Sunday, June 29, 2014

Top Ten Stupid Socialist Blunders


The following is a list of the ten worst blunders committed by socialist and collectivist states throughout history. These blunders range from crimes of pure negligence and stupidity to acts of violence and genocide. I have tried not to pick isolated incidents (of which there are many), but rather the items on this list are microcosms of the larger structural flaws in collectivist ideology. This list stands as a stark remainder of the failures caused by the implementation of socialism throughout history and why it should never be attempted again.


10. Chilean Inflation

Winning by a narrow margin in the 1970 election, Chilean president Salvador Allende became the first Marxist to be democratically elected as the leader of a Latin American country. During his first speech as head of state, Allende vowed to “destroy the economic basis for capitalism” and nationalize Chile’s copper mines—the main source of the country’s income. To the contempt of Chilean conservatives, businessmen, and the United States government, he attempted just that. Through excessive spending and buying out of shareholders, Allende was able to requisition most of the nation’s mines and factories. In 1972, however, the effort had become increasingly militarized, with armed party members seizing many of them by force.

These immoral and anti-capitalist tendencies of his eventually ran the Chilean economy into a fatal nosedive. By 1972, the government was 300 million dollars in debt, real wages had dropped nearly ten percent, and the inflation rate was 163%. The country was also relying more on agricultural imports to feed its people, increasing 84% since 1970.[1] Due to the gross mismanagement of the economy, American banks stopped giving the Chilean government loans, and as a result, Allende printed more money. When he was finally thrown out of power in a military coup in 1973, the inflation rate had reached a whopping 508%.[2] Salvador Allende’s successor, Augusto Pinochet initiated free market policies by privatizing the factories and paying the nation’s debt. The economy finally improved and the inflation rate stabilized.

Imbecilic monetary policy and economic mismanagement are trademarks of collectivist regimes. When a government engages in such irresponsible behaviour as seizing property and printing money, it is no wonder that other countries would be wary of doing business with them. Chile was certainly not the only socialist nation to have a runaway inflation rate, but it stands as a perfect example of how economic mismanagement can cripple the economy of such regimes.


9. Suppression of Free Speech in East Germany
The Stasi spied on you before Obama made it cool.

            From 1961 to 1990, Germany was split into two states by the Berlin Wall. The eastern half of Germany, known as the German Democratic Republic, was governed by the Stasi, a brutal secret police force.  The Stasi were meticulous at gathering information and keeping files on individuals they considered subversive, which in GDR, was just about everyone. Speaking out against the regime or discussing the Berlin Wall was strictly forbidden in GDR and censorship of information was strictly enforced by the state. If you were suspected of questioning the tenets of communism, then you would be imprisoned and tortured by the Stasi as a political prisoner. Other topics that were similarly forbidden to discuss in GDR included capitalism, fascism, pollution, the standard of living, education, homosexuality, pornography, alcoholism, and depression. Art that was not approved by the state was also banned.[3]

The split of Germany into two halves is significant because it acts as a natural experiment to show what happens when two previously identical nations adopt radically different policies. Under the capitalist-leaning west, the country prospered, whereas in the socialist East, a concrete wall was built to prevent people from fleeing. Proponents of collectivism never cease to argue how capitalism is tyrannical and oppressive, but if you compare the freedom of speech in GDR to the Federal Republic of Germany, it is the socialist state that is more oppressive. It is common among most socialist countries that freedom of speech is curtailed to some extent in order to maintain the illusion of homogenous public support.  One would be hard-pressed to argue how capitalism is more oppressive since freedom of speech and of the press is usually taken for granted in open societies. Unfortunately, we will never know the true cost that censorship had in GDR since great works of art that did not fit the vision of the state were hidden, destroyed, or were simply never created.

8. Personality Cult in Gaddafi’s Libya

In Socialist Libya, you can have a watch in any colour you want, as long as it's Gaddafi.

            In 1969, when he was only 27 years old, Muammar Gaddafi overthrew King Idris of Libya in a bloodless coup and began his 42 year-long rule of the country, which he later renamed The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. His political ideas, outlined in The Green Book, can be loosely described as the marriage of socialism and Islam. In typical fashion of both ideologies, Gaddafi fostered a cult of personality that would make Stalin or Saddam Hussein seem like the pinnacle of modesty in comparison. Prior to his violent overthrow in 2011, it would have been impossible to walk down the streets of Tripoli without seeing images of the dictator plastered all over the city. Much of the wealth generated by the country by its oil reserves was siphoned off by Gaddafi to fund his extravagant projects and vacations abroad. He also used state funds to supply weapons to global terrorist organisations and his government was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.


           The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was just one of many socialist regimes ruled by a dictator who used the state as his personal bank account. Gaddafi didn’t give a fuck about the Libyan people, he only cared about himself. His idiosyncrasies, such as his all-female-virgin bodyguards, his massive bulletproof tent, and his eccentric outfits testify to his narcissism and corruption. Libya would have likely been a better place today had its wealth not been embezzled by Muammar Gaddafi.


7. Venezuela Shortage of Consumer Goods
Fuck, they're all out of Gatorade.


            It is characteristic of socialist regimes that their economic policies are self-destructive and betray a lack of understanding with basic laws of supply and demand. Due to its recently discovered oil reserves, Venezuela has become a moderately wealthy country, but its socialist leanings have kept the general public from enjoying any prosperity. During the reign of Hugo Chavez, extensive price controls were enforced that prevented certain goods from being sold above a given price. Even after Chavez’s death, the country continues to pass idiotic controls, such as a 30% ceiling on profits earlier this year.[4] All these regulations and price controls have produced results one might expect—widespread shortage of consumer goods. Some examples of products that are absent from Venezuelan store shelves include flour, sugar, cooking oil, deodorant, milk, butter, beer, coffee, and most desperately, toilet paper. The nation’s Toyota and Chrysler plants recently closed their doors as tires also became increasingly scarce. Many citizens rely on black markets to acquire certain goods, and must deal with the exorbitant prices and endless queues just to purchase a small bag of rice.[5]


            If you never bother to consider the long-term consequences of such policies, price-controls and profit ceilings seem like they might be beneficial, especially to the poor. Many people also take the wide selection of consumer goods in American grocery stores for granted. Most don’t bother to think where these goods come from, why they were produced, or how they were transported to the grocery store. Thus, many people don’t stop to consider how price controls will affect the supply of goods and assume that if the state is making things cheaper, then it must be for the better. However, those firms that produce and supply these goods do so to turn a profit.  If there is no money to be made by supplying Venezuela with toilet paper or deodorant, then firms will take their business elsewhere. The disastrous effects of price controls in socialist Venezuela demonstrates the disconnect between fluffy socialist rhetoric and the cold facts of reality and human nature. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a world full of cheap and plentiful goods, but a world in which you wipe your ass with newsprint.

6. Communist China Starves to Death


            Between the three years of 1959 to 1961, China suffered a famine in which 40 million people starved to death. The famine was caused almost exclusively by the distribution policies of the government, but those sympathetic to Maoist communism erroneously put the blame on “enemies of the state” or natural disasters. When the government of China initiated The Great Leap Forward, private farms were abolished and the responsibility of grain distribution was placed in the hands of the state. The communes in charge of food production had to produce enough grain to meet state-imposed quotas, and the surplus grain they kept for themselves. However, as the government quotas increased, there became less and less grain left over as surplus. It also didn’t help that the communes had adopted idiotic farming techniques contrived by Soviet pseudoscientist, Trofim Lysenko, which further stunted crop yields. As a result, all the grain being produced by Chinese communes by 1959 was being seized by the state and the peasants starved en masse. For the next three years, China would experience the worst famine in recorded history, marked by violent crime, suicide, death, widespread cannibalization, and the market of human flesh. The eating of children and babies was common, where parents would swap each other’s children so they didn’t have to eat their own offspring.[6]


            Unable to see why the glorious and infallible doctrines of communism could cause such a catastrophe, the Chinese government naturally blamed “enemies of the state” and sent armed thugs across the country to seize any food they could find from peasants. They also initiated what came to be known as the Four Pests Campaign, which encouraged the killing of rats and sparrows, thought to be main destroyers of crops. Millions of sparrows were put to death. However, this only prolonged the famine since the mass death of sparrows allowed crop-eating insects like locusts to thrive and this further stunted the crop production.[7]
Don't kill the sparrows. They're your comrades.

            Widespread famines are not uncommon in socialist countries, but they are almost unheard of in capitalist ones. The fact that even some of these famines were the direct consequence of policies enforced by those socialist governments is a strong indictment against this reprehensible ideology. Fuck Chairman Mao.

5. Lev Mekhlis

            On the eastern front during World War Two, each division under Soviet command was appointed with one political commissar. The purpose of these commissars was to instil party solidarity with the soldiers and to ensure the war against Germany was conducted according to communist party guidelines. During the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa, they proved themselves to be largely ineffectual, as they frequently substituted the orders of the commanding officers with their own. This led to many needless and bloody Soviet defeats. One of the most notorious commissars was named Lev Zakharovich Mekhlis. He was a favourite of Josef Stalin, being such a vocal proponent, as well as participant in the Great Purges of 1936-38. For the whole course of the war, Mekhlis was sent around from headquarters to headquarters, executing Red Army officers for alleged insubordination. His presence was resented by the entire army. Mekhlis was adamant that deserters, malingers, and panic mongers were to be shot on the spot.[8] He also interfered in matters of command, being partially responsible for the fall of Sebastopol and Kerch to German forces in 1942. His orders at Kerch forbade the troops from digging in, and forced the command to move to the front trench. The Germans shelled the front trench and as a result, all Soviet division commanders at the battle were killed.[9]


            The nature of collectivism and socialism allows those like Mekhlis who have no discernable talents besides following orders and murdering people to rise to positions of authority. Mekhlis knew how to suck up to Stalin and he could spout socialist rhetoric, but he was a demonstrably ineffective military commander and he was responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths. Collectivist ideology breeds complicit pieces of human waste like Lev Mekhlis.

4. Explosion of Birth Rates in Communist Romania

            During the early 1960s, Communist Romania was approaching zero population growth. Nicolai Ceausescu, the dictator of the country, decided that if the Romanian population was to grow, it would be through government legislation. Thus his government passed laws that abolished abortion, outlawed contraceptives, and divorce, collectively known as Decree770. Gynaecology exams were also mandated and pregnant women were closely monitored by the government to ensure that they did not get an abortion. Romanian couples who did not have children were forced to payer higher taxes, whereas non-working mothers received subsidies from the state. As a result of these policies, Romania’s birth rates exploded, nearly out of control. In 1968, Romania’s population had increased by nearly 100%.[10][11] It also didn’t help that Communist Romania faced a debt crisis during the 1980s that reduced the standard of living drastically. Families were forced into overcrowded apartments without heating or adequate food. Orphanages became bloated, nightmarish hells full of starving unwanted children. Even long after Ceausescu was thrown out of power, his idiotic pronatalist policies could be seen in the Romania’s overcrowded orphanages, prisons, and mental asylums.[12]


            The failure of these policies stands as testament to the ineffectiveness of central-planned economies and of collectivism in general. Outlawing all forms of birth control has the tendency to make birth rates explode, but in the poverty of communist Romania, such high birth rates could not be sustained. How his country was going to accommodate all the children being born under these policies, Ceausescu likely did not take into account. I believe such negligence is characteristic of most laws passed by other socialist regimes.


3. Massacre of Innocents in Cambodia


Cambodia was subjected to the brutal dictatorship of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979. Pol Pot rose to power following the escalation of American bombing campaigns during the Vietnam War. In 1970s, American bombings had spilled over into Cambodia, galvanizing hatred towards to west and an embrace of The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot’s anti-imperialist rhetoric. Pol Pot’s dictatorship was marked by mass killings, starvations, imprisonments, and torture. The dictator’s wrath was mostly directed at racial minorities such as Chinese and Vietnamese, as well as intellectuals, of whom Pol Pot was distrustful. Others who were targeted for killing included businessmen, artists, professionals, Buddhist monks, former government employees, and anybody accused of “economic sabotage.” Most victims of the regime were not shot, but were beaten to death savagely with tools such as shovels and pickaxes in order to save bullets.[13] All this bloodshed was an effort by Pol Pot’s communist government to establish a radical agrarian socialism, where former city-dwellers were forced to work in the fields for long hours each day. For those who dared criticize the regime, prisons such as Tuol Sleng were established where inmates would be starved and brutally tortured for months before being executed. Estimates range about how many were killed by The Khmer Rouge, but the figure is generally accepted to be in the millions, possibly as high as three million.[14] The systematic effort by the Khmer Rouge to murder its own people goes to show the true face of socialism. As with most collectivist states that commit genocide, most of those executed are innocent—their lives completely disposable, extinguished on a whim by a sociopathic dictator. So many of those who were exterminated were intelligent and productive people, and would have worked to make the world a better place had their lives not been wasted in the pursuit of a twisted socialist utopia.


2. North Korea
"This isn't my hair-dryer!"

            The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is such an exhibition of bureaucratic incompetence and human cruelty that it would be difficult to pick one single blunder for this list. Since its official establishment in 1948 DPRK has run up a laundry list human right abuses. Economic mismanagement caused a massive famine between 1994 and 1998 in which 3 million people died. Even today, long after the famine officially ended, food is still scarce throughout the country—especially in the countryside. Peasants regularly starve to death in the hundreds. In 2013, the UN estimated that 84 percent of the country had “poor” levels of food consumption. Meanwhile, the current dictator of DPRK, Kim Jong-Un does not want for anything; in 2012 alone, he spent nearly 7 million dollars on goods like handbags, luxury watches, cosmetics, and alcohol. In that same year, he also spent 1.3 billion dollars on ballistic missile programs.[15] The North Korean Army, which is the fourth largest in the world, has an annual budget of 6 billion dollars.


            The most appalling side of North Korea is not its gross economic mismanagement, but its unsympathetic brutality towards its populace. Those who have escaped the many prison camps throughout the country testify to acts of extreme cruelty and barbarity. Inmates in these prisons face constant threats of arbitrary beatings and executions by the guards, who reportedly enjoy torturing inmates with cattle prods. Women are regularly raped and given forced abortions.[16] The number of political prisoners within North Korea has grown dramatically over the past five years, with an estimated quarter million imprisoned in 2011.[17] Considering the North Korean government does not release statistics to this effect leads one to wonder how much abuse is happening in the country that we don’t even know about yet.

            Such a disgraceful track record of abuse as that of DPRK is not uncommon for most other collectivist countries on this list. DPRK is but a single entry in the long list of failed socialist states. It is a sad reflection on the mental development of the west that some delinquents still apologize for the crimes of this regime.


1. The Great Purges Decapitate USSR
Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, a prominent victim of the Great Purges.

            Josef Stalin was paranoid of everyone. As dictator of the Soviet Union, he saw enemies wherever he looked for them: among his friends, family, the army, the intelligentsia, fellow party members, and acquaintances. Stalin began his purges in 1936, seeking to eliminate the Old Bolsheviks who fought in the Russian Civil War as well as any political rivals, but as the purges progressed, individuals from all facets of society became targets. Nobody was safe. Ninety percent of Red Army officers were purged, including three out of five Marshals, thirteen out of fifteen army commanders, and all sixteen army commissars.[18] Many talented commanders like Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Alexander Yegrov, Iona Yakir, and Vitaly Primakov were all put to death. Prominent journalists, writers, politicians, engineers, and architects were also killed or imprisoned. All in all, declassified Soviet documents reveal that 681, 692 people were killed from 1937-1938—an average of one thousand executions a day.[19] Many more were arrested and died later in the gulags.


          The needless loss of so many Russian intellectuals and leaders meant that the Soviet Union was wholly unprepared to deal with the German invasion of 1941. Stalin’s purges had effectively decapitated the Red Army of all its best officers. Even the Soviet military doctrine which was written by Tukhachevsky, was replaced by a crude, and wholly ineffective one written by Kliment Voroshilov, a diehard Stalinist. Many of the tragic disasters on the eastern front during the early years of the war such as Smolensk (1941) and Kerch (1942) occurred as a direct result of the lack of well-trained, experienced Soviet officers.

            Those who are sympathetic to Soviet Russia laud the will of the communists to resist and ultimately beat back the Nazi invasion. However, the reason why the Germans had such success against the Russians in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa was  due to the unfit state of the Red Army to repel such an invasion. Stalin’s purges had consolidated his hold over the country and eliminated any opposition, but they were ultimately wasteful and unproductive. The Purges also indirectly led to millions of Russians being needlessly slaughtered during World War Two.







[1] http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=671
[2] http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=671
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_east_germany#Censored_topics
[4] http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032014-694100-shortages-black-markets-emerge-in-socialist-venezuela.htm
[5] http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/26/venezuela-food-shortages-rich-country-cia
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/books/horror-of-a-hidden-chinese-famine.html
[7] Summers-Smith, J Denis. In Search of Sparrows, pg. 122-124
[8] Roberts, Geoffrey. Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War (1939-1953), pg. 97
[9] James Lucas, War on the Eastern Front: The German Soldier in Russia 1941-1945

[10] http://study.abingdon.org.uk/geography/new/AS/AS_population/Population_policies/pop%20policies%202003/Romania/tsld004.htm
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ISSgupUtpU
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979)#Terror
[14] http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm
[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/pyongyangs-hunger-games.html?_r=0
[16] http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/north-korea-accused-of-genocide-by-south-korean-human-rights-group/
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/world/asia/05korea.html
[18] Courtois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism. Pg. 98
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Number_of_people_executed

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Washington Redskins Should Not Change Their Name


             Social justice advocates have been making a lot of noise recently about the Washington Redskins. Many believe that the term “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans and that it should be changed to something more politically correct. Despite all the outrage, the owner of the team, Dan Snyder, adamantly refused to give up the name, saying, “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong Redskins fan, I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means”. Amidst growing outrage, the US Patent Office voted 2-1 to cancel the trademark last week, meaning that the Washington Redskins logo is now unprotected by unauthorized duplication. Even though Snyder plans to appeal the ruling, the social justice crowd is already calling this a landmark decision.


            While I can understand how Native Americans might find the name Redskins offensive, I do not believe it is the role of government to cancel patents solely on that basis. What someone finds offensive is entirely subjective. A term that has the potential to make some individuals wince in disgust might be completely innocuous to others. This entails that no objective standards of political correctness could reasonably be enforced since they cannot even be agreed upon. Thus, when the Patent Office cancels the trademark of an organization just because it is offensive to some people, this sets a disturbing precedent about the role of government. If any group of concerted individuals can whine and complain about anything they deem repugnant and get the Patent Office to comply with their demands, what good is the patent system to begin with? Ownership of property is an unalienable right in an open society. The name and trademark of the Washington Redskins are the property of Dan Snyder, and as such, he has sole authority to change, dispose, or keep the team name if he wants to. Regardless of whether the team name is offensive or not, it is immoral for a government to compel Washington to change it. In his HBO special, It’s Bad For Ya, George Carlin spoke some words of wisdom that certainly have relevancy here. He said, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list gets shorter, and shorter, and shorter.” The Cancellation of the Redskins patent only goes to show prospective social justice warriors that if an organization’s name offends their sensibilities, they can clamour to the government and get their patent revoked.

            Some people may argue that changing the team name is not that big of a deal, and any costs it does entail would be a small price to pay to ensure nobody is being offended. Anybody who makes such an argument is ignoring the value of many sports franchises. The name and logo of any sports team, especially one that has such a long and successful history as the Redskins, carries value. The Washington Redskins are a name that people recognize and if the team completely rebrands itself, then that recognition would be lost. Forbes has listed the Redskins as the eighth most valuable franchise in the league at 1.7 Billion dollars, and much of that value comes from the name itself. To many fans, their team names are important and symbolize the tradition and history of their achievements. Rebranding the team would not only affect the fanbase, but it would also incur a tremendous financial burden on the team’s owners. Changing the Redskins name means hiring patent and trademark attorneys, graphic designers, as well as purchasing new jerseys, merchandise, and equipment, which costs millions of dollars. It’s not as simple as changing a few light bulbs. Even political correctness comes at a price.

            Those who are most adamant about changing the team name should reconsider their priorities. If one’s goal is to impose political-correctness onto the world, they should begin by dismantling the thousands of actual hate groups throughout North America that actively work to promote racism, hate and discrimination instead of attacking the name of some innocuous sports team. Many other sports teams have names that are arguably more offensive than the Redskins, such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, The Cleveland Indians, and The Edmonton Eskimos. The fact that social justice warriors are up in arms about The Redskins, but haven’t uttered a peep about The Eskimos (a de facto racial slur) demonstrates the confirmation bias so often conveyed by these people. If one is intent on abolishing bigotry in major league sports logos, then they should be decrying all offensive logos, not Just the Washington Redskins. There’s no reason to just pick on Washington, considering Native Americans are not even unanimously offended by the team’s name. Several polls taken throughout the past decade have consistently shown that most Native Americans don’t find the name Redskins to be that odious. The poll taken in 2004 shows that only nine percent of Native Americans had an objection to the term and another poll taken as recently as 2013 shows that nearly eighty percent oppose the team name change. It appears to me that the noisiest voices against the Redskins are well-meaning, but ultimately misguided white folks who feel they are doing the world a favour by imposing their opinions on others. Everybody has different values, preferences, and beliefs, and thus anybody could conceivably be offended by anything. Just because you have the right to find a given book, television show, political party, or football logo offensive, does not entail you should censor or banish them. Otherwise, we would inhabit a world where everything was censored and everything was banned.



            All that being said, I can empathize with any Native Americans who are truly offended by the team name. However, just because a name is offensive to some people, doesn’t mean it necessarily should be changed. If so, who is to determine what is objectively offensive and what isn’t?  The fact that the Patent Office cancelled the trademark solely for that reason clearly shows that the government feels it is the arbiter in this respect. If a group of people find an organization objectionable, the most productive and mature way of voicing their distaste is by voting with their wallets. Just like with any product or service that does not meet your standards, you have the right not to support it financially. If you don’t like the Redskins, don’t buy their merchandise, don’t go to the games, don’t follow the team, and don’t give them exposure. It’s that simple. When you have to go crying to Big Daddy Government about your fragile sensibilities, then maybe it’s not the world that should conform to your standards, but the other way around. 

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Edmonton Woman Seeking to End Her Discrimination



A recent article from The National Post describes a woman who proposes to end workplace discrimination for individuals with body modifications. Kendra Behringer, resident of Edmonton, has twenty-two facial piercings and says she won’t tolerate discrimination from employers based on the way she looks. The article describes how Behringer was rejected from dozens of jobs and so she is seeking to change the Alberta Human Rights Act to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against persons with tattoos and piercings. The act already forbids discrimination based on race, gender, age, religious and political affiliation, but Behringer argues that body modifications should be added to the list as well.


It is clear from this article that people like Behringer want to have their cake and eat it too. In an open society, individuals should be allowed to modify their bodies however they like; piercings, tattoos, scarification, and lip-discs should all be allowed if one chooses. However, just because one is permitted to alter their body in such ways, does not entail they can escape the judgement of others. Any adult who makes the decision to get piercings or tattoos does so in recognition of the fact that others will judge them based on these decisions. As an adult living in the real world, one has to consider the potential consequences such modifications with incur. You can’t indulge in any sort of behaviour you want and then expect to not be held accountable for it. If Ms. Behringer was intent on working in a retail setting or at a business that upholds certain dress codes, she should have considered this before stamping a bunch of holes in her face.


When an employer refuses to hire someone because of their body modifications, it’s not discrimination—certainly not in the sense that racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism constitute discrimination. In recognition of the fact that all human beings have different attributes, an employer must accept the applicant with the optimal attributes for the position they are hiring for. For example, if an employer refuses to hire someone because they are black, then that employer would be a racist since being black should not automatically disqualify someone from any particular position. However, if an employer was hiring for a heavy-duty construction job that required heavy lifting, it would seem justifiable for them not to hire a sixteen year-old girl because she isn’t strong enough. I do not see this as discrimination, but rather competition. A sixteen year old could not possibly keep up with some muscular guy who is adequately built for such work. Likewise, the tough muscular guy would probably have a hard time getting a retail job at La Senza since he lacks the attributes to compete in that line of work. Competition is distinct from discrimination since in competition there is an economic rationale behind why an employer would not hire someone apart from just being a bigot.  Companies have to hire people who will best represent them, and if an employer believes that Behringer’s piercings will distract employees, shock customers, or harm sales, then they have every right not to hire her on that basis. People with extensive body modifications are less competitive in certain markets. Having twenty-two facial piercings might be great if your goal in life is the join The Cruxshadows, but if you want to work somewhere with a dress code, such things are unadvisable.



The fact that Ms. Behringer is seeking to make it illegal for employers not to hire her reflects the whiny sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in our culture today. Instead of cultivating one’s talents and adequately preparing for the line of work one hopes to pursue, people today just expect employers to cater to their needs. If you make the choice to get tattoos or piercings then you must accept responsibility for whatever consequences they entail.  

"I'm ready for my interview now."

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Education Instead of Apathy


Here is an article, entitled Capitalism vs. education: Why our free-market obsession is wrecking the future  that I dredged up from the bottom of the internet known as Salon.com. Written by Eric Levitz, the article takes issue with Barack Obama’s 2014 State of The Union Address and how the phrase “income inequality” was scrapped from initial drafts and replaced with an emphasis on “ladders of opportunity”. Levitz’s grievance is that Obama didn’t call for “radical income distribution or a proposal for aggressive government hiring”, but instead spoke about social mobility and the need to improve education. For once, I will have to defend Obama. American students have much lower test scores than most other developed countries (especially in math)[1] and Obama’s suggestion that this needs to improve is backed by good sense. After all, how are Americans supposed to compete internationally if their math and science skills are so poor compared to those of people in China or Korea? If the goal is to reduce inequality, then the need for better education seems obvious. Levitz references David Blacker’s book The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame, which essentially argues that education reform should not be attempted since he believes it’s too ingrained in capitalism. Levitz writes,

“His book advises activists to adopt an attitude of fatalism. In his narrative, hope is found in the fact that even neoliberal capitalism is helplessly constrained by a system larger than itself, namely that of the environment. The task for the left then, is to prepare, psychologically and experimentally, for inevitable collapse.”

I hope I am not alone in my opinion that this is a disgusting and reprehensible point of view. If David Blacker truly thought that there was a structural problem in the education system then it would be irresponsible of him to be so indifferent to it. Even though his arguments amount to little more than baseless conspiracy theories, they reflect the sinister mentality that underlines all socialist doctrine, namely, that socialists would rather see the world destroyed if they cannot impose their system of beliefs on others. His is the attitude of a spoiled brat who throws a tantrum when he fails to get his way. This fatalist attitude only demonstrates that people like Blacker and Levitz don’t care about the well-being of the country as much as they care about peddling their sick, weakling beliefs. This becomes more apparent later in the article when Blacker writes that his goals for education reform include: “unionization, desegregation, and inclusion.” These are vague terms when used in this context, but one can see that what Blacker means is that he wants to warp curriculums to a socialist view of the world. The goal of education is to equip children with the knowledge and skills to become successful in life. Indoctrinating children with Marxian jargon will certainly not provide them with a sufficient education and I for one am glad that our current education system does not cater to Blacker’s vision.


Capitalism is the most compassionate and ethical economic platform there is. When Obama chose to emphasize practical initiatives like education reform, instead of pandering to bitter politics of class division and envy of the rich, he was extolling the value of capitalism rather than whiny entitlement. The United States was a country founded on the principle that any individual can improve their status through effort and cultivation of his talents, a principle that remains true to this day. Raising the standard of education and improving math and science skills will make more young people self-sufficient so they can meet the demands of today’s economy. Eric Levitz and David Blacker do not want anyone to have this freedom to succeed. If they had their way, individuals would become the property of the state, to be utilized and disposed of at whim. It's nonsense like this article that makes me wonder whether Salon.com’s readership haven’t all been lobotomized with icepicks yet.






[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Our World Cannot Function Without Money


Money is the force that drives the economy of an open society. It functions as a unit of account, a store of value, and as a medium of exchange. While some utopian thinkers would argue that money is not a necessity, one would be hard-pressed to imagine a cashless society that allocates resources as efficiently as our own. Few civilizations throughout history have thrived without some form of currency. An open market composed of an intricate series of sales, purchases, investments, and exchanges would be impossible without a stable form of currency. This post is a response to a recent article writtenby the Socialist Party of Britain and posted on Libcom.org that attempts to explain why money is not necessary in a socialist economy. The author argues against Ludwig von Mises’ essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, by claiming that economic calculations can be made in a socialist society as in a capitalist society without the use of money. I believe that the author of this article has misunderstood the point of von Mises’ essay, and makes the very same arguments that Mises was scrutinizing. Economic calculations could not be made in a cashless society that meets everyone’s demand and where all resources are used to the greatest efficiency. There are too many problems inherent in allocating goods in a centrally planned economy, let alone in one lacking a stable currency. A socialist economy could never rival the productiveness and efficiency of an open market, but without money such an economy would be doomed to failure. The article in question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding with the use of the price system and with the purpose of money.


In a socialist economy like the one proposed by the article, the means of production would not be privately owned, but would become the property of the state. As such, it becomes the responsibility of the state to distribute the goods they produce to the community. Rather than in a free market, where the distribution of goods takes the form of an exchange between the producers and the consumers, the distribution of goods in a socialist economy resembles an internal transfer, seeing as though under socialism there is no distinction between the two; the consumers are the producers. What Mises is arguing in his essay, is that such an economy could never satisfy the demands of consumers since the central planners would not have access to pricing information.[1] Prices in an open market are based on supply and demand. What the author of these articles does not grasp is how his utopian socialist state is going to obtain information about supply and demand without some kind of pricing system. He writes “Our answer is that the choice of which productive methods to employ, like working out what consumer goods are needed, will be based on estimations and calculations in kind.” What these calculations are exactly or what is being calculated he does not make clear. Socialists demonstrate incredible narrow-mindedness when they assume the government can somehow know and accommodate the needs of every single person in the economy. In reality, the series of exchanges and transactions that make up the economy are so many and so complex that nobody, including myself, could ever hope to know what everyone wants and it would be a painfully futile task to attempt to get information to this effect. The needs and tastes of individuals are also always changing, which only complicates matters. This is why I believe the author of that article completely missed the point von Mises was trying to make. Central-planned economies don’t work. There is no way that a government can somehow calculate the ever-changing supply and demand in any given market, let alone without an effective pricing system.


To demonstrate why central-planned economies are inefficient even on a small scale, consider this thought experiment. Suppose you’ve been given the task of making lunches for an entire school of a thousand students. You have access to a huge selection of food that would allow you to make whatever meals you wish, but you don’t have information about the preferences of each student. Thus, it would be impossible to satisfy them all. Some students inevitably would not like their lunches and would be forced to discard or exchange them with others, creating wasted resources. A central planner would never be able make lunches that optimize every student’s utility more any than if the students were allowed to make their own lunches. How then, is the government under socialism supposed to distribute goods to the entire population, allocating them all efficiently? This thought experiment also demonstrates that in an economy where goods are not allocated efficiently, agents are forced to exchange their goods with others in order to maximize utility. Even in a socialist country where currency is abolished, a medium of exchange would naturally arise to satisfy these needs. We can see examples of this throughout history. In American POW camps during World War Two, this medium took the form of cigarettes.[2] Prisoners would exchange their rations for cigarettes since they were light, easy to carry in bundles, and could be smoked. Goods and services in these camps were expressed in terms of cigarettes, just like goods in America are expressed in dollars and cents. Using cigarettes, prisoners whose preferences were not satisfied by rations they received could purchase goods they wanted throughout the camp. I believe that if a state were to dismantle the entire banking system and abolish money, then a commodity currency like cigarettes would develop in its place. Money is more useful than barter for trading and to propose that we could live effectively without a currency of any kind is absurd.



The article later goes on to criticize the pricing system by claiming that the cost of an item only takes into consideration the labour and time it took to produce it. He argues, “To make this the only consideration that counts (as is imposed by the economic laws of capitalism) is an absurd aberration.”


The author of this article is clearly mistaken about several things. Capitalism does not impose laws on anyone. Capitalism is merely a system wherein individuals are free to make their own choices and where property laws are enforced by the government. As far as the price system goes, to suggest that only labour and time are considered in the cost of a good is the true absurd aberration. Supply and demand are determined by a variety of factors, including labour costs, but goods can have value for many other reasons including aesthetic or historical significance, taste, popularity, scarcity, or other seemingly arbitrary factors. The extraordinary value of a coin collection, an antique armoire, or a Vermeer painting is not derived from the labour and time they took to produce, but rather from the scarcity of these goods compared to how much they are demanded. How is a socialist state going to allocate works of art without some unit of account with which to assign them value? It appears that art collecting is to be abolished along with money in this supposed socialist utopia. The purpose of money is as a unit of account, that is, it assigns values to objects based on their demand and supply, which in turn are determined by any number of things. Money allows for the trade of value for value. Money ensures that every good that is produced is traded to someone who wants it for the appropriate value in dollars and cents. It reflects a poor understanding of the economy to assume that somehow the government will know how to allocate its resources efficiently without even a basic unit of account. Therefore, any suggestion that a socialist economy can provide for everyone’s needs better than a market economy is absolute rubbish.

       
Under Socialism, Vermeer's The Astronomer is worth 9 million cigarettes


Another ridiculous claim made by the article is that under socialism, producers would not take into account monetary or market values, but rather “human values”. I believe what the author means by this is that goods will only be produced in accordance with their need in society rather than to make a profit. This kind of mentality, well-meaning and idealistic as it may be, does not correspond to how the world really works. I feel the following quote by Adam Smith has relevancy here: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In order to create a given product, it requires technical ingenuity, time, effort, resources, imagination, and market knowledge. In a market economy, firms are willing to invest all that effort because if the product they create is successful, it will confer a benefit in the form of profit. Threats of competition also ensure that producers make the best goods possible, utilizing their time and resources to the greatest efficiency to satisfy the greatest demand. Under a socialist economy however, there is no threat of competition and no opportunity to make a profit off anything, so where is the motivation under socialism to satisfy these “human needs” to the best of its ability? To engineer some product for the masses, using the fewest resources possible, and without the accountability incurred by competition, it seems that any good produced under socialism would inevitably be of lesser quality that its equivalent in a market society. If you compare the technology of Soviet Russia to that of the United States, this becomes evident. The state of the Soviet automobile industry was so poor, that in the 1960s, Soviet leadership turned to the Western powers to help them produce a proper car.[3] The infamous Lada, a product of communist ingenuity, was a car so unreliable that if you purchased one brand new, it still required extensive repairs in order to be made roadworthy.[4] The Lada also had horrible fuel economy and they became an object of ridicule anywhere outside Soviet Russia. If the socialist’s way of satisfying “human needs” is to have its people driving around in obsolete deathtraps, then I will take my chances in a market economy. 

How do you double the value of a Lada? 
Fill up the gas tank.


Any economy with a stable currency can provide for the needs of its people better than a cashless socialist hell. For all the high-minded rhetoric espoused throughout the Libcom.org article, little of it amounts to more than idealistic navel-gazing. Money allows for individuals to exchange their labour for an equivalent value of goods and services. It ensures that workers are properly compensated and that all resources are allocated efficiently. Socialists and utopian thinkers are hard-pressed to demonstrate how a world without money could ever function.  Money gives the individual freedom to make his own choices.  Supply and demand, more so than any amount of socialist rhetoric, reflects the true needs of the people, and this is why I believe socialists despise money. Ultimately, money represents the responsibility the individual has over his own life and his freedom of choice, ideals that do not fit the socialist’s vision of man as a form of sacrificial livestock—to be herded and organized by the whim of a central planner.  No state or central planner, regardless of the means at their disposal, can never accommodate these needs better than an open market.







[2] http://www.clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt/docentes/url/jcn/ie2/0POWCamp.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_the_Soviet_Union#Historical_production_by_year
[4] http://www.economist.com/node/11703067