Right now, the Left finds itself attempting to wage information warfare for narrative control to assert that our current system is “capitalism.” As is common with the Left, they are lying.
Our national budget goes three-quarters to socialist-style entitlement programs, we have legal protections for unions, we endure mandated equality in all areas of life, and our economy is controlled through a centralized Federal Bank and a government that “creates jobs” by writing rules.
The national debt clock, as of this writing, lists almost twenty-three million government employees and over fifteen million unionized workers.
Even more, we are subject to all manners of international law and treaties, rendering national sovreignty dubious as we obey the surprisingly Communist “human rights” based rules of the internationalists.
We can find capitalism in this mess, but it exists under layers of rules, regulations, laws, affirmative action, and taxes — at federal, state, and local levels, plus any special fees and registrations — as well as the high legal cost of complying with all of this stuff.
That approach has created an end-stage economy which rewards monopolies. A company gets into a business area first, becomes huge, and then becomes unavoidable. At that point, it no longer has to do a good job; its role in industry has become a sinecure, or nepotistic position of authority used to extract income.
Ordinary people have absolutely zero idea how much of their cost of living comes from taxes that their employers, shops, landlords, and services pay. Perhaps half of every price, maybe more, goes into the maw of government directly or indirectly through costs like affirmative action and legal compliance.
Becoming a huge and sloppy monopoly proves the only way to survive this onslaught. Amazon can bull and bully its way through a pandemic shutdown, but small business cannot, and pays more proportionately in costs and damage.
All of this exists to keep the circular Ponzi scheme going, so that government can borrow more to pay more entitlements to induce people to buy more junk so that government can tax more and repeat the cycle. This is a fake economy concealing a covert, camouflaged command economy.
We are a hybrid of Communism and free market theory; this calls to mind Noam Chomsky’s “Libertarian Socialism”:
In the United States, “libertarianism” is associated with the right and “socialism” with the left. The libertarians value “freedom” (or what they call freedom) while the socialists value “equality.” And many people accept this distinction as fair: After all, the right wants smaller government while the left wants a big redistributionist government. Even many leftists implicitly accept this “freedom versus equality” distinction as fair, suggesting that while freedom may be nice, fairness is more important.
Libertarian socialism, the political tradition in which Noam Chomsky operates, which is closely tied to anarchism, rejects this distinction as illusory. If the word “libertarianism” is taken to mean “a belief in freedom” and the word “socialism” is taken to mean “a belief in fairness,” then the two are not just “not opposites,” but they are necessary complements. That’s because if you have “freedom” from government intervention, but you don’t have a fair economy, your freedom becomes meaningless, because you will still be faced with a choice between working and starving. Freedom is only meaningful to the extent that it actually creates a capacity for you to act. If you’re poor, you don’t have much of an actual capacity to do much, so you’re not terribly free. Likewise, “socialism” without a conception of freedom is not actually fair and equal. Libertarian socialists have always been critical of Marxist states, because the libertarian socialist recognizes that “equality” enforced by a brutal and repressive state is not just “un-free,” but is also unequal, because there is a huge imbalance of power between the people and the state. The Soviet Union was obviously not free, but it was also not socialist, because “the people” didn’t actually control anything; the state did.
The libertarian socialist perspective is well-captured by a quote from the pioneering anarchist Mikhail Bakunin: “Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” During the 1860s and ’70s, 50 years before the Soviet Union, Bakunin warned that Marxist socialism’s authoritarian currents would lead to hideous repression. In a Marxist regime, he said:
There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!… You can see quite well that behind all the democratic and socialistic phrases and promises of Marx’s program, there is to be found in his State all that constitutes the true despotic and brutal nature of all States.
This, as we know, is precisely what happened. Unfortunately, however, the bloody history of 20th century Marxism-Leninism has convinced many people that socialism itself is discredited. They miss the voices of people in the libertarian socialist tradition, like Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Noam Chomsky, who have always stood for a kind of socialism that places a core value on freedom and deplores authoritarianism. It emphasizes true democracy; that is, people should get to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, whether those decisions are labeled “political” or “economic.” It detests capitalism because capitalist institutions are totalitarian (you don’t get to vote for who your boss is, and you get very little say in what your company does), but it also believes strongly in freedom of expression and civil liberties.
Libertarian socialism seems to me a beautiful philosophy. It rejects both “misery through economic exploitation” and “misery through Stalinist totalitarianism,” arguing that the problem is misery itself, whatever the source. It’s a very simple concept, but it’s easy to miss because of the binary that pits “communism” against “capitalism.” Thus, if you’re a critic of capitalism, you must be an apologist for the most brutal socialist governments. But every time there has been such government, libertarian socialist critics have been the first to call it out for its hypocrisy. (Usually, such people are the first ones liquidated.) But the libertarian tradition in socialism is precious. And Chomsky, skeptical of corporate and governmental power alike, is our foremost public exponent of it.
This drops a key part of Libertarianism, which is its foundational belief in Austrian economics and natural selection, since liberty has a dark side, which is that some may rise and some will fall, according to their merit.
It also leaves out a vital part of socialism, namely that all must become egalitarians, something in dramatic conflict with the notion of liberty, freedom, and the right to choose.
Paradoxical as it is, it describes our current system, which like those adopted in Europe in the late nineteenth century, combined socialism with capitalism to form a hybrid system much like the one in use in China, Europe, and America today. It combines two forms of “freedom,” and that appeals to our ancestral use of the term: subsidies to grant fiscal freedom, and anarchy to enable liberty in a socially liberal context.
Over the past few years, we have transitioned to Libertarian Communism, or “neo-Communism,” which combines Libertarianism, socialism, Wall Street style refinancialization, and the authority enforcement of the SJW/Antifa wing as well as the propaganda organ of Big Media and Big Tech combined.
This shows Communism mutating and evolving, much like COVID-19. It aims more for stability. Driven by the engine of free markets, steered to provide massive amounts of capital, it then allows for the borrowing required to keep socialism afloat and uses Communist-style anarcho-totalitarian control methods like ostracism, deplatforming, gaslighting, and mobbing to control the population.
Even further, it has adapted something from old Communist propaganda:
It wasn’t until the 1950s, when several former African-American Communists testified before Congress and an FBI report, “The Communist Party and the Negro,” was declassified, that the American public would learn the true extent of the Soviet plans for Black America, including a Soviet-controlled “Negro Republic” in the middle of the South. Those plans began in earnest in 1928, when the Comintern declared there would be “self-determination in the Black Belt” and started organizing workers and targeting Southern African-Americans with propaganda showing pictures of Lenin with captions like “LENIN Shows the South the Only Way to JOBS, LAND and FREEDOM.”
The Soviets were motivated “not by the desire to improve the status of the Negro in our society,” according to one declassified FBI document, “but to exploit legitimate Negro grievances for the furtherance of communist aims.” That may have been part of it, but the American Communist Party, whose members were devoted to “fight and lead the struggle of the Negro race against exploitation and oppression,” was promoting greater Black representation in all branches of government under the banner of “equal rights” — a move that may have scared the FBI and the powers that be as much as a prospective Soviet satellite state did.
It turns out that this was not new, but a longstanding practice since the 1930s of smearing Western democracies as hypocritical because of unequal outcomes between Blacks and Whites:
Because the communist press readily used these events as a means of attacking the United States, it was partially responsible for these negative views. Communist periodicals pointed to race-based incidents in the United States as proof that American democracy was false and that the American people possessed a racist mentality. Moreover, Soviet and Chinese propagandists did not need to rely solely on communist editorials. In what must have been particularly embarrassing to American diplomats, communist news services made ample use of pictures, cartoons, and editorial comment from American papers to support their assertions about the sad state of black Americans.
Civil rights provides government with an infinite expansion of power. Diversity never works; since it is insoluble, it forms a “perpetual war” that government can use as an excuse to acquire more powers and to further intrude into private matters.
Even more, it can use it to humiliate and subdue us by forcing us to accept what we know is a lie. No one except the credulous believes in diversity; we endure it, like we pay taxes and dodge speed traps, because it is part of our world.
However, in order to get anywhere in life, we are taught at an early age to bleat-repeat that diversity is our strength, civil rights is the basis of America, third world people repeating us is not White genocide, and other insane lies.
First we must accept the lies and repeat them, which reduces our sense of agency in ourselves. Next, we start to believe them, since we hear them so often and have come to depend on them.
This plays into the backdoor into the human mind, which is that we are rationalizers who must bring a thought into our inner sanctum of mind in order to analyze it. The idea slips in, we consider it, and then it stays, hammered home by endless repetition.
Having accepted it, we face the choice of fighting against what “everyone else” seems to believe, or repeating it ourselves and pretending that it was our own idea. The former harms the ego, and the latter strokes it.
Cognitive dissonance holds that in times of paradox, we reduce one input or the other in order to stay in balance. When confronted with insane lies that we must uphold in order to earn a living and have friends, we rationalize the lies not as truths, but as something higher than truths: morality and symbolic purity, which like a laser uses its focus to be effective in the moment even if it has short duration.
Consequently, people accept what they know to be untrue in order to feel good about themselves and to think that they have the possibility of a good future, if they merely accept the lies and then move past them. They want to change the system from within; it changes them from within instead.
Libertarian Communism does not fundamentally offend them. Although made of two incompatible philosophies, it appeals to the things that voters like which have not yet fully failed: they like social liberalism, because they want to be able to do anything and have no restraints on their socializing; at the same time, they also like “fiscal conservatism,” which means essentially free markets with high taxes to keep the peasants from revolting too frequently.
The Libertarian Communist state, by the nature of the worker’s movements that are its ancestor, wants to take over the world. It sees its ultimate goal as joining all nations in the same system, united by the same market, and organized by the ideology of Libertarian Communism, although they may eventually shift to full Communism because ultimately, their symbolic belief system forces them to crave total enforced equality at all times. This arises from the appeal of the belief system itself, in that it promises the individual a defense against loss of social standing through the insistence on equality, essentially abolishing all hierarchy in favor of a centralized system where all but a very few are the same in power, wealth, and status.
We can see the destination of this system in a society further along the path than we are, the hybrid system that China uses which now seeks world unification through world domination:
Such rhetoric has grown common over the last few decades, as the Chinese Communist Party gradually abandoned its appeal for a more just social system and world order. Instead, the party has become increasingly explicit in referring to the global domination by Western powers as a license for its own imperial ambition. Jiang Shigong, an influential official scholar who advises the Chinese government on Hong Kong policy and global governance, even wrote recently that China should “absorb the skills and achievements” of the British and American empires to construct its own “world empire” for the sake of the Chinese people and the world.
At this point, the Libertarian Communists have their roadmap and gameplan through civil rights, which they intend to enforce using the South African model:
To give two examples of how transitional justice could work under a Biden-Harris administration—and the impact it could have on racial justice—consider policy reforms in South Africa during the transition from apartheid and white-minority rule to democracy and Black-majority rule in the mid-1990s.
First, Mandela and the ANC introduced several policies to redress discrimination in housing—from granting developer subsidies to ending redlining, the practice of denying housing loans to entire communities. At the time, the country faced a housing shortage of roughly 1.5 million units and a public housing system in shambles. To fill in the gaps, the new government relied heavily on private-sector investment and the work of non-governmental organizations.
Second, the new South African government ushered in a range of prison reforms. It moved quickly to abolish the death penalty and reduce inhumane treatment of inmates, which again disproportionately affected Black South Africans. The government also began educating prison staff on human rights and attempted to transform the correctional system from one based on punishment to one based on rehabilitation. For petty offenders especially, the government sought to prioritize skills training, education, and diversion programs.
In South Africa and many other countries that have undergone political transitions—some violent, like the one the United States recently underwent—reforms have been accompanied by truth commissions, judicial accountability for wrongdoers, and economic and symbolic reparations. These are part of what scholars and practitioners call the transitional justice tool-kit, or portfolio.
If this does not make it clear enough, consider this their warning that they intend to pursue wealth-transfer policies from strong to weak until everyone is equal, much as socialism always does.
These policies wrecked South Africa and turned it into a crime-ridden, corrupt, and unstable country with a failed economy, but they allow the leaders of such country to remain in perpetual power by demonizing the enemy (Whites) with promises of taking more from them in order to subsidize everyone else.
Humans, especially dumb humans, fall for this one every time. It makes them feel better about their lot in life to be getting something free from someone else, even if this ultimately does not benefit them in any significant way.
If that future seems extreme, consider what the Left is saying about conservatives today:
We ruthlessly hunted down foreign terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and must do the same to their domestic equivalents.
Rather than ban extremist chatter through government censorship or private de-platforming, use radical chat rooms as honeypots, as FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces have done with violent, radicalized Islamists since 2001. We need to draw out those of our fellow citizens who are willing to attack our nation.
[U]se the supremacy of federal law to ban “militias” beyond the National Guard. There is simply no longer any room for armed forces not answerable to the law.
[A]dd domestic terrorism as a predicate to the material support for terrorism statute, including its civil liability provisions. This will provide new means of successful prosecutions and gradually increased deterrence against domestic terrorists.
These “reformers” are pushing the same insane plans that landed us in a massive recession last time, namely subsidized minority home ownership:
Mortgage affordability could be further stressed once new regulatory mandates are implemented. This includes new capital requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) recently finalized by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). While it is essential that the GSEs hold appropriate capital, the rule must be balanced and policymakers should consider changes to elements of the final rule that threaten to raise the cost of mortgages for all borrowers and push homeownership farther out of reach for many families of color.
Additionally, policies that adversely drive up costs for minority borrowers should be re-examined and reduced or eliminated. Loan-level price adjustments (LLPAs) that were introduced by the GSEs in 2008 are especially burdensome for minority and first-time homebuyers. These fees are disproportionately paid by borrowers with lower down payments and credit scores, whose mortgages are already protected by private mortgage insurance.
Like most initial Leftist forays, these policies pass costs on to lenders, who promptly raise their prices to pass them on to the consumers, or at least the 53% who are subsidizing the 47%. When, as inevitably happens, the maker group shrinks and the taker group grows, that number will rise until the maker group essentially disappears, leaving a few ultra-wealthy chieftains running society by handing out tiny slivers of their wealth to keep the proles occupied.
They want to eradicate us if we do not fall into line with their plan, and they want us to have no ability to defend ourselves. This shows us how open societies, or those dedicated to individual freedoms, end: the losers in this process gang up on the winners and exterminate them, since anarchy allows them to assume a posture of defense of the anarchy and therefore, gain popular opinion on their side.
Democracies end this way because they change over time, and they change the people involved. They start out celebrating freedom, but then become sensitive to exceptions, or people not doing well. Since no one can oppose that in a social setting, and once you have equality, socializing is your only means of rising above a baseline of “equal,” social rules take over from commonsense and soon you have a weaponized mob demanding the destruction of anyone who impedes its ever-expanding individualism, anarchy, and subsidies (“free stuff from government”).
As members of a relatively newly Libertarian Communist state in America, we find ourselves in the beginning of this process, but the high degree of diversity in America has increased instability and therefore accelerated it. We have a choice to turn back now, but it requires rejecting the root of Libertarianism Communism, which is its two forms of “freedom”: subsidies and anarchy.