What They Really Mean by “Change”.
By
robert108
on April 1, 2008 at 04:00 pm
53 Comments
An opinion piece by robert108
Both Democrat Party candidates are campaigning on the theme of “change”, so it behooves us to ask: “What do they want to change about America?” It seems a fair question, but as yet neither Democrat candidate has come forward with a clear, concise list of the changes they claim America needs.
The only “change” they seem to consistently advocate is to change the way money is distributed in this country. To that end, they both advocate increasing taxes on “the rich”(whoever that might be; to be determined later, by the ruling elite, I guess), and giving some of that to “the poor”(same method of determination, I guess). Is this a change we want, or even need? We have the recent example of just such a program, which was aggressively pursued in Zimbabwe by a man named Robert Mugabe. As might be expected by anyone with rudimentary knowledge of economics, it was a miserable failure.
Despite its flaws, a system whereby the people who are best able to produce receive the benefits of their productivity still seems to work better than any other system. America is the proof of that. Is there really any good reason to change it?
Furthermore, a merit-based economic system was never imposed on America; it is the system that generally evolves when free people get to make free choices in the marketplace.
So, what’s the problem? Why is “change” necessary here?
For the answer to that question, we have to go to Karl Marx. Starting with the premise that all human activity is conditioned by “class struggle”, Marx than concluded that all bad social outcomes were due to differences in outcome. He also reasoned that if outcomes could be equalized throughout society, there would be no class struggle, leading to lasting peace(not to mention puppy dogs and rainbows).
Unfortunately, there’s a problem with Marx’s neat little utopian package: humans just don’t think and act that way. As free individuals, we have a hierarchy of priorities, starting with self, then family, then friends/relatives, then everybody else. In order to produce Marx’s ideal society with equal outcomes, we would have to discard our natural priorities, and sacrifice them to the State, which would determine everything for us, so that outcomes would be equalized(thus leading to the aforementioned utopia, puppy dogs and rainbows, etc.)
Marx’s version of reality requires a belief that basic human nature can be radically changed(there’s that word again) and that the State is all-wise and all-knowing. Of course, Marx wasn’t really that naïve; he called for(in The Communist Manifesto) what he described as “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. In case you don’t know, the “proletariat” is everyone but the rulers; in other words, you and me. Now, this dictatorship(promised to be temporary, although with no actual promise of how long it would be imposed on us) would be necessary for our own good(or for “the common good”, if you will), in order that we be re-educated in the ways of Marxist ideology, which, if followed with absolute perfection, would lead to the promised utopia. In other words, when we no longer have any individual thoughts, feelings or desires, we will be in paradise(or at least Karl Marx’s version of same).
To sum up, the “change” Clinton and Obama want is to change us. When we sacrifice all our individual wants and needs to "the common good", everything will be just ducky; that's what they want for us all, you know. If we just let them lead us down their primrose path of collectivism, we will all have everything we want and need and we'll all be happy(cue the puppy dogs and rainbows). The only problem is that it's just a scam. What they really want is power over our lives. They want profitable corporations to serve them, not their stockholders and employees, and the economy in general.
I don’t know about you, but I like America the way it is, warts and all, to some vision that sounds like a concentration camp.
