Loot and Plunder Economics

More from Marx's Manifesto:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

A Summary of Communism

"[T]he theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
~Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

The Left's Nihilistic Agenda

In the absence of a practical alternative to the capitalist system, the [Marxist] revolutionary project is a nihilism--the will to destroy existing societies without an idea of what to do next.

The persistence of the revolutionary illusion without the revolutionary fact has given rise to what should properly be called a neo-communist movement--one that has learned nothing from the failures of Communism but has not abandoned the cause itself. Neo-communist radicals add new dimensions of oppression to the Marxist model, like racism and "sexism." But it is the same Marxist model that divides the world into oppressors and oppressed, identifies capitalism as the root cause of global problems, and regards the United States as the global system's guardian-in-chief.  Consequently, like the Communist perspective it has replaced, the contemporary radical outlook opposes America's wars and opposes America's peace.  All that really distinguishes this neo-communist perspective from its Communist predecessor is its ad-hoc attitude towards the revolutionary future, and the nihilistic agenda that follows.

As an expression of its nihilism, the contemporary left defines and organizes itself as a movement against rather than for.  Its components may claim to be creating egalitarian futures in which racism, "sexism" and corporate dominance no longer exist and in which "social justice" prevails.  But unlike Communists, the neo-coms are not committed to even a rudimentary blueprint as to what such an order might be.  It is this lack of programmatic consensus that leads some leftists to deny that there even is a "left," and makes it possible for a fragmented coalition of neo-coms--including anarchists, eco-radicals, radical feminists, "queer" revolutionaries, Maoists, Stalinists, and vaguely defined "progressives"-to operate side by side in improbable coalitions like the antiwar movement.  It is why they can do so in ways that benefit such anti-egalitarian allies and regimes as Islamic radicals and the Baathist, fascist state of Iraq.

-David Horowitz, The Black Book of the American Left, Vol II: Progressives (2013): pp.28-29

Americans Split on Private Property versus Marxism

This is frightening.  A virtual majority of Americans now hold a belief which entails that someone who, for religious reasons, refuses to serve a same-sex couple for their wedding (on and with their own property) should be fined and ultimately imprisoned (which is what happens if you don't pay your fines).  49% seem to hold (perhaps not consciously) that they have a right to your working for them and to your property.  They have a right to your forced-labor even if you object on religious grounds.  They have partial ownership in your labor, your goods, and over you.

Oh, but you are free not to have your business.  We'll throw you a bone (hippies are heroes after all).  As a commenter on Facebook writes:

PEOPLE need to be protected, not businesses. If you don't want to serve customers, don't open a business. 

Got that?  If you own your own business, apparently you don't count as a person.  BAKERS don't need protection, PEOPLE do.  If you own a business, you have no need for government protections.  (We run on the Democratic loot and pillage economic model).  If you don't want to serve somebody, too bad.  You'll be forced to do it or "free" to close up shop.

We are moving towards a society that does not believe in private property.

Suppose I decide to start selling cakes from my house.  Does everyone then have a moral right to come into my house such that I have a moral obligation to let you in?  Of course not.  It's MY HOUSE not YOURS or the GOVERNMENT'S.  As long as I am not harming you and your most basic needs can be met without coming into my house, it is up to me and my family to determine who comes in and when.  (Sure, I can have morally illegitimate reasons for not letting you in, but we're not talking about my reasons but the right to let you in or not apart from whatever reasons I have for or against).

You have no right to come in as you please, no right to my doing business with you in my house, nor do I have an obligation to let you in or do business with you (again, aside from extreme cases.  If you get into a wreck outside my house when there's an impending tornado going down the street, and I'm the only one with the available means to assist you, I have a duty to give you safety and shelter.  Your value as a person gives you a right to life which trumps my desire to watch TV such that, in that case, I have no right not to let you in.  In fact, I have a duty to get off my butt and lend a hand).

Now suppose I buy the property next to my house.  I make another building with living quarters.   Half the time I bake at one house and half the time I also sleep in that house.  Do you have a right to come into that other building (whenever you want or during the hours I've posted) such that I have a moral obligation to let you in now?  Why think that?  The other building is as much mine as the previous one.  Suppose I start sleeping in the other building only one night a week and selling cakes out of it six days a week.  Do you then have a right to my selling you a cake such that I have an obligation to do business with you?  Why then and not before?  Suppose I stop sleeping in the building entirely and put a sign up on the building which says "Bakery."  Do you then have a right to my selling you a cake such that I have a correlative moral duty to sell you the cake?  Why then and not before?

Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to China?  Yes (though it might be prudent to do so).  He has that right and we have a duty not to force him to sell to China.  Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to Americans?  Sure, why not? Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to Chinese women?  If he has a right not to sell to China, then surely he has a right not to sell to Chinese women.  Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to American women?  If he has a right not to sell to Chinese women then surely he has a right not to sell to American women.  Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to white American women?  If he has a right not to sell to American women then surely he has a right not to sell to white, American women (though our friend at this point might not have much of a business!)

Does he have a right not to sell to white women simply because they are white and (as he believes) all whites are white-devils?  No.  No one has a moral right to act on the basis of racist and thus immoral reasons.  No one has a moral right to act on the basis of immoral beliefs.  Nonetheless, in a free, non-Orwellian country, we should not want the Thought Police regulating all of our beliefs, especially our religious beliefs which do not harm others or infringe on their basic rights.  The black business owner is a racist, but racists who do not harm others should not go to jail.  Instead of using brute FORCE, one can (if one is able to) use reasons.

There is no basic moral right to have a baker bake you a cake (more on this in a later post).  If you want a cake baked, you are free to BAKE ONE YOURSELF.

Why Understanding Marxism-Leninism Is Important

Michael Valle, philosopher and Harley-Davidson mechanic, explains Marxism-Leninism here.

I am convinced that Marxism-Leninism is alive and well in spite of the death of the Soviet Union.  It has assumed new forms, discarded some ideas, taken some new ones on, but its spirit is healthy.  Its spirit is essentially a collectivist one that does the following:  It affirms that Man is infinitely malleable rather than limited by his nature, it denigrates individualism for the sake of collectivism, it de-emphasizes personal responsibility by making our behavior depend on things outside of our control, it relatives truth and morality by making them functions of group membership, it corrodes liberty for the sake of equality of results, it advocates the silencing of political opponents, and it is virulently anti-American (and anti-Israel, for that matter).

Read the whole thing: