The Wreckage of Socialism is not just Economic

I grew up in a socialist society, but I’ve found it hard sometimes to talk about socialism in America. When people like me identify the blatant failures of socialism, its advocates often argue that the socialist countries we’re talking about are “not really socialist.” In other words, no true socialism has ever existed. Hence, there is a need to practice true socialism here in America.

The Reality of Socialism

I think socialism should be defined based on historical facts, not on utopian fantasies that exist only in its campaigners’ heads. It’s like a mirage: it only looks good from a distance. That’s why its advocates are usually those who have never lived in a socialist place. But I have. I know what socialism is like because I did not view it from afar. I was in it.

In this election, choose freedom over tyranny.

In socialist societies such as, China, Cuba, North Korea, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union, Slovakia, Ukraine, Venezuela, just to name a few, past and present, everything belongs to the centralized government, which directs and plans the economy. There is no private property.

The purpose of the system is to distribute wealth equally and to end inequality and poverty. On paper it sounds very attractive. In reality, all socialist countries end up in one place: shattered economies, poverty and the destruction of civilization. My own childhood experience illustrates this.

Devastating Human Corruption

But the most devastating effect of socialism is not economic. Power corrupts human beings. People inevitably abuse and misuse it. Jesus insists that within the Christian community, the ones who want to be great must act as servants instead of wanting to be looked upon as stars. In the secular world, however, the only way to prevent such an abuse is to allow competing powers to coexist through a system of checks and balances. Checks and balances are totally absent in socialism. A centralized planned economy demands that power be solely placed in the hands of the government.

This creates an elite class at every level of society. Exerting power over others brings enormous pleasure and satisfaction to the ones who are in authority. The lure is strong. It’s almost impossible to give it up under any circumstance. In the course of protecting their power, these elites will often use intimidation, manipulation, fear and anxiety as tactics to ensure subjects’ total obedience.

Traumatic Experience With Socialism

During the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), my family lived in an apartment in a college in China where my dad was a professor. When I was about 3 or 4 years old, I was awakened at midnight by the voice of a school official over a loudspeaker outside directing all adults to get up, get dressed and immediately report at the Square of the Red East. Within a minute, my parents were gone. I was horrified. I began to scream. Soon my cry was drowned out by the howling cries of children from every direction.

I recognized two of the voices belonging to my friends whom I had played with the day before. I felt a sense of relief. Suffering alone was the most horrifying experience for a child. A friend’s voice, even a terrifying cry, would signify the existence of another human being, and thus, the sense of not being alone. My parents came back the next day, but I still live with the trauma.

My family lived in one small room. Without space for privacy, I often heard my parents’ conversations and understood the fear and uncertainty adults faced each day. One must be extremely cautious in words and actions when living in a totalitarian society. One misstep with the authorities may result in a catastrophic change both to the person involved and to the whole family. Such wariness and anxiety must sound familiar to anyone who has lived in a socialist society.

Because of my early exposure to the adult world, I developed very early a sense of fear that something dreadful was about to take place. The oppression and maltreatment did not just come from authorities, however. An authoritarian regime extracts the vilest part of a person and drastically affects the interpersonal dynamics among ordinary people.

Socialist Oppression

When I first arrived in the U.S., I noticed the politeness and respect American people exhibited. It did not take long for me to conclude that such good manners in part resulted from a culture that values freedom and human rights. It recognizes that humans are free and created equal. No human possesses any right to control another’s life or dictate another’s belief. Along with that comes the strong sense of mutual respect and tolerance.

But this is not so in a socialist country. If you came from a poor family, you were considered pure and holy. You had more rights and were expected to be treated with decency. Conversely, people like my parents, who happened to be born in a not-so-poor environment, had to live like dogs with their tails tucked between their legs (my dad’s expression).Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day.

With no sense of security, the human survival instinct often kicked in. People did things that they normally would not do in a free society. Often people who were from rich backgrounds were compelled to denounce their own families and heritages, to show their contrition and seek amnesty. It was a common practice for friends to report friends to the authorities so as to gain favor and benefits. An authoritarian society produces the foulest behaviors among ordinary citizens.

It’s my conviction that freedom is a precondition for human dignity and human rights. Socialism, strengthening the government’s power, is the most oppressive machine in human history. The day before I left China for America at the end of 1989, I was summoned to the human resource office in the college where I worked. As soon as I showed up, the lady who held the lowest rank in the office opened up a rant, shouting at me for at least 5 minutes in seemingly one breath, demanding to know why I’d failed to show up at the remote mining village for reeducation. She shouted because I meant nothing to her. She shouted because she could. She shouted because it made her feel powerful and important.

America – The Last Bastion of Freedom

I have always felt it a challenge to show my native-born American friends what it is like when the concept of freedom doesn’t exist. But recently pictures circulating on social media have done what I had failed to do. The shaking fists and indignation shown to the diner in a restaurant who dares to disagree speaks volumes. I’m sure none of the provocateurs care about individual liberty. They are promoting something that is entirely anti-republican, anti-America. They intimidate those with whom they disagree, and rob them of their dignity and rights.

I would never have thought such a thing could happen in America. The socialist and authoritarian overtones are alarming. If we allow such behavior to flourish, however, soon this kind of conduct will become a norm instead of an aberration. By then, America, the last bastion of freedom, will be well on her way to become a tyrannical state.

The Ultimate Freedom

As a Christian, freedom has special significance to me. Though I’ve never perceived America as a Christian nation, I recognize the important role America plays in human history in general and in God’s salvation history in particular. Far from being perfect, still America is the city on the hill and beacon of the world, because it is the freest place on earth. Its political system ensures its citizens the highest degree of liberty. It safeguards human dignity, worth and rights. It brings law and order instead of chaos and oppression.

For me, American freedom points to a much greater spiritual reality, that is, the believer’s freedom in Christ (Rom 8:21; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1). Like a foreshadowing or a foretaste, American freedom provides a tiny glimpse of the ultimate freedom that the believer can have in Christ. Just as marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the church, American liberty is emblematic of the greater reality the followers of Jesus enjoy in Christ. Just as we strive to protect marriage, we must also endeavor to defend American freedom because it, too, has sacred value!

In this election, choose freedom over tyranny.

Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the U.S. and having studied at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor and taught at Christian colleges and seminary. After March of this year, she sensed God was leading her to use her unique voice to provide a warning about various kinds of Marxist influences in our society. She lives in northern California with her husband and has two grown children.

Marxism: A Breeding Ground for Useful Idiots

Useful idiot” is a pejorative term for a person who propagandizes for a cause without fully understanding (due to naïveté, stupidity, or on purpose) the cause’s goals, who is cynically used by the cause’s founders.  It is used to describe otherwise sensible people who become, due to misrepresentations or outright lies, susceptible to Marxist/communist/socialist propaganda and manipulation.

Why is this important?  Because this is what Black Lives Matter is doing: using useful idiots to advance its cause.  One of BLM’s founders is Alicia Garza, a trained Marxist.  Why is that significant?  Because it explains BLM’s agenda.  Marxism’s (and BLM’s) ultimate goal is to ignite class warfare to provide an opportunity for the seizure of political power.  But the U.S. was created as a classless society with no royalty, no nobility, no caste system.  Everyone is equal under the law.  How, then, do Marxists ignite class warfare?  By creating false classes, then propagandizing them into existence.  This is where useful idiots come into play.  Once people believe that these false classes exist, class warfare can begin.

The actions of three useful idiots illustrate how they foster class warfare.  They use what Teddy Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit” to propagandize.  There’s the Democrat party.  Then there are two useful idiots of note, one whose name AT readers will recognize and a name most AT readers will not recognize: Barack Obama and Lewis Hamilton.

About Democrats, J.D. Rucker wrote:

The party that once focused on workers and Big Labor detached their wagons from those horses around the time Barack Obama became president, opting instead to latch onto identity politics[.] … This served them well for years, but now that identity politics has been taken over by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, among others, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are no longer in control.  It’s the radicals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar who are the party’s new ideological leaders, but even they are simply higher-ranking pawns [of Marxists].

Rucker continued:

The plans of the Cultural Marxists at the top come down to three big lies.  First, they have the lie of authority in which they turn people against the leaders.  They say all police and the justice system in general is corrupt.  They say President Trump and the GOP are the problem despite unprecedented prosperity across the board in America.  They need to lie to get their foot soldiers fired up.

The second lie is the lie of action.  They tell their group that to achieve their goals, they need to riot, loot, tear down monuments, form autonomous zones, and act out in ways that lead towards governments at every level promoting further authoritarianism.  They don’t tell their foot soldiers that they’re supposed to be quashed[.] …

The last lie is the lie of results.  The people in their movement are told this is all going to lead to revolution.  They’re not told that they’re going to get put down by authoritarian measures, and that these measures are the true goal of the Cultural Marxists who need that precedent in order to allow for the real end goal of authoritarian communism, which is very different from the anarcho-communism the foot soldiers believe they’re producing.

Marxists create useful idiots.

Obama, an idiot before he became useful, said of Trayvon Martin, the BLM poster child: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  “Defending the Black Lives Matter movement, President Barack Obama said Thursday [October 23, 2015] the protests are giving voice to a problem happening only in African-American communities, adding, ‘We, as a society, particularly given our history, have to take this seriously.'”  Obama provided usefulness by giving a Marxist organization credibility and support.   

Now to Lewis Hamilton, Formula One racecar driver.  Why?  He is one of the most visible black athletes today.  He began his “useful idiot” tour at a BLM rally in London in June.  Ben Morse of CNN wrote: “Since George Floyd’s death last month, Formula One world champion Lewis Hamilton has been one of sport’s most outspoken athletes in showing his support for the Black Lives Matter movement.”  Morse quoted Hamilton: “I was proud to be out there acknowledging and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, and my Black heritage.”

He then doubled down by bringing Breonna Taylor into his idiocy, obviously without doing any research.  On September 13, at the Tuscan Grand Prix, he wore a tee-shirt with the message “Arrest the cops that killed Breonna Taylor.”  He wrote before the race: “It’s been 6 months since Breonna Taylor was murdered by policemen, in her own home.  Still no justice has been served.  We won’t stay silent.  #JusticeForBreonnaTaylor.”  Following the race, Hamilton said, “I’ve been wanting to bring awareness to the fact there are people being killed on the street.  And someone was killed in her own house and they were in the wrong house and those guys are still walking free.”  That’s non-factual propaganda.

Then, after the Russian Grand Prix on September 24, he said: “People talk about sport not being a place for politics but ultimately it is a human rights issue and that is something we should be pushing towards.  We have a huge, amazing group of people that watch our sport from different backgrounds and cultures and we should be pushing positive messages towards them, especially for equality” (emphasis mine).  Again, non-factual propaganda.  Hamilton is, without a doubt, a useful idiot.

This occurred in an ironic atmosphere.  Speaking of Hamilton on July 12, motorsport legend Mario Andretti told Chilean newspaper El Mercurio: “I think the whole point of this is pretentious.  And it’s creating a problem that doesn’t exist.”  Hamilton’s response: “Andretti should educate himself.”  Hamilton didn’t bother to look up facts, just spewed propaganda.

Here is another example of an international useful idiot: Mercedes-Benz.  Until this year, its F1 racecars were known as Silver Arrows.  But no longer — they caved to their useful idiot and painted their cars black. 

What now?  First, know that useful idiots are everywhere.  The vast majority of the MSM are useful idiots as well.  They refuse to be educated.  So, second, educate yourself.  Larry Elder at Epoch Times, Dennis Prager at Prager University, and Thomas Lifson at AT are but three of hundreds of internet sources providing the complete truth.  Third, reach out to those who can be educated.  Fourth, patronize sponsors of conservative websites.

Warren Beatty, American Thinker

$5$10$50Otherhttps://lockerdome.com/lad/8965120688797543?pubid=ld-7146-6908&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com&rid=www.americanthinker.com&width=692

https://www.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df3f5d1dcd611924%26domain%3Dwww.americanthinker.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.americanthinker.com%252Ff3790786321da84%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=74&font=arial&height=25&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2020%2F10%2Fmarxism_a_breeding_ground_for_useful_idiots.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&share=false&show_faces=false&width=90https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.96fd96193cc66c3e11d4c5e4c7c7ec97.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2020%2F10%2Fmarxism_a_breeding_ground_for_useful_idiots.html&size=m&text=Marxism%3A%20A%20Breeding%20Ground%20for%20Useful%20Idiots&time=1603735285277&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2020%2F10%2Fmarxism_a_breeding_ground_for_useful_idiots.html%23.X5cO8mrGv0k.twitterShare223| 94 Comments| Print|sponsored contentFrom the WebPowered by ZergNet

3-Year-Old Girl Kills Father In Heartbreaking Firearm Accident

Historian Who Has Called Every Election Names His 2020 Winner

Howard Stern Has a Head-Turning Message For Trump Voters

Anna Kendrick Refuses To Do Nude Scenes & We Now Understand Why

Here’s How Most Americans Really Feel About Kamala Harris

Women’s Groups Are Already Reacting Strongly to Kamalasponsored content

RECOMMENDED

The Most Successful Attorneys in Scranton. See the ListSigns of Adult ADHD Might Rattle YouLiam Neeson Learns of Family Death Just Hours Before His BirthdayTommy Chong: Throw Out Your CBD NowPour Salt Down Your Drain Before Bed, Here’s WhySymptoms May Hint at Ulcerative ColitisGrand Canyon Landslide Reveals Spine-chilling SecretWorkers Make Huge Beastly Discovery Under Mexico AirportRemember Him from Two and a Half Men? Try Not to Gasp when You See Him NowTry Not to Gasp when You Hear Meghan Markle’s Former Co-star’s Comments

RECOMMENDED

Top Plastic Surgeon: if You Have Wrinkles, Do This Before BedDoctors Stunned: if You Want to Lose Weight, Do This Before Bed!One Simple Method Keeps Your Blood Sugar Below 100Tinnitus? when the Ringing Won’t Stop, Do This (It’s Genius)Doctors Stunned: Forget the Blue Pill, This Fixes Your EDSteps to Take After a Kidney Cancer DiagnosisA Flight Attendant’s Secret. What They Notice About You in Less Than 2 SecondsDrink This Before Bed, Watch Your Body Fat Melt Like CrazyMd: This Lower Blood Suagr Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)Robin Williams’ Final Net Worth Stuns His Familynull

Advertisement

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

nullhttps://2986c65bbda5f49a41f9e6e75b011ffe.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.htmlsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Ex-White House Physician Makes Bold Claim About Biden’s Health

Why Science Says You’ve Almost Definitely Seen a Ghost

Celeb Couples Whose Age Gaps Are Almost Grossly Inappropriate

Officials Reveal the Source of the Debate’s Coronavirus Spread

Hauntingly Beautiful Baby Names No One is Using

Jenna Dewan Reveals Why She Ended it with ChanningAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/marxism_a_breeding_ground_for_useful_idiots.html#ixzz6c0AMpZRk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Privilege of Politics

Actor Chris Pratt finds himself a target of left Hollywood and various social media enforcers for his apparent lack of support for Joe Biden, a sin in his industry. Pratt has endorsed neither Biden nor Trump, which seems eminently sensible for a boy-next-door type who plays superheroes and adventurers in big blockbusters. But staying quiet is never enough for the political jackals, who insist silence is violence and a form of privilege. Trump is a Nazi; his electorate is full of hateful fascist enablers and this is no time for quietude. To make matters worse, the reticent Pratt also belongs to a Christian church which is “anti-LGBT”—which is to say not anti-LGBT at all, but simply not in full conformity with the language and demands of its accusers.

When his actor friend and sometime costar Mark Ruffalo rushed to defend Pratt’s character, the Twitterati reacted angrily but predictably:

pratt1
Pratt2
Pratt3
Pratt4

This is a classic case of the Imposers positioning themselves as the Imposed Upon: LGBT advocates weaponize and contort simple words—hurt, harm, apathy, privilege, marginalized, vulnerable—in ways reminiscent of Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.” They use words in consciously dishonest ways. They shift the parameters of what it means to “support” or “oppose” LGBT causes into a stark binary: you are for us or against us. Simply living one’s life peaceably is not an option in this bizarre worldview.

And the Imposer’s unconditional terms change constantly, seemingly overnight. One cannot avoid conflict by being “not overtly political,” as Ruffalo termed Pratt. The accusations against his church, for example, amount to nothing more than a demand for unconditional surrender of any theology or doctrine which does not comport with today’s instant (though far from universal) view of transgenderism. Unless and until that happens, his church is per se transphobic and evil: indifference, or even kind and loving disagreement, cannot satisfy the Imposers.

It does not matter whether Pratt’s church welcomes everyone, even those individuals it considers engaged in sin (which presumably includes just about every person on earth). It does not matter whether Pratt is a good person or friend to his fellow actors. His church must affirmatively endorse the views of LGBT activists; Pratt must actively endorse Biden. Anything else is weaponized privilege.

Of course this is nonsense, but the Imposers always claim to be the Imposed Upon. Media and politicians play along, and then social media voices join the chorus until the original reality becomes completely obscured: both Chris Pratt and his church were minding their own business and not hurting anyone. The Biden and LGBT activists came looking for them, not the other way around.

What incredible arrogance and hubris! This is real privilege: the privilege of demanding others not only share your political views but also see the world in starkly political terms. This is real hate, actual hate, not the phony kind imagined on Hate Has No Home Here yard signs.

When taken to an extreme, a positive rights worldview requires not only conformity and acquiescence with the political project of the day, but your affirmative participation. Not keeping up with the latest outrage, political machinations, or campaign—not leading a wholly political life—becomes a dereliction of duty.

Political liberty is quite simple, but not easy. We all owe our fellow citizens a duty not to aggress against them or their property, and not to commit fraud against them. In the broader societal sense, we all should strive to be kind, open, and generous with everyone we meet, unless and until they give us a reason to be otherwise. But that is all we owe. Being apolitical or even antipolitical is your absolute right. At best, politics is an uneasy and imperfect mechanism for peacefully transferring political power; at worst, it is barely a substitute for war. More commonly, politics is a turf battle waged by rival gangs to control the state apparatus (the turf is us and our money). Politics is not noble, virtuous, or even necessary. The people attacking Chris Pratt, and even hoping to harm his career, reputation, and finances, hold no moral high ground.

My great aunt, now departed, once told me about a decision she and her husband made as newlyweds just after World War II. Starting life together in a very modest house, they wanted to build lasting memories with family and friends. So they made a pact: they would never discuss politics in their home or allow guests to discuss politics. In her view politics was like sex and religion, a private matter. They wanted to avoid the disharmony and rancor they had witnessed among their own parents and families a decade earlier over the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal programs. They determined their hearth and home would be devoted to happiness, an apolitical refuge where every visitor would be welcome.

The goal is a less political world, not a world which bends to our political will. We are not Imposers. So participate in politics and voting if you like, or refrain if you like. Voting is optional and anonymous for a reason. But never let anyone force you into taking a political stance, or even to hold a political stance. In 2020, privilege manifests as political extortion. Push back against these bullies.Author:

Contact Jeff Deist

Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients. Contact: email; Twitter.

Creative Commons Licence
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Image source: Svend Nielsen on Unsplash

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

ADD COMMENT

https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=misesinstitute&t_i=node%2F52488&t_u=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fwire%2Fprivilege-politics&t_e=The%20Privilege%20of%20Politics&t_d=The%20Privilege%20of%20Politics%20%7C%20Mises%20Wire&t_t=The%20Privilege%20of%20Politics&s_o=default#version=9e072c150154e3eaaf066d104c0fab0e

Shield icon
wire

WHAT IS MISES WIRE?

Mises Wire offers contemporary news and opinion through the lens of Austrian economics and libertarian political economy.

Submitting articles to Mises Wire

Reprints, Permissions & Copyrights

The views expressed on Mises Wire and mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.MOST POPULAR WIRE ARTICLES

Social Media Companies Aren’t the Good Guys. They’re Also Not Monopolists. 

Ryan McMaken

Social media has lied about user privacy and has misled the public about the platforms’ status as open forums. But none of this makes these companies monopolies. 

The Privilege of Politics

Jeff Deist

In 2020, privilege manifests as political extortion. Push back against these bullies.

Will Democracy’s Myths Doom Liberty?

James Bovard

If Biden is elected, we will hear the same “redemption” storyline that was trumpeted when Obama replaced (temporarily) disgraced George W. Bush. The  media will insist that Biden’s inauguration purifies Uncle Sam.

How Decades of Media and Faculty Bias Have Pushed America to the Left

Ryan McMaken

Silicon Valley and the media are moving even further left. This is what is to be expected when a single ideological group controls educational institutions and major media outlets over a period of several decades.

Chile Won’t Become a Developed Country If It Doesn’t Change Course

Victor Espinosa

Twenty years ago, it looked like Chile was well on its way to joining the world’s small club of developed countries. But this path looks less and less likely as Chile abandons its commitment to freedom and markets.MEET THE WRITER

headshot2.JPG

Jeff Deist

Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of…

Daniel Lacalle on the Biggest Bubble of All

Daniel Lacalle and Jeff Deist discuss why all of us have a stake in seeing central bank balance sheets shrink.

Jim Bovard on the Terrible Politicization of America

Jeff Deist and Jim Bovard take an unflinching look at the disastrous politicization of everything in America.

Mises Institute Press Page
The Human Action Podcast

MEET OUR WIRE CONTRIBUTORS

0089.jpg

Per Bylund

Per Bylund is assistant professor of entrepreneurship & Records-Johnston Professor of Free Enterprise in the…

MORE

TOPICS

AUSTRIAN SCHOOL

BROWSE LIBRARY

ABOUT THE MISES INSTITUTE

CONTACT US

Mises Institute
518 West Magnolia Avenue
Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501

PHONE 334.321.2100 | FAX 334.321.2119

Email Us

Tu ne cede malis,
sed contra audentior ito

STAY CONNECTED

Website powered by Mises Institute donors

Mises Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436https://s7.addthis.com/static/sh.f48a1a04fe8dbf021b4cda1d.html#rand=0.5106790950952418&iit=1603734836782&tmr=load%3D1603734836681%26core%3D1603734836749%26main%3D1603734836761%26ifr%3D1603734836805&cb=0&cdn=0&md=0&kw=&ab=-&dh=mises.org&dr=&du=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fwire%2Fprivilege-politics&href=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fwire%2Fprivilege-politics&dt=The%20Privilege%20of%20Politics%20%7C%20Jeff%20Deist&dbg=0&cap=tc%3D0%26ab%3D0&inst=1&jsl=17&prod=undefined&lng=en&ogt=secure_url%2Curl%2Cimage%2Cdescription%2Curl%2Ctype%3Darticle%2Ctitle&pc=men&pub=ra-5c464f0891517916&ssl=1&sid=5f970d34abb9d9ef&srf=0.01&ver=300&xck=0&xtr=0&og=site_name%3DMises%2520Institute%26title%3DThe%2520Privilege%2520of%2520Politics%2520%257C%2520Jeff%2520Deist%26type%3Darticle%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcdn.mises.org%252Fstyles%252Fsocial_media_1200_x_1200%252Fs3%252Fsilence-is-violence1-fb.jpg%253Fitok%253DYF6PfN0V%26description%3DActor%2520Chris%2520Pratt%2520finds%2520himself%2520a%2520target%2520of%2520left%2520Hollywood%2520and%2520various%2520social%2520media%2520enforcers%2520for%2520his%2520apparent%2520lack%2520of%2520support%2520for%2520Joe%2520Biden%252C%2520a%2520sin%2520in%2520his%2520industry.%26image%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcdn.mises.org%252Fstyles%252Fsocial_media_1200_x_1200%252Fs3%252Fsilence-is-violence1-fb.jpg%253Fitok%253DYF6PfN0V%26secure_url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcdn.mises.org%252Fstyles%252Fsocial_media_1200_x_1200%252Fs3%252Fsilence-is-violence1-fb.jpg%253Fitok%253DYF6PfN0V&csi=undefined&rev=v8.28.7-wp&ct=1&xld=1&xd=123SHARES

Forget About November 3rd. What About November 4th ?

“You’re only as good as the information you have.” It’s a wise saying. If we apply it to the media in regard to the upcoming election, it’s eye-opening. Take a look at CNN and MSN headlines. “Biden eyes an expanded electoral map”; “Polls show Biden comfortably ahead of Trump, even in red states”; “Democrats plan Cabinet and transition team for the incoming Biden-Harris administration”. You’d think the election was already over. Then take a look at Breitbart, Fox News (sometimes), Fox Business, and the Daily Wire: “Trump pulling ahead of Biden in many swing states”; “Massive crowds for Trump, very small turnouts for Biden”. I will say that the conservative sites, while overtly pro-Republican, are more cautious. The left-wing MSNBC, CNN and those sites really are living in a post-election fantasy.

We have two realities, psychologically and media-wise. But in truth: there is only ONE reality.

Not just on the election, but on everything, particularly since Trump came into office. If you read my posts, chances are you never read or watch CNN, The Washington Post, or the New York Times. Believe me, it’s a difficult undertaking even to glance at the headlines of leftist media outlets if you’re not a leftist. But the truth is still what it is: If you dislike Trump, or if you even consider yourself a “moderate” Democrat, you’re getting TOTALLY DIFFERENT INFORMATION than people on the other side. If you flew in as an intelligent alien from another galaxy, you’d marvel at not just the different ideologies, but the polar opposite version of truth presented by both sides in the election in the most important country on the planet.

Psychology is my field, so I’m looking at this psychologically. After the election, somebody is going to be really, really disappointed. Mass numbers of people — either the Trump supporters, or the Biden supporters — are going to be upset on a level that I don’t believe we’ve ever seen before. Not ever.

Somehow, the country will have to proceed beyond this election, lawsuits/recounts and all, as one country. We’re not like that now. I feel certain we’re going to be even less like this, after Election Day plus whatever upheaval follows. I don’t see President Trump leaving office humbly and quietly, given his legitimate questions about mail-in voting legitimacy; and I don’t see people who voted for Trump shrugging and saying, “Maybe next time.” Does anyone see that happening? Nor do I see it the other way. The reaction to Biden losing will make the four-year-old temper tantrum after Hillary Clinton’s defeat seem like a day at the beach. Does anyone seriously think otherwise? We have every reason to believe there will be unchecked riots, more defunding of police and probably even more brutal lockdowns by Democrats who still control many of the nation’s cities and states.

Married couples with irreconcilable differences divorce. Sometimes they never speak again, and at other times there’s an uneasy though always fragile peace, depending on the circumstances (property, money, kids). I’m not sure that’s a feasible option for America. So what will it look like after the election … regardless of who wins, and by how much?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Why Equality of Outcome Can Never, Ever Work

A sharp, divisive cultural debate in the United States is that of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

In the early 20th century, in support of equality of outcome, Soviet communist dictator Vladimir Lenin coined the phrase, “Who, Whom.”  The concept was simple.  In a socialist society, where equality of outcome takes precedence over equality of opportunity, a critical question arises: who plans, directs, and redistributes the resources of a society, and to who is the beneficiary, or victim — the object, the “whom” — of said redistribution?  Politically speaking, the central maxim is to represent “disenfranchised” groups, provide them with monetary resources and government or state positions, and reshape any imbalances of power that have come to exist.  The catch is that once power is given to central planners to initiate such action, “there will be no economic or social questions that would not be political questions in the sense that their solution will depend exclusive on who wields the coercive power” (Hayek, p. 138).  In other words, the question of Who, Whom is what equality of outcome hinges upon.  All internal struggles are squashed. 

In a society structured to foster equality of opportunity, three things tend to determine how successful someone is or isn’t: intelligence (or skill), industriousness, and luck.  On the surface, these things may seem unfair.  For example, someone born into a family that promotes and develops education, who was taught about the value of hard work and had resources and connections on hand, would clearly have an enormous advantage over someone born into a split or uninterested family, enduring a failing public school system, with few or no mentors.  Despite this, the equality of opportunity has two overwhelming advantages: first, success, or the lack thereof, is not predetermined by any bureaucracy or person in charge but instead by one’s own ability and fortune.  Second, it is the only guarantee that we have freedom to own property and control our own lives, whereas with equality of outcome, all properties and liberties must be tightly regulated by the bureaucrat.  As Hayek notes, “In a planned society we shall all know that we are better or worse off than others, not because of circumstances which nobody controls, and which it is impossible to foresee with certainty, but because some authority wills it” (p, 138). 

Who would these bureaucrats then be in a landscape that promotes equality of outcome?  One thing is for certain: it can never be the most qualified, honest candidates, as they would always promote meritocracy and the ability to achieve positive results as a primary criterion for redistributing resources.  Instead, tribes must be used or created to “be able to obtain the support of the docile and the gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently” (p. 160).  The bureaucrat must then be a person who collectivizes individuals based upon skin color, sex, orientation, or other superficial traits.  The bureaucrat must then create and enforce policy that is based solely on a) those superficial traits as a lowest common denominator to b) be able to rally behind the political establishment in sufficient to secure elections and power.  Equality of outcome, then, seeks not equality at all, but special privileges. 

Professor Jordan Peterson notes that the confusion of how to properly seek and apply equality lies in a philosophical disagreement between individualists and postmodernists.  Peterson claims that individualists seek to create hierarchies of competence — to produce the best brain surgeons, plumbers, carpenters, etc. — and to reward them based upon that competence.  Conversely, a postmodernist believes that hierarchies can exist only via power and is thus willing to use pure political power to seek his objectives.

If true, this is a dilemma that can be addressed not just politically, but philosophically.  Politically speaking, it’s worth noting that an emphasis on utilizing the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, giving states powers not specifically given to the federal government, can act as a bulwark to protect citizens from the equality of outcome mindset with the totalitarian consequences that come with it.  Philosophically, it’s critical to educate and continually reinforce the notion that, in fact, the smallest minority is the individual himself.  Protect the individual, and one comes closer and closer to achieving equality of opportunity while preserving the liberties of U.S. citizens.  Failure to do so results in the ever increasing power and scope of the federal government. 

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek laments that “twenty-five years ago there was perhaps still some excuse for the naive belief that ‘a planned society can be a far more free society than the competitive laissez faire order it has come to replace’.  But to find it once more held after twenty five years of experience and the reexamination of the old beliefs to which this experience has led, and at a time when we are fighting the results of those very doctrines, is tragic beyond words” (p. 209).  The fact that this fight has become existential over a half-century since that statement was made, in the most free, prosperous nation ever to exist to boot, adds a whole new dimension to the word “tragic.”

Troy Smith

Works Cited 

Hayek, F.A. The Road to Serfdom. Edited by Bruce Caldwell, University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Peterson, Jordan. Equality of Outcome vs. Opportunity. Youtube, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnOUFS3lUpEr

Doctor Explains the Tell-Tale Sign You’ve Already Had COVID

Here’s What Happens to Your Body When You Stop Wearing Underwear

What Not to Buy If the Economy Hits a Recession

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Case Just Took a Quick Turn

Ice Cube May Have Just Done a Complete 360 on Trump

Geraldo Rivera Reveals Why Melania Wouldn’t Hold Donald’s Handsponsored content

RECOMMENDED

How CBD Gave Me My Life BackSigns of Adult ADHD Might Rattle YouOne Simple Method Keeps Your Blood Sugar Below 100Jada Pinkett-Smith’s Lover Said This About Her MarriageMan Cracks Open Rock, Discovers Jaw-dropping TreasureAmericans May Get Rid of Their Cell Phones for VoipIf You See Someone Wearing a Safety Pin, Don’t Ignore ItMichelle Obama Spills the Truth About Her MarriageHere’s Why Doris Day Was Actually a Really Weird PersonSimple Method Ends Tinnitus (Ear Ringing) – It’s Genius!

RECOMMENDED

Md: This Lower Blood Suagr Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)New ED Discovery Amazes Doctors (Try Tonight!)Tinnitus? when the Ringing Won’t Stop, Do This (It’s Genius)Top Plastic Surgeon: if You Have Wrinkles, Do This Before BedOne Simple Method Keeps Your Blood Sugar Below 100Steps to Take After a Kidney Cancer DiagnosisChuck Norris’ Net Worth Left His Family In TearsTop Plastic Surgeon: if You Want to Look 20 Years Younger Do This Before BedDoctors Stunned: This Removes Wrinkles Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)Diabetics: Do This Immediately to Lower Blood Sugar (It’s Genius)

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

sponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Conservative Critics Pose Controversial Question for Kamala

Former Republican Jennifer Lawrence Gives 2020 Endorsement

Trump Walks Out of Interview and Leaves Wild Twitter Rant

Gretchen Carlson Says Fox News Host’s Firing Is a ‘Victory’

Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Transformation Is Causing Quite a Stir

Blac Chyna Says Daughter Suffered ‘Severe’ Burns with RobAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/10/why_equality_of_outcome_can_never_ever_work.html#ixzz6bu3OdHJE
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Momentum: Trump

Whatever momentum Joe Biden had going into the last debate, President Trump drank it right up on live TV.  By the time it was over, Old Joe looked drained and confused, and the prez stood smiling like a kid slurping up every last drop of dessert before ordering seconds.

Biden must have been thinking, “How did I get here?”  Or rather, “How is it that this guy is still kicking my butt?  I’ve got all the news corporations working on my behalf.  Facebook and Twitter are actively censoring information that makes me look bad.  The DOJ is still covering up the Russia hoax.  And the guy just got hit with the Wuhan Flu.  Why won’t he give up?”  

Meanwhile, with all those campaign finance violations working in his favor, Biden still wasn’t able to avoid punching himself in the face by bringing up the Biden crime family’s pay-to-play operations in Ukraine and China all on his own.  The president had barely made mention of Joe’s unexplained wealth when China Joe started talking about Rudy Giuliani being another Russian agent hiding in plain sight.  It was surreal…and maybe the greatest stratagem ever used by one candidate to get the other to clobber himself.

Even with the information embargo being enforced by America’s “free press,” news of former Biden associate Tony Bobulinski’s spilling the beans about having personally witnessed Joe selling influence to the Chinese was breaking out into the open.  President Trump personally invited Bobulinski to attend the debate as one of his guests, and the former navy lieutenant conducted a press conference detailing the Bidens’ corrupt dealings with the Chinese just an hour before the debate’s start.  

Old Joe had just taken four days off from, well, whatever his handlers have him do to memorize canned one-liners and build up enough stamina to last an hour and a half.  And after the president introduced the world to Mr. Bobulinski, you know that Joe was doing everything he could to practice and remember how to respond to the explosive corruption allegations now hanging over his head.  He surely thought President Trump would come out swinging with the news that he was a bought-and-paid-for Manchurian stooge; instead, the president quietly and calmly answered questions from the left-leaning debate moderator while barely alluding to Chinese payoffs or Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” at all.  Old Joe looked pale and distracted and disoriented, and then he just couldn’t control himself anymore and pre-emptively blurted out that there was another Russian intelligence operation out there trying to make him look like a Chinese asset.  I’ve never seen a dope hang himself so effectively on live television.

If that weren’t enough, the added pressure of having to answer for his allegedly unreported income from China seemed to be too much for Joe’s active brain cells.  He remembered to lie about not wanting to ban fracking in Pennsylvania and Ohio, but he forgot that he wasn’t supposed to endorse Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal promise to end the oil industry over the next few years.  So fracking’s okay, but all fossil fuels must go.  Whoops!

I think Biden meant that he had no plans to ban the word “fracking,” but every intention of ending America’s use of oil, natural gas, and coal during his presidency.  “You can frack all you want, boys, so long as you’re using wind power from the heady energy days of the Middle Ages.”  Look out, America; the “progressive” party wants to drag us back to an age when cutting down forests and burning wood for heat were necessary for survival.  Nothing says “clean energy” like a hundred million campfires sending enough soot into the air to remind everyone what real pollution looks like.   

Trump immediately saw Biden’s unprotected jaw and went for the uppercut.  “Basically, what he is saying is he is going to destroy the oil industry,” President Trump said calmly for effect.  “Will you remember that, Texas?  Will you remember that, Pennsylvania?  Oklahoma?  Ohio?” 

It was a one-two punch that put Biden on the mat. 

Chalk this one up to a lesson the Democrats should have learned back when Hillary hit her head on the glass ceiling: never bet against Trump.  Just don’t.  Save your money and go with the thoroughbred, not the candidate meant for the glue factory.  Can you imagine any other politician contracting the Chinese coronavirus, recovering, campaigning nonstop for the next two weeks, and showing up at a make-or-break debate looking healthier and more energetic than the guy holed up in his underground assisted living facility?

The Democrats always underestimate Donald Trump.  Every time they succeed in hitting him with fire, they’re too busy celebrating and gloating to realize that the president’s already taken up a position behind them and lined up his sights.  His feedback loop for learning, adjusting, and preparing for re-engagement is faster than anything the Democrats have faced.

“Momentum” is everything in the final days before an election.  It’s the secret sauce of winning campaigns, and the president might as well put his brand on the label because he owns it going into the home stretch.  The polls are trending in Trump’s direction, the economy is experiencing unprecedented growth, and Biden is hiding from a corruption scandal that proves he’s a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party.  

The president’s out doing five rallies a day and demonstrating to Americans that the country is stronger than China’s coronavirus, while his opponent hides away to recover from the strain of standing for ninety minutes on a debate stage.  Trump’s crisscrossing the country, running up steps like Rocky Balboa, and rallying the labor force.  Biden’s teaching a generation of mask-shaming Karens to be so afraid of their own shadows that their only reaction to leaving their basements is “we just can’t.”  

One candidate is full of life and vigorously encouraging Americans to reclaim their country before local Democrat mandates kill it off for good; the other candidate has spent the entire campaign in hospice and thinks Americans should join him.

There’s no doubt which American future our enemies in China, Iran, and Russia prefer.  No wonder they have Joe’s family on retainer.

J.B. Shurk, American Thinker

Reason # 1,725 Why Government-Run Schools Make Me Sick–by Michael J. Hurd

Students at an Ohio middle school were asked to decide who they would leave behind if the world was about to end, using age, religion and other descriptions as markers for their decisions.

The assignment sparked widespread uproar.

“Whom to Leave Behind” asked students at Roberts Middle School in Cuyahoga Falls to choose eight out of 12 people to put into a space ship and take to a different planet because the world was ending, according to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.

Choices included a homosexual pro athlete, a militant African-American medical student and a female movie star who was a victim of sexual assault. [Source: Fox News online]

Government-run schools do not exist to teach children how to think. They exist to teach children WHAT to think. And this ridiculous exercise serves as yet another example.

The purpose of the exercise is clear: To shame and moralize students who give the “wrong” answer.

A reader of mine wrote me the following:

Notice that the criteria for who gets ‘left behind’ doesn’t include a single word about the moral stature, virtues, or values of the individuals. Just what color they are, what their jobs are, or what their victim status is. Hm…Should we take the Papuan vegan lesbian who was recently raped?

Eloquently put!

That’s my main objection, too. Why are the distinguishing attributes of the people you’re asked to save demographic variables over which the person has no control? Who cares what the race, sexual orientation or sexual abuse status of the potential victims are?

Why rig the question in this way? If you’re going to ask the question at all, why not ask students what qualities they’d look for in deciding who to save? And if you’re going to rig the question, why not do so with rational and universal values rather than ones only important to leftist twits who inhabit Manhattan and San Francisco?

The question actually is rather sick. It implies that life is a zero-sum game where sooner or later, somebody will have to be sacrificed. That’s the leftist, “liberal”, collectivist and Communistic outlook on life. They have nothing to offer us. Only despair — from which they will conveniently rescue us, provided we give them unlimited funds and power.

Notice how there’s no room for another point-of-view–the uplifiting, individualistic and rational one that would put qualities such as character, intelligence and integrity on a much higher plane than sexual orientation and race.

We’ve got to get rid of government-run schools. At least in a free market for education, parents and students would have alternatives to this diabolical trash.

We’re destroying our civilization by indoctrinating the vast majority of kids in schools with the idiotic, shallow and illogical values and standards of progressives.

I say this in the most atheistic spirit imaginable: God help us all.

Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism – Reason.com

Intellectuals have always disdained commerce,” says Whole Foods Market co-founder John Mackey. They “have always sided with the aristocrats to maintain a society where the businesspeople were kept down.” Having helped create the global grocery chain intellectuals arguably like best, Mackey has evolved into one of capitalism’s most persuasive champions, making the moral, practical, and even spiritual case that free exchange ennobles all who participate.

More than any other retailer, Whole Foods has reconfigured what and how America eats. Since opening its first store in Austin, Texas, in 1980, the company has helped its customers develop a taste for high-quality meats, produce, cheeses, and wines, as well as for information about where all the stuff gets sourced. Mackey, 62, continues to set the pace for what’s expected in organic and sustainably harvested food.

Because of Whole Foods’ educated customer base and because Mackey is himself a vegan and a champion of collaboration between management and workers, it’s easy to mistake him for a progressive left-winger. Indeed, an early version of Jonah Goldberg’s bestselling 2008 book Liberal Fascism even bore the subtitle “The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods.”

Yet that misses the radical vision of capitalism at the heart of Mackey’s thought. A high-profile critic of the minimum wage, Obamacare, and the regulatory state, Mackey believes that free markets are the best way not only to raise living standards but to create meaning for individuals, communities, and society. At the same time, he challenges a number of libertarian dogmas, including the notion that publicly traded companies should always seek to exclusively maximize shareholder value. Conscious Capitalism, the 2013 book he co-authored with Rajendra Sisodia, lays out a detailed vision for a post-industrial capitalism that addresses spiritual desire as much as physical need.

Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie talked with Mackey earlier this summer at FreedomFest in Las Vegas. To see the full video, go to reason.com. (Disclosure: Whole Foods Market is a supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this magazine.)

reason: You believe capitalism is not only the greatest wealth creator but helps poor people get rich. But you see it as constantly being misrepresented, even by its champions. Why is capitalism under attack?

John Mackey: Intellectuals have always disdained commerce. That is something that tradesmen did—people that were in a lower class. Minorities oftentimes did it, like you had the Jews in the West. And when they became wealthy and successful and rose, then they were envied, they were persecuted and their wealth confiscated, and many times they were run out of country after country. Same thing happened with the Chinese in the East. They were great businesspeople as well.

So the intellectuals have always sided with the aristocrats to maintain a society where the businesspeople were kept down. You might say that capitalism was the first time that businesspeople caught a break. Because of Adam Smith and the philosophy that came along with that, the industrial revolution began this huge upward surge of prosperity.

reason: Is it a misunderstanding of what business does? Is it envy? Is it a lack of capacity to understand that what entrepreneurs do, or what innovators do, is take a bunch of things that might not be worth much separately and then they transform them? What is the root of the antagonism toward commerce?

Mackey: It’s sort of where people stand in the social hierarchy. If you live in a more business-oriented society, like the United States has been, then you have these businesspeople, who [the intellectuals] don’t judge to be very intelligent or well-educated, having lots of money—and they begin to buy political power with it, and they rise in the social hierarchy. Whereas the really intelligent people, the intellectuals, are less important. And I don’t think they like that.

(Interview trancript continues below.)

That’s one of the main reasons the intellectuals have usually disdained commerce. They haven’t seen it [as a] dynamic, creative force, because they measure themselves against these people, and they think they’re superior, and yet in the social hierarchy they’re not seen as more important. I think that drives them crazy.

reason: A lot of the times the businesspeople are plucky upstarts—they’re innovators, they’re disruptive, and they’re fighting against the power. But once they get to a certain point of influence or power, they often start to try and rig the market or freeze the market in their favor. Why is that?

Mackey: I don’t know if it’s a psychological switch so much as that they weren’t necessarily grounded in the philosophy of capitalism. They weren’t necessarily advocates of the free market. They were just advocates of their own advancement, their own personal enrichment. And so I think oftentimes, they don’t make a distinction between when they’re entrepreneurs on the way up versus when they’ve arrived. They’re attempting to not fall, so they try to rig the game, and we have crony capitalism.

reason: We live in an age where there are an unbelievable amount of government mandates that restrict the ability of business owners and employees to really negotiate about stuff. Some are things as obvious as the minimum wage, where it says, “Under no circumstances can a business offer somebody less than this amount.” How do these affect your ability to run a business in an extremely competitive market?

Mackey: The impetus behind so many of these types of regulations in the workplace is, in a sense, to shackle business again—to get it back under the control of the intellectuals. Just like commerce: If you study the history of business, you will see that most of the time in our history, commerce was controlled by the aristocrats. The merchants were kept under their thumb. And now they’ve escaped and we have this free-market ideology that says the market should determine all these things. They’re systematically undermining that marketplace to get business back, get the genie back in the bottle.

Of course, that will stifle innovation. It’ll stifle the dynamic creative destruction of capitalism. But I don’t think they’re thinking about it that way. They’re very concerned about the motives of business, and they see it as this selfish, greedy, exploitative thing. Businesspeople can’t be trusted, markets aren’t just, they’re not fair, so we need to intervene, we need to control this situation.

Good Globalism vs. Bad Globalism

Globalism” and “globalization,” are terms that suffer from a lack of any precise definition. The terms are used freely by a wide variety of commentators to mean both good and bad things — many of which are opposites of each other. Sometimes globalism means lowering trade barriers. Other times it means aggressive foreign policy through international organizations like NATO. Other times it means supporting a global bureaucracy like the United Nations.

This lack of precision was recently featured in The New York Times with Bret Stephens’s column “In Praise of Globalists.” Stephens however, also fails to make any serious attempt at defining globalism. He feigns an attempt to define globalism, but in the end, it turns out the column is just a means of making fun of Trump voters and rubes who don’t subscribe to Stephens’s allegedly cosmopolitan views.

Stephens tells us that globalists want to “make the world a better place,” thus implying that non-globalists don’t.  We’re informed that globalists value military alliances and free trade. But given that Stephen’s isn’t willing to define these terms or tell us how these institutions are used to make the world “a better place,” we’re still left wondering if globalism is a good thing. When international alliances are used to justify the dropping of bombs on civilians or turning Iraq into a basket-case and safe haven for al Qaeda, is that making the world a better place? When the EU uses “free trade” agreements as a means to crush entrepreneurs under the weight of a thousand taxes and regulations, is that making the world a better place?

Globalism: Conflating both Pro-Market and Anti-Market Forces

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Globalism has long been a heavily abused term that includes everything from lowering taxes to waging elective wars. For critics on the right, globalism must be suspect because so many center-left politicians are regarded as “globalists.”  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all regarded as dyed-in-the-wool globalists who also advocate for greater government control of markets.

Simultaneously, “globalists” have also long been attacked by anti-capitalists. They see globalism as working hand-in-hand with “neoliberals” who are impoverishing the world by pushing for the spread of market forces, free trade, and support for less government intervention in daily life.

These critics of so-called neoliberalism therefore attack organizations widely perceived to be “globalist” like the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, though, the critics attack these organizations for the wrong reasons. These globalist organizations deserve to be criticized, but not because they push some aspects of economic liberalization that are actually good. They should be criticized because they primarily act as political organizations that enhance the ability of some powerful states to intimidate and politically manipulate other, less powerful states.

This merging of free trade, military interventionism, and bureaucratic politicking under one umbrella of “globalism” ends up confusing the issue of globalism almost beyond repair.

But there is still hope for the term.

Historically, Globalism Is the Ideology of Peace and Freedom

Historically, it is important to remember that globalism is intimately connected to liberalism, the ideology of freedom and free trade.

It is not a coincidence that one of the nineteenth century’s most effective proponents of liberalism was Richard Cobden, who fought tirelessly against both trade barriers and against aggressive foreign policy. Cobden can be credited with waging an effective ideological war against the mercantilism of his day which was characterized by nationalist ideas in which both economic success and military security were zero sum games that required highly interventionist government institutions.

Cobden’s program, instead, was one of peace and free trade, which was then rightly regarded as a program of internationalism. Thomas Woords notes:

Although Cobden’s program would doubtless be stigmatized in our day as “isolationism,” free economic intercourse and cultural exchange with the world can hardly be described as isolation. In his day, in fact, Cobden was appropriately dubbed the “International Man.” And that, indeed, is what he was. Peace, free trade, and nonintervention — these ideas, Cobden believed, were not simply the ideological commitments of one particular party, but rather the necessary ingredients for the progress and flourishing of civilization.

We might say Richard Cobden was one of the first true European globalists. Cobden was further supported by the great French free-trader and anti-socialist Frédéric Bastiat who relentlessly called for the free flow of of goods while denouncing efforts by government institutions to “mold mankind” or impose regimentation on the population.

Thus, the liberals of the nineteenth century who supported greater freedom of movement in both workers and goods, and non-interventionist foreign policy, might be perplexed were they to see what passes for “globalism” today.

We are often told, even by pro-market globalists, that we need international organizations like the WTO to “ensure” that free trade prevails. This has always been a less-than-convincing claim. As Carmen Dorobăț has shown, there is not any actual evidence that the WTO really lowers trade barriers. Freedom in trade has grown more outside the WTO framework than within it.  All that is necessary to reap the benefits of free trade is to unilaterally remove barriers to trade. 

The European Commission meanwhile might facilitate trade within its trade bloc, but it acts as an enormous impediment to truly free and global trade.

Even worse is the foreign policy of the new globalists who support an endless number of wars and military interventions on “humanitarian” grounds. Enormous military bureaucracies like NATO, amazingly, are considered to be “globalist” organizations as well.

Political Globalism vs. Economic Globalism 

If we wish to end this confusion, though, we need to separate political globalism from economic globalism.

When we do this, we find that economic globalism is a force for enormous good in the world, but political globalism is primarily a tool for increasing the power of states.

As to economic globalism, we can see that again and again that the free flow of goods and services, unimpeded by states, improves international relations and increases standards of living.  Where governments have increasingly joined the “globalized” economy, extreme poverty declines while health and well being increases.  Latin American states that have embraced trade and freer economies, for example, have experienced growth. Those states that stick to the regimented economies of old continue to stagnate.  These benefits, however, can be — and have been — achieved by decentralized, unilateral moves toward free trade and deregulated economies. No international bureaucracy is necessary.

This is economic globalization: opening up the benefits of global trade, entrepreneurship, and investment to a larger and larger share of humanity.

Meanwhile, political globalization is an impediment to these benefits: Political globalists at the World Health Organization, for example, spend their days releasing reports on how people shouldn’t eat meat and how we might regulate such behavior in the future. Political globalists hatch new schemes to drive up the cost of living for poor people in the name of preventing climate change. Meanwhile, the World Bank issues edicts on how to “modernize”economies by increasing tax revenues — and thus state power — while imposing new regulations.

It’s essential to make these distinctions. Economic globalism brings wealth. Political globalism brings poverty.

Economic globalism is about getting government out the way. It’s about laissez-faire, being hands, off, and promoting the freedom to innovate, trade, and associate freely with others.

Political globalism, on the other hand, is about control, rules, central planning, and coercion.

Some careless observers may lump all this together and declare “globalism” to be a wonderful thing. But when we pay a little more attention to the details, things aren’t quite so clear. —by Ryan McMaken, Ludwig von Mises Institute

Please Help the Artful Dilettante

Some scholar, whose name I cannot recall, did a seriously in-depth study to identify all of the government “success stories” throughout recorded history. He could not find a single, solitary example. Every action the government has taken throughout history has either resulted in a zero-sum outcome or an abject failure. An example of zero-sum outcomes would include income-redistribution schemes where you rob Peter to pay Paul. Abject failures would include Obamacare, the Iraq War, and public education.

If anyone can identify the author or has additional information which could assist me in this matter, please post it to this website.