Keynesians are the new communists (only worse)

The rise of communism in the 20th century relied heavily on a ground built by Karl Marx, who put forth theories of worker exploitation. The solution, or rather inevitable effect proposed was the rise of the proletariat, through armed revolution. As we are now in the early years of the 21st century, something equally sinister, yet in some ways much worse is starting to move. The rise of Keynesianism.

The breeding ground for communism was the poor living standards for the working class. After the industrial revolution, many groups had seen their relative wealth increase enormously, yet (naturally) some groups had not seen it rise nearly as much as others. Capital accumulation had allowed for a relatively rich middle class to arise, and capitalism was constantly pushing the limits for wealth-creation. Out of this came Marx, who saw the inequalitiies and decided that something must be wrong, because man should be of equal value. Relying on economists from previous generation, he formulated the labour theory of value. This theory, while deeply flawed, relied on a view that workers were being fundamentally exploited, and not being repayed the true value of their labour. This exploitation theory allowed for masses of workers to demand justice from the middle and upper classes, and political forces used this to overthrow the governments and rulers of the old. Had Marx realized the flaws of his theory, it may have changed history significantly. Had he realized that the best way to improve conditions for the working class was for them to maximize the utility of their labour, to produce more and better, and most importantly for a highly competitive market to arise, driving wages up – political history could have been entirely different.

Now in the early 21st century, there is no longer a unified working class in the western world, or in countries such as Russia. China, the once proud communist peoples republic has made the move towards the largest capitalist engine ever created (possibly with the exception of 19th century USA – but China is bigger if you count population numbers), and while still officially waving the communist flag, it is very unlikely that they, if given a choice between pure government-controlled economy or free capitalist enterprise would choose the earlier. In the rise of the financial crisis, we have seen the new political movement forming, and they are the “liberal socialists”, the pragmatist and the anti-ideologists, relying not on the labour theory of value and the working class, but instead on a generation of intellectually depleted middle-class citizens, who have been born into the belief that they have a right not to the product of their labour, but the product of the labour and capital of others.

There are similar flaws in communism and Keynesianism, most notably the lack of explanation of how the means will accomplish the end. The communists never managed to explain how, after the initial revolution of the proletariat, the newly created totalitarian regime would dissolve itself and the communist utopia of non-capitalism, non-government would come into existence. Similarly, the Keynesians cannot explain how their government interventionism, even if it was not damaging the economy, would bring forth a situation that did not constantly call for more government intervention. When a “stimulus package” has been performed, and millions of unnecessary jobs have been performed to minimize unemployment, inevitably we will at best be back at square one (although crowding out is likely to guarantee far worse) except with a bigger government debt to boot. When the fiscal stimulus has run out – every created job will cease to exist, and nothing will have been accomplished except a highly unresponsible spending of taxpayer money during dire economic times.

The big difference between communism and Keynesianism is the spirit in which they are put forth. While communism was a workers movement, doomed to be abused by its leaders and subsequent dictators, Keynesianism is a politicians movement, doomed to be abused by all its followers, in their desperate attempts to get something for nothing, to feed of the flow of credit and stolen capital being dished out by the Keynesian rulers. While communism fed off the poverty of the working class – Keynesianism feeds of the fear of poverty of the middle-class. The doctrine is not that you are oppressed, and that those who have accumulated capital are exploiting you as underpayed labour, the doctrine is that unless you wish to fall into poverty, you must oppress anyone and everyone who has the financial means to be oppressed. You must steal from the wealthy, retain unhealthy trade balances that punish all other countries, and most importantly – you must do it not because it is right, but because pragmatism and populist politicians have shoved fear so far down your throat that the little judgement and intellectual resistance in your feeble mind born into entitlement has evaporated.

The self-fullfilling prophecies of Keynesian liberal-socialism risk driving modern society spiralling down into poverty, because the poorer the slothful middle-class with their lack of ideals and intellectuall guidance becomes, the more cemented the ideas of government supremacy and tax-based robbery will become. The policies of re-distribution will also have a further side effect of currency destruction, efficiently depleting the capital structure of society, fueling the downwards trend into socialist poverty. The question is where to draw the line. The question is if the time comes when intellectual resistance is has been proven futile to, and where we go from there. Let’s hope we will not have to find out.