law enforcement officials and police officers will be saved. When it comes time to riot, the authorities and cops shouldn’t mess around.

One key to public order and safety is for the police to never respond "proportionately". They need to always "overreact". All these "mostly peaceful" protesters need to be shut down instantly.

Or at least something close to this. There’s little room for "compromise" or even "reason" on this. The scam protesters and rampaging rioters who seek ownership of the streets must not be allowed to triumph and successfully damage tranquility and peace. Civilization needs to be fiercely protected. No rioting allowed.

As for any non-criminals, true protesters, free speech practitioners, decent human beings, and the like: They need to take care to never participate in a rally, march, or demonstration which "turns violent" or degenerates into a riot. If the "protesters" and "mostly peaceful" multitude becomes a rampaging mob, then all good and law-abiding citizens need to urge their friends, and all responsible citizens, to quit the scene. They need to quickly differentiate themselves from the law-breaking crowd and exit the riot immediately. They also need to think hard, learn a lesson, and figure out how they ended up in a vandalizing, looting, burning, assaulting, maniacal, murderous, monstrous mob to begin with.

Because prudence, decency, morality, and justice demand that all rampaging mobs engaged in rioting, vandalizing, looting, arson, and killing – or which threaten to do so or seem like they might – need to be shot on sight.

The world needs to nip this horror in the bud. It needs to stop this nightmare from ever starting. The legal authorities and police need to be morally good and socially civilized here. In order to protect people and property – which is their sacred duty – they need to shoot to kill all the rioters, feral beasts, and mutant, murderous monsters.

The Philosophy of Noam Chomsky

 

Noam Chomsky is possibly the most intellectually powerful enemy of economic capitalism and political liberty since Vladimir Lenin. His opposition to free enterprise, free trade, laissez-faire, and post-1960s neoliberalism is notorious. He seems to leave such Big Brother advocates as John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Thomas Piketty, and Paul Krugman in the dust.

Chomsky is a formidable advocate of anarchism, socialism, and collectively-owned, democratically-run businesses – however odd, contradictory, and foolish that may seem. He’s also a close ally of the current woke fascism and bigotry, as well as a profound proponent of what I call post-2016, post-Bernie Sanders, Monster Leftism.

No-one is more intelligent than Noam Chomsky. His IQ is probably off the charts. And no-one is better educated. He attended an Ivy League university at 16 and eventually earned a Ph.D.

As a speaker and writer, Chomsky is remarkably erudite, scholarly, honest, brave, direct, comprehensible, low-key, and beguiling. As a person, he is a charmingly avuncular figure. In a whole variety of ways, Chomsky is a pedagogic and philosophical delight.

That said, no-one on the planet is more intellectually fatuous and depraved. No-one has more asinine and heinous political views. An especially good example of this is found in his current book Consequences of Capitalism (2021). Here are most of his central ideas on capitalist workers, as well as many of his foundational philosophical and political beliefs:

• "[T]he great majority of the population is governed for most of their waking lives by private governments, more accurately, private tyrannies." (p. 86)

• "When you rent yourself to some concentration of capital in the private sector – that’s what taking a job is – you’re giving your life over to a dictatorship, in fact, an extreme form of a dictatorship that reaches far beyond political dictatorships. The tyranny to which you are handing yourself over to has almost total control over you. It controls every minute of your working day: what you wear and are allowed to say, when you’re allowed to get a bathroom break, how your hands and legs move, whether you smoke cigarettes at home. Just about everything in your life is controlled by this extreme dictatorship, which goes far beyond any totalitarian dictatorship in the degree of control it exercises." (p. 86)

• Chomsky rejects the notion that the capitalist "socioeconomic system is legitimate if it subjects people to extreme forms of tyranny for most of their lives". He similarly rejects the notion that the capitalist "wage labor contract is itself legitimate". (p. 86) Chomsky repeatedly calls such workers "wage slaves". (p. 62) He says by itself "wage labor [is] a violation of inalienable rights". (p. 87)

• Chomsky mocks those who deny this, claiming that "The argument in favor of legitimacy is that the contract is freely undertaken – in the sense of Anatole France’s remark that the rich and poor are equally free to sleep under the bridge at night. In the real world, the contract is accepted under duress. You accept it or you starve". (p. 86)

• Chomsky rejects the capitalist system overall because "people have to rent themselves to dictatorships to survive". Moreover, capitalism violates the "inalienable rights of human beings, like the right not to be a slave, for example, or the right not to be property". (p. 86-87)

(from Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance, by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone, 2021)

Reading thru this rubbish one can’t help but wonder: Is Chomsky serious? Isn’t this all just some kind of joke? But, evidently, it isn’t.

Nothing is more strange than Chomsky’s claim that working for a big company means "giving your life over to a dictatorship, in fact, an extreme form of a dictatorship that reaches far beyond political dictatorships." What is he even talking about? Is he arguing that if you deliver packages for FedEx, or sell cosmetics in Macy’s, or ring up groceries at A & P, that this is worse than living under Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? Has Chomsky ever actually worked at such a job in his life?

The answer is no. Noam Chomsky went directly from attending college to teaching at one. He’s never done an honest day’s work in his life. If he had, he likely wouldn’t make such outrageous remarks. Altho’ Chomsky has read a lot about "the workers" and "factory labor", his whole deluded existence has been inside the warped and diseased Groves of Academe.

And Chomsky has never lived inside a political dictatorship either. Based on what he says and writes, he seems to have never even visited. If he had, probably he wouldn’t spout such tripe as the above.

One common Chomsky theme, which probably appears in his talks and writings hundreds of times, is the off-kilter idea that someone taking a job with someone else is thusly engaged in the horrific act of “renting himself”. But how in the name of Zeus is this voluntary and contractual behavior a bad thing? You’re doing it willingly. While working, you still wholely own yourself. You still control your behavior completely. Even as a loyal and obedient employee, you’re still 100% your own man and entirely free. You can stay at, or quit, your job at will. Ultimately, you’re answerable to no-one other than yourself. So how is this voluntary, chosen, temporary, compensated self-renting any sort of "servitude"?

Moreover, aren’t you also "renting yourself" every time you freely decide to expend time, effort, money, mind, and soul at the rewarding activities of being with your family and friends? In the Game of Life, in which you have to do something with yourself and your time, how is "renting yourself" something to be avoided? Even if you’re entirely self-sufficient, and live completely alone, any activity you engage in, commit to, and invest in, can accurately be thought of as Chomsky-style self-rental.

I think Chomsky got this absurdity from the Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Near the end of section One, they complain about capitalist "laborers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, [and] are a commodity, like every other article of commerce". Chomsky consistently says "rent" instead of "sell" in his writing and speaking, but the idea is exactly the same.       

And despite what Chomsky seems to think, people who own their own, small, independent farm (like most Westerners in the pre-capitalist 1700s), or who run their own mom ‘n’ pop store, or who even work at some Chomsky-style “cooperative” or kibbutz-type business, still have to surrender some large part of their life, mind, spirit, time, and effort in some extremely rent-like fashion. Small, collectively-owned, democratically-run businesses where you have a prominent place in the management still demand that you “rent out” your bodily labor and efforts to it.

And, yes, you still have to do the job, or make the product, or run the service, while expending time and toil, as you significantly cater to the customer, and willingly engage in some popularly-demanded productive activity, in some hugely rent-like behavior. But how in hell is this demeaning, humiliating, and awful? Is every effort in life thus? How in the name of Adam Smith is this a form of “enslavement”? Chomsky’s reasoning here seems like a farce.

Ultimately, Noam Chomsky seems very similar in his thought to such coercive collectivists as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Vladimir Lenin. They all observed something new, strange, and marvelous emerge in the early 1800s in the West: giant, well-run factories and impossibly-complex, big businesses. They ran with great harmony and made everybody rich.

But a certain class of intellectuals freaked out at this. They gaped at the wondrous, new phenomenon and couldn’t make heads or tails out of it. So they created an intricate, convoluted, contradictory, intellectual system to explain it all. And they set to work solving a problem which, in fact, only lightly and briefly existed: abuse of low-level workers.

But Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky had no real idea what caused worker abuse, and so couldn’t figure out how to end it. The truth is abuse of low-level employees in giant companies only existed where the welfare state, corporate state, and crony capitalism were allowed to flourish. Only where the new, large companies were allowed to bribe the legislatures and create government-enforced, coercive monopolies.

But even this mistreatment radically faded over time. And even at the very beginning of the early-1800s, Big Business era, the humblest employee was free to not leave the farm, or to work for a better company, or to work in a different industry, or to take a job in a different city. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the “workers” of the 1800s were little “exploited” or “oppressed”. And even if they were, the solution to the problem, then and now, was more capitalism and economic freedom – not less, as Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky believed.

The fact is, under true social libertarianism and real economic laissez-faire, even the poorest workers are massively in control of their lives and fate. This includes their giant corporation work life.

Under political liberty, unskilled workers of the lowest variety can still seek or avoid any job they want for any reason they want. No-one can stop them. They can freely pick and choose their job, industry, company, neighborhood, city, region, and everything else. If the offered salary and work conditions are not to their liking, they can quickly and easily find a different job.

Altho’ it isn’t well known, and Chomsky doesn’t know it at all, under true capitalism, the unemployment rate is always zero. There’s always a labor shortage. Business owners are in a constant hunt and panic for new workers, which they inevitably seek to lure in with high wages and good working conditions.

And as even Chomsky knows, worker salary and conditions improved radically thruout the 1800s and 1900s. The rise only slowed when the Chomsky-style, 1930s New Deal and the 1960s Great Society finally did too much to replace economic liberty and capitalism with government-regulated welfare statism.

Chomsky’s claim that working for Big Business means you are “property” and a “slave” is surreal. One is tempted to ask: Just what planet does this intellectual clown live on? Only full-scale, Chomsky-style socialism turns workers into property-like and slave-like persons.

But this strange idea also seems to come from the Communist Manifesto. Also near the end of section One, Marx and Engels claim: "Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are...slaves of the bourgeois class, and the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself."

But if one wanted to tweak poor Professor Chomsky even more, one could point out that under true capitalism – not the grossly-flawed welfare statism and crony capitalism of the 1800s and today – the poor are not “free to sleep under the bridges at night”. Bridges and roads are privately owned under capitalism and thus the bedraggled, poor people desperately seeking rest would be trespassing and thus thrown out. Yes, capitalism is so cold, cruel, and evil that it won’t even let pathetic, homeless bums sleep on the filthy, hard dirt under the drafty, nasty bridge!

Of course, in real life, poverty declines radically under laissez-faire capitalism, as homes surge in luxury, and prices drop like a rock. Charitable giving also rises radically.

One bizarre but common theme of intellectual failures like Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky is their evidently sincere belief that under capitalism the workers are “wage slaves”. Business owners are something like slave masters.

But the exact opposite is true. In the unending but impossible attempt by owners to find and keep enough workers, the “big bosses” have to cater to the whims of even the worst of their employees. Business owners and managers are virtually forced to submit and conform to the many, irrational needs and wants of their workers and effective business partners. The reality is, Big Business owners practically face coercion under the stress of economic liberty and competition.

Thus the workers are actually “wage masters” or “wage kings”. The company owners and managers, in turn, are “pay slaves”. On this issue, Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky couldn’t be more stupid if they tried.

One reason rich business owners are so accommodating and servile to their low-level workers is that, unlike the hired help, they can’t easily quit and move on. They have tremendous resources committed to their business, factory, land, and equipment. It isn’t a simple matter to sell these specialized, expensive things, and then move on to some new industry or city. Nor is it easy for them to hire new, skilled managers; or find a fresh, competent, experienced, labor team; or create a new, manufacturing system; or come up with a new, ingenious, business idea to make money.

So they’re trapped. They’re pay slaves. The workers rule. Owners and managers have to kiss the ass of their employees – or else.

Economic liberty and competition demands this. Capitalism creates nothing less than a Workers’ Paradise.

Chomsky on Capitalist Workers

 

Here's Noam Chomsky's latest. It comes from his 2021 book, Consequences of Capitalism. In it he discusses the workers in Western Civilization under the capitalist political and socio-economic system:

"[T]he great majority of the population is governed for most of their waking lives by private governments, more accurately, private tyrannies." (p. 86)

"When you rent yourself to some concentration of capital in the private sector – that’s what taking a job is – you’re giving your life over to a dictatorship, in fact, an extreme form of a dictatorship that reaches far beyond political dictatorships. The tyranny to which you are handing yourself over to has almost total control over you. It controls every minute of your working day: what you wear and are allowed to say, when you’re allowed to get a bathroom break, how your hands and legs move, whether you smoke cigarettes at home. Just about everything in your life is controlled by this extreme dictatorship, which goes far beyond any totalitarian dictatorship in the degree of control it exercises." (p. 86)

Chomsky rejects the notion that the capitalist "socioeconomic system is legitimate if it subjects people to extreme forms of tyranny for most of their lives". He similarly rejects the notion that the capitalist "wage labor contract is itself legitimate". (p. 86) Chomsky repeatedly calls such workers "wage slaves". (p. 62) He says by itself "wage labor [is] a violation of inalienable rights". (p. 87)

Chomsky mocks those who deny this, claiming that "The argument in favor of legitimacy is that the contract is freely undertaken – in the sense of Anatole France’s remark that the rich and poor are equally free to sleep under the bridge at night. In the real world, the contract is accepted under duress. You accept it or you starve". (p. 86)

Chomsky rejects the capitalist system overall because "people have to rent themselves to dictatorships to survive". Moreover, capitalism violates the "inalienable rights of human beings, like the right not to be a slave, for example, or the right not to be property". (p. 86-87)

Noam Chomsky’s beliefs about economic liberty and capitalism are so fatuous and depraved as to virtually not need refutation. It’s enough to merely list them.

(from Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance, by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone, 2021)

Analytical Race Theory

 

Analytical Race Theory argues that browns and blacks are significantly inferior to whites in their nature, nurture, and volition. This means in their biology, culture, and ethics. It also means in their intelligence, upbringing, and private, personal choices.

Because of these considerable, statistical weaknesses, brown and black people succeed less well than white people, personally, socially, and economically. Their failures are not due to systemic, institutional, hidden, or secret racism by whites or society. This is true, despite what today is mostly believed, and almost universally claimed, by those of all races.

Overall brown and black inferiority is real and profound. But because these obvious and important truths are almost entirely evaded or lied about, colored people end up hugely suspicious and paranoid about their inexplicable lack of success. They tend to blame everyone – and with cause. Colored folks plaintively cry out: “Where are all the brown and black Aristotles, Ciceros, Leonardos, Edisons, Einsteins, Sam Waltons, Warren Buffets’s, Steve Jobs’s, and Bill Gates’s?” But the plain reality is such figures don’t exist, historically or currently, due to the manifest weaknesses of coloreds.

Unfortunately for mankind, almost all white, brown, and black intellectual, civic, and political leaders today choose to evade or lie about this. The result is unfocused brown and black bitterness, and hatred at their unknown enemies. Racial mistrust, tension, and conflict flourish, as does hatred of whites.

What none of the fatuous and depraved evaders and liars realize – but what Analytical Race Theory teaches – is that inter-racial harmony, cooperation, and friendship would rise dramatically if only people would stop lying thru their teeth about these pivotal phenomena. Browns and blacks would also uplift themselves radically, if only they knew what the problem was.

Monster Leftism

 

The great political and socio-economic ideal of all time is freedom, also known as liberalism. Historically, the best and most liberal system of government ever was America around 1800. But the U.S. was still far from fully free and politically perfect.

Even during George Washington’s reign, government funding wasn’t voluntary and contractual. The state fascistly punished private “vice” somewhat. There were a few oligarchic government-protected business monopolies. There were socialist roads, parks, schools, money, and mail delivery. And other tyrannical things. Founding Fathers America wasn’t an entirely free society and couldn’t be called a pure liberia.

As the 1800s progressed, America followed post-revolutionary France’s lead and deviated away from liberty and justice for all. The U.S. took two paths: right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism. Altho’ the demarcations weren’t clear and consistent, the conservatives tended to support economic liberty while opposing significant elements of social and personal liberty. The progressives tended to support social and personal liberty while opposing significant elements of economic liberty.

And that’s the way it stayed up until the 1960s.

As late as the 1940s and 1950s you could spot conservative Republicans and Democrats opposing equal rights for the different races, genders, and sexualities while supporting censorship of books, movies, plays, singers, comedians, and entertainers. Progressive Republicans and Democrats favored civil rights and social freedom on all these issues. Conservatives also wanted strong tyranny for victimless “crimes” like drugs, prostitution, and gambling, while progressives usually wanted these private activities legalized or only lightly coerced.

But while conservative Republicans and Democrats may have been fascists and political failures when it came to social and personal liberty in the 1940s and 1950s, they largely reversed this economically. Conservatives righteously opposed the 1930s New Deal and the growing socialism thereafter. Progresssive Republicans and Democrats, in turn, favored the growth of government tyranny when it came to economic programs like the above, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, expanded Welfare, expanded unemployment benefits, expanded government housing, and the like.

But all that changed in the 1960s. The Democrats became the party of intense progressivism, with few or no conservatives. The Republicans became the party of intense conservatism, with few or no progressives. And both leading political philosophies significantly changed their relationship to liberalism and political freedom.

The progressives or Leftists no longer much supported the liberalization of victimless “crime” laws, whereas the conservatives and Republicans sort of did. The Leftists no longer supported equal treatment for whites and blacks, nor for men and women, while the Rightists mostly did. Progressives after 1965 or so opposed civil rights and wanted privileges for “minorities”, often called “affirmative action” discrimination. But this favortism for one tribe over another was socio-economic fascism and tyranny – which the conservatives used to favor. Now the Right was comparatively on the side of liberty and justice, with the Left on the side of government coercion and “social justice”.

After the “counter-culture”, "hippie generation”, and “Age of Aquarius”, the New Left was noticeably more illiberal and anti-liberty than the Right. The conservatives or Rightists of the post-1960s were certainly not liberals or capitalists or any kind of libertarians. But they weren’t nearly as illiberal or pro-tyranny as the updated progressives or New Left. The great philosopher Ayn Rand even identified the New Leftists as being neo-savages and enemies of the Industrial Revolution. And indeed their rejection of large elements of Western Civilization was horrific.

But by 2015 or so, and as exemplified by Senator Bernie Sanders, the philosophy of left-wing progressivism became significantly worse. Both president Barack Obama and president Joe Biden openly boasted they sought to “fundamentally transform America”. Their opposition to America’s liberal or libertarian essence was profound.

The current Left openly advocates socio-personal fascism and economic socialism. Their love of Orwellian enslavement is strong. The so-called progressives – who actually favor massive regression from the European Enlightenment and America’s Founding Fathers – now want a new New Deal or Green New Deal. After the disastrous retreats on liberty in the 1930s and 1960s, the Left wants still more. They now want Big Brother to almost completely take over education and health care. 

And to further their ends, and based upon general principles, the Left even wants to censor most political and philosophical debate, as well as most art and entertainment. Their logic is "hate speech isn't free speech," and false and bigoted views aren't protected by law. Overall, if you dispute the woke Left you must be a bad person, hence your ideas and yourself must be “canceled”. What could be more evil than this?

The new-era regressives have even changed their mind on immigration. They currently want as many low-quality Hispanics, blacks, Moslems, and Third World savages as they can get. However much this devastates America, they don’t care. The new-era Leftists desire them as new voters in order to promote their new politics of fascism, socialism, and tyranny. Unbelievably, the ultra-progressives and new New Leftists now reject merit and quality in American immigration.

Perhaps most shockingly, the evolved and woke Left now favors racism and sexism. In the recent past, they ferociously opposed them. But now their philosophy is tribalist bigotry like “critical race theory”, i.e. “hate whitey, kill whitey”. According to the finest thinkers on the Left, all whites and males are evil by nature. Everything they do, by definition, is bigoted and wicked. And anyone who doesn’t admit this is an advocate of “white supremacy” and “the patriarchy”. Anyone who doesn’t automatically revile and loath whites and males – including other whites and males – is a lover of the KKK and Hitler.

And so the Monster Left is born. Their hatred of liberty is intense. Their ignorance and depravity is amazing. They want individual rights and justice for all to just die.

The post-2015 Monster Left’s love of collectivism and authoritarianism is profound. Pretty much all forms of liberalism need to be crushed. Virtually all aspects of socio-personal libertarianism, economic capitalism, and political liberty need to be terminated.

Monster Leftism loathes Western Civilization, America, capitalism, freedom, whites, males, open debate, free speech, and Enlightenment liberalism. Monster Leftism adores fascism, socialism, and tyranny. Ultimately, the Monster Leftists favor a politics and world of communism, Marxism, Stalinism, Kymer Rouge-style genocide, and Big Brother-style total enslavement.

White Privilege

 

"White privilege" is a racist, smear term for white virtue. Whites, both currently and historically, are more accomplished, cultured, intelligent, virtuous, law-abiding, personally-responsible, hard-working, tolerant, and polite than brown and black people. Everyone knows this. So whites tend to enjoy better jobs, housing, transportation, education, health care, friends, spouses, and social treatment. They deserve it. White people have earned it.

It’s truly evil to punish, insult, or guilt-trip whites for their achievements and nobility. White people, racially-speaking, are simply magnificent. They very much merit recognition, appreciation, and reward. This is justice.

Racial equity, in turn, is rank injustice. To give people benefits and "privileges" which they haven’t earned, and don’t deserve, is highly immoral. Instead, brown and black people need to improve and uplift themselves. Browns and blacks need to make their races better than whites. Then they’ll enjoy "colored privilege" – and proudly merit this.

The truth is, white goodness, greatness, and supremacy is wonderful. It’s something we should all respect, admire, and aspire to. It’s something we should all praise, honor, and celebrate.

Media Wars

 

Conservatives and libertarians are pretty much the most pathetic people on earth. When it comes to the news media and social media, they’re getting the living hell beaten out of them. And yet they don’t fight back.

The leftist regressives (“progressives”) control virtually every powerful media organization in the country. This includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram. And the regressives openly use them to bash conservatives and libertarians, as well as to brainwash the whole planet into their wicked ideology.

So why don’t the pitiful loser conservatives and libertarians stand up for themselves? Why don’t they counter-attack? Why do they accept such savage beatings from the leftist monsters without decently fighting back?

They certainly can, if they want to. They have the power. Conservatives and libertarians have a mountain of money and support they can call upon. They can easily purchase the above media companies and turn them to their use. Or they can create rival organizations.

This battle is important. The Monster Left has loudly announced to all that they seek to destroy Western Civilization, starting with America. They seek a worldwide communist or collectivist dictatorship based upon their principles of economic socialism, social fascism, speech censorship, minority supremacism, and the wholesale eradication of whites and males. What could be more evil?

Yet the pathetic worm conservatives and libertarians of today militantly refuse to counter-attack. And it’s almost impossible to figure out why.

Do these two philosophy groups seriously not know that they’re morally superior to the regressives? Do they seriously not know that they’re intellectually superior too? Do they seriously not realize that they can create a civilization and society which is far more healthy and happy?

And there’s certainly money to be made in the process. Even if the conservatives and libertarians are completely amoral and unprincipled, they can still reap a fortune. The few modest attempts at a news media alternative have all been fabulously successful. The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and AM talk radio all make money hand over fist. The fledgling news organizations NewsMax and One America News Network are also going like gangbusters.

But there needs to be far more. And the conservatives and libertarians need to move into social media too. The current censorship of their views on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and the like is simply brutal. Maybe WeMe, Parler, Gab, Rumble, Donald Trump’s new companies, or a few others will finally rise up.

Of course, it may be too late. Ever since 1968, the left has engineered a massive invasion of America by Third World savages. They almost all become citizens and vote regressive inside America’s democratic political system.

Moreover, the Monster Left has used the old news media and the new social media so powerfully that possibly they have successfully brainwashed a majority of Westerns and Americans into their philosophy of regressivism. This means: into a hideous regression from the glorious Enlightenment values and ideals of reason and science, individualism and self-interest, liberty and justice, beauty and heroism, transcendence and triumph. Maybe the Monster Left has indoctrinated people enough now that it effectively owns our majority-rule planet.

But maybe not. The conservatives and libertarians need to change their ways and fight back. A good place to start is the news media and social media.

Growing the Government

 

The more government expands, the more it enslaves. There’s almost an exact one-to-one correspondence between state power gained and individual liberty lost. And Big Government, by its nature, also robs us of our wealth. Thru taxes raised, it steals our irreplaceable time and effort. Ultimately, Big Brother robs us of our soul.

A typical thieving, enslaving Welfare State today might require 15 hours of work a week to fund it. This leaves only about 25 hours a week of income for the individual to spend on himself. But if the illegitimate, criminal Welfare State decides to expand such programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, public housing, public health care, public education, public day care, etc., then the typical taxpayer might have to work 18 hours a week to fund it.

Thus everyone is robbed and enslaved 3 extra hours per week. And you're probably working for close to nothing. It’s like being a black slave in the sugar fields of Haiti in the 1700s. If you’re a good person, and work hard and well, you likely get little for your extra efforts.

As the state grows, all that good people typically receive in compensation for their greater toil is a small amount of poor benefits and some low-grade freebies. Such is the nature of the badly-run, inefficient Welfare State. If people would buy these new products and services on their own, instead of getting them from the government, they would receive far better value – assuming they want them at all.

But Leviathan doesn’t just rob and enslave. It also degrades cultural richness, economic productivity, and the human spirit. The Welfare State subtlety but powerfully saps the vitality of society, business, and the individual thru its growth.

An ocean of great novels, movies, plays, t’v’ shows, paintings, and statues never get created, just as a slew of outstanding entertainers, comedians, athletes, civic leaders, inspiring teachers, expert engineers, and scientific geniuses are never born. And a bonanza of miraculous products, services, ideas, and inventions never get invented in the first place. Human greatness and happiness simply get crushed.

This is all due to the ever-expanding Welfare State.