What is Communism?

by

This flyer was found in an American high school:

(Hat tip: TheBlaze)

If you don’t see the absurdity of this, it’s because you’re probably not looking at the big picture.

One of the immediate questions you should have is: Where did the machine come from that makes money?

This is why Communism tends to be acceptable to those of limited curiosity or ingenuity. Without an understanding of where the machine came from, they think that the workers somehow own the output of the machine.

Those of us who build these kinds of machine, that is, anything which produces things and services people actually want, understand how hard it is to build a machine, and understand that the likelihood of success is very low. It doesn’t help that we have a government that seems intent on making this invention process much harder than it need be.

Also missing from the picture is what the fat man with the cigar does with the money he makes. Not pictured are the millions of other machines being built, each of which requires money and capital to be poured in. Some of these machines are quite risky: medical procedures, medicines, high technology, etc… all entail a fairly high level of risk. When the fat man does happen to fund a machine that actually works, he is going to milk it as much as he can not only to recover his investments, but to fund even more future investments.

Should the fat man decide that he wants to retire from entrepreneurship, what does he do? Why, he spends his money on things he wants: fancy cars, big boats, luxury homes with full staff. The money he spends here ends up in purchasing the products of these machines, some of which end up in the pockets of the workers, and the rest of which ends up in the hands of the owners of these machines. Ultimately, all of this consumption spending filters down until it ends up as wages for someone somewhere.

If he decides, instead, to save his money for a future day, he will do so by putting his money into an offshore bank account, buying secure investments, such as government bonds, or even purchasing commodities such as gold and silver. Again, where does the money end up? In all cases, it ends up in the hands of workers.

The capitalist understands that there is only one natural resource—labor. And he understands that it takes real money, real capital, food, clothing, resources, to purchase that labor. When capitalists have lots of capital at their disposal, they buy up as much labor as they can, and the laborers end up in the middle of a bidding war. This has only positive benefits for the laborer. They are the one thing of actual value in the world, the one thing that every greedy capitalist wants to get their hands on. Just like bidding for expensive works of art, the capitalists bid against each other for your time and effort.

When capitalists do not have much capital, or when people who have the capital decide it is not a good idea to spend the money right now, then the laborers lose in the bidding war. Ultimately, they end up completely unemployed. No capitalist is willing to risk spending their money at that time to hire them to work machines and build the materials and services people want. There are a number of reasons why this happens, not the least of which is that the government is providing the best investment opportunity right now because they are bidding for the same dollars that the workforce is. And when the government spends money, it isn’t ever to create even more wealth; it’s only to buy votes or to actually do the things we asked the government to do for us because we don’t think it’s worth our individual sacrifice to do. In other words, their return on investment is always negative.

Right now, in the US, we are in the middle of one of those great wealth-burning exercises. The private economy has to compete with the statists’ mad power grabs. They are trying to create an ever-large government to fund their every-grander vision of the future. In doing so, they are sucking up all the capital resources they can, and in the process, destroying out private economy.

What needs to happen, and quick, is we need to cut government spending, reduce government regulation, reduce government taxes, and end government borrowing. We need cuts across the board that we have never seen in our nation’s history. If we cannot do this, but instead insist on growing our government despite the faltering economy, we will quickly see how great nations fall.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “What is Communism?”

  1. Peter A. Says:

    You ask:

    ‘One of the immediate questions you should have is: Where did the machine come from that makes money?

    This is why Communism tends to be acceptable to those of limited curiosity or ingenuity. Without an understanding of where the machine came from, they think that the workers somehow own the output of the machine.’

    The Answer: The machine was created by workers like those depicted in the cartoon, those very same working-class people who have been constantly swindled by the ruling classes who seem to believe that somehow THEY are responsible for all the grand and noble things that are accomplished in this world of ours. The ‘output’ (i.e. profit) clearly belongs to those who produce (i.e. the workers), and yet working-class people are constantly squeezed for all they have by being underpaid and overworked, and then simply discarded like refuse when they are no longer ‘useful’ (i.e. profitable) by those who exploit them (i.e the rich).

    Your ‘remedy’ to your country’s woes:

    ‘What needs to happen, and quick, is we need to cut government spending, reduce government regulation, reduce government taxes, and end government borrowing. We need cuts across the board that we have never seen in our nation’s history.’

    No, the exact opposite needs to be done.
    1. Governments should increase spending (ex. on infrastructure, schools, housing), which in turn will lead to a rise in employment levels, which in turn will reduce the number of those can’t find work and so are on welfare, which in turn will increase the amount of taxation revenue that is now collected from those who previously could not pay tax but instead subsisted on it (i.e. the handouts). Increased government spending also will increase cash-flow circulation within the economy in general (ex. all those previously unemployed people now with money to spend), which in turn will benefit the private sector that you seem to be so fond of.
    2. Increased regulation equals increased consumer protection from unethical and immoral private corporations, banks, and individuals who I can only describe as being sociopathic. How could any reasonable person be opposed to this? Remember, it wasn’t the working-class who caused the mess that your, and other countries, are now in. They are (once again) the victims.
    3. If you REDUCE taxes, you will have LESS to spend on essential services and programmes, which in turn will lead to decline and decay (ex. closed schools, worn-out roads, fewer police, broken bridges et cetera). Perhaps you wouldn’t mind living in a run-down neighbourhood, but most other people would. You can’t just keep on reducing taxes for the rich without the inevitable consequences resulting therefrom.
    4. Do ‘cuts across the board’ include a huge reduction in so-called defense spending and the closure of ALL U.S. bases on foreign soil? I’ll bet not. Does it include the cessation of all subsidies to unprofitable U.S. firms (i.e. Corporate Welfare)? I’ll bet not. Does it mean repealing the tax-exemption status of the (very wealthy) Catholic, Mormon and Protestant churches? Yes? No? Too embarrassed to answer?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      The machine was created by workers like those depicted in the cartoon, those very same working-class people who have been constantly swindled by the ruling classes who seem to believe that somehow THEY are responsible for all the grand and noble things that are accomplished in this world of ours. The ‘output’ (i.e. profit) clearly belongs to those who produce (i.e. the workers), and yet working-class people are constantly squeezed for all they have by being underpaid and overworked, and then simply discarded like refuse when they are no longer ‘useful’ (i.e. profitable) by those who exploit them (i.e the rich).

      So when a rich person invests his time and money to make a machine, he doesn’t get to choose what to do with the output of the machine because he’s rich? I think you have a double-standard going on here.

      Your remedies will lead us to bankruptcy. Spending even more money will put us in even more debt, and cause us to spend even more money on financing that debt, and limit our opportunities for future borrowing. Eventually, there will be no more money to borrow or spend. What will you do then?

      At no time in history has a dollar of government spending produced a dollar in government revenue, and all economists know this. At best, you can expect to see a small faction of that spending flow back into the government coffers. Only people acting freely can create wealth, not governments whose sole power is coercion by threat of violence.

      Increased regulation enslaves the people to their government, which destroys capital and wealth with the stroke of a pen. We are at a point today where everyone is scared of starting their own business because there is no way they can afford to keep up with the regulations. Either you buy off a government official, you beg for special exceptions, or spend untold hours researching laws and regulations, or you hope no one finds out what you are doing or that a trial by jury will exonerate you.

      Reducing the tax RATE leads to an increase of tax REVENUE if you are on the right-hand side of the Laffer Curve, which experiments suggest we are. Even a child can see this is true. Increasing tax rates lead to a decrease in tax revenue. See Illinois for the past few years, and how their 30% across the board tax increases managed to increase their revenue. (Hint: It didn’t.)

  2. Peter A. Says:

    ‘So when a rich person invests his time and money…’

    …but, how did the rich person become rich in the first place? (Hint: worker exploitation).

    ‘Your remedies will lead us to bankruptcy. Spending even more money will put us in even more debt, and cause us to spend even more money on financing that debt, and limit our opportunities for future borrowing. Eventually, there will be no more money to borrow or spend. What will you do then?’

    Most of this additional debt will be caused by the interest we owe due to the fact that those of us who live beyond our means need to actually borrow money from those who lend. If, this being just one example that comes to mind, people who use credit cards find themselves unable to pay off their debt due to ever-spiralling costs, they have two options: 1. Declare bankruptcy, or 2. Prioritise, with an emphasis upon eliminating superfluous costs (i.e luxuries) and learning to constrain one’s impulse to spend on non-essentials (i.e curb greed). It all comes down to self-discipline. It’s not hard, but it is important to get one’s priorities straight, but the method you prescribe will just encourage bad behaviour by the wealthy and powerful (ex. deregulation). When one has no restraints placed upon oneself, the desire to be reckless becomes overwhelming for many.

    ‘At no time in history has a dollar of government spending produced a dollar in government revenue, and all economists know this.’

    Oh dear, you are just spouting neo-liberal dogma here. In order to place oneself in a position to make money, one needs to be both able and willing to spend it first, and governments long ago realised this simple truth, and the manner in which they raise the initial capital is primarily through taxation. Government projects that have real potential to create additional wealth, whether as a direct consequence of these projects or indirectly, have been in existence ever since history began.
    One of the reasons your country is in terminal decline is because there are too many fat-cats who don’t want to pay tax (you know, the money we pay toward keeping the country from falling apart), and the result will be that you will end up like Greece.

    ‘Only people acting freely can create wealth, not governments whose sole power is coercion by threat of violence.’

    So you think that any nation that has a central government is not, by definition, free. What errant nonsense. People acting freely create wealth for themselves only, that is the primary purpose and motivation for anyone who has ever gone into business, and one of the essential duties of any responsible government is to contain, and try to eliminate, the reckless conduct of corporations.

    ‘Increased regulation enslaves the people to their government, which destroys capital and wealth with the stroke of a pen.’

    That’s not the way it works, and you know it. Rules are enacted in order to ensure ethical behaviour; it is not about ‘enslaving’ the people, unless you live in a dictatorship. Is the United States a dictatorship now? I should have guessed, what with the ‘Patriot Act’ and other such rubbish being foisted upon the people there.

    ‘Reducing the tax RATE leads to an increase of tax REVENUE if you are on the right-hand side of the Laffer Curve, which experiments suggest we are. Even a child can see this is true. Increasing tax rates lead to a decrease in tax revenue. See Illinois for the past few years, and how their 30% across the board tax increases managed to increase their revenue. (Hint: It didn’t.)’

    Which experiments suggest we are. What ‘experiments’?! Secondly, what if these ‘experiments’ (whatever they may have been – could you enlighten me here?) were not conducted properly? Experimental results are only as good as the experimenter performing them, and since economics is not even a science… well, that would indicate that you are being hoodwinked. All of the jargon (i.e. hot air) we hear from economists about ‘Laffer Curves’ and whatnot is language that is used to give the craft the appearance of scientific respectability, when in fact it is little more than a humanities subject (like law and history).
    My point is that many, if not most, of the claims of, and methods used by, economists are complete hooey from a scientific standpoint, and have no more bearing upon reality than astrology. They certainly CANNOT forecast how things may, never mind will, turn out five, ten, or fifteen years hence, and yet they act as if they can. Quite often, what economists believe, and the reality of those who actually have to endure their bad economic prescriptions (i.e the poor) bear little, or no, relation to each other, and yet for some unfathomable reason everyone seems to treat their word as though it were the absolute truth. Absolutely incredible.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You are an idiot. That’s all I’ve got to say.

      Let me expound upon that point: Do you really believe that every single rich person got that way on the backs of their workers? How absurd!

      My, I think we have finally uncovered the root of Communism: Sheer ignorance.

      In order to place oneself in a position to make money, one needs to be both able and willing to spend it first.

      Of all the stupid things I’ve heard growing up, this is one of them.

      Suggestion: Go find a job. Make some money. It does NOT require any investment to get a job in unskilled labor. All you have to do is show up on time, do your job well, and not be an idiot. Congratulations! You’ve just proven that the saying is false. You’ve made money without spending a penny!

      Can I tell you the number of rich people who got rich without money? Where did Carnegie get his start, or did he have cash pouring out of his child-sized coal-covered pants pockets as he worked in the coal mines? What about the countless people who crossed the plains in abject poverty, and built farms and ranches with their bare hands?

      My point is that many, if not most, of the claims of, and methods used by, economists are complete hooey from a scientific standpoint.

      I’m sorry that I can’t understand the rest of your comment. I honestly feel like my problem is that I understand that words have meanings, and you do not.

      Have you read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations? If not, then I would kindly ask you to do so. Upon completing that task, you’ll discover how economics (at least, so-called “supply-side” economics) is based on science and the natural world. No, it is not short enough that you can understand, and no, he does not jump to conclusions, so you have to work hard to understand.

      The kind of economics you ascribe to, communism and her friends, is based on idiotic nonsense and is not science.

      I guess you’re right: The economics in your mind is not based on science, and is patently absurd to logical and reasonable people, but reasonable to idiots like you. “Voo-doo economics” (what I and people like Reagan understand) is based on science, and so to you, is patently absurd while it makes perfect sense to reasonable people.

      Sorry to use the word “idiot” so often here, but I think it really applies. If we were in the Middle Ages, you’d be the guy with a shoe on his head blabbing on about how we have to kill all the ducks to save ourselves from the pending Freedonian invasion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: