Discharging Musky Marxism – it's not so dreamy!
A response to IT'S JUST A DREAM
UBI is just a bedtime story Elon Musk tells himself to help the super-wealthy sleep
By Helen Razer for Quartz.
Oh gawd! Here we go again! Another 'argument' by contrarian red-washed angry woman Helen Razer. Razer in her article mockingly erects Elon Musk upon a pedestal as,“wholesome visionary” and “ benign idealist”- in order to knock down this supposed icon of 'Capitalism'.
Musk is categorised by Razer as part of the 'Capitalist class', one of the “powerful industrialists” and is a “son of the neoliberal era”. Is this accurate? In any case, Razer does this as she needs to fabricate a false dichotomy to support her Marxist ideology – Evil Capitalist v's the exploited worker.
The problems here are manifold. For one, her natural contrarian and angry nature, which can be enlightening, here, however lacks sustained reason as her pre-conditioned Marxism blinkers her world view. Her argument as usual is 'Capitalism is bad, m'kay'. Her use of terms and categorisation and/or lack of clarification of them sets up a false target. “Hello” the logical fallacy known as the “strawman”- Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
Definitions are important - as one episode of satirical cartoon, Southpark pointed out when a celebrity wanted to give everybody aids. By which people inferred the deadly virus - and not the intended meaning of helpful assistants. Razer is guilty of expediently broad brushing loaded terms and ideology.
'Capitalism' – what is it? Capitalism is an economic system that operates on two central tenets: private ownership rights and voluntary trade. The excess fruits of ones labour (savings) are voluntarily exchanged for mutual benefit. Unadulterated capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire, a French term that translates as "leave alone". People and their businesses should be left alone, that is, not interfered with, not coerced, but left in peace.
What is 'Socialism'? - Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
The concepts of private ownership rights and voluntary trade are antagonistic with the nature of government. Governments are public/socialist institutions that do not engage voluntarily. Instead they use taxes, regulations, police and military to pursue objectives that are in violation of the tenets of capitalism. Strictly speaking, any government intervention in a capitalist economy takes place outside the defined confines of capitalism.
Most modern countries practice a mixed capitalist/socialist system of some sort that includes government regulation of business and industry.
Neoliberalism – what is it? Neoliberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. In the main however, it is a Neoliberalism is a term most commonly used by the left as a pejorative for a variety of meanings: (crony)capitalism, globalisation, elite rule, privilege, and even feudalism or colonialism. The associations are negative. All these negative associations incidentally are the bed fellows and machinations of government.
The 19th-century 'Liberalism' incidentally, referred to the ideas of liberty and equality. Liberty as in the absence of coercion and equality as in the rule of law applying to all.
Musk and the 'neoliberals' support UBI – Universal Basic income. UBI is a socialist policy “to lift a growing underclass out of poverty”. When as Vladimir Lenin says, "The goal of socialism is communism." - you would think Marxist Razer would be on board with any idea that moves in the direction of classless collectivism. She, however rightly points out that UBI will “compound income and social inequality for the rest of us” and that “Just as prices would be likely to rise with the introduction of a new basic wage, so they would with the introduction of UBI.”
Indeed! It is counter productive and inflationary. The money to fund UBI must come from somewhere. This means either legalised theft -taxes, monetary expansion or debt. As the wealthy have “reluctance to pay their taxes” and “given the long habit of those who accumulate great wealth to avoid taxes”, then the tax burden would fall to the everyman. So the everyman will pay taxes and then receive them back as UBI. Zero sum then?
No. The government is highly inefficient. After public servants, bureaucracy and cronies take their cut it is said the public gets as little as $2 back on every $10 paid in tax. The funding of UBI actually robs the people it is purported to help.
The government could borrow the money to fund UBI – but this of course is not sustainable when it has to be repaid – through tax collection – from those it is meant to help. The government could also print the money to fund UBI. This is what would cause inflation, which as Razer points out hits the poor the hardest.
UBI -like every other socialist/Marxist/communist/collectivist program - has a negative feedback loop. UBI incentivises laziness. Humans naturally seek comfort and convenience. Why work when you can relax on UBI? It also deincentivises working, as the tax burden now shifts to the productive class making their labour less rewarding and UBI more attractive. All government interventions are manipulations in the market and natural order of things. The manipulations must correct as some point and usually with compounded interest.
Razer's attack on UBI here is part due to her contrarian nature – UBI is gaining popularity - but her main attack is on Musk as a 'Capitalist'. This is one of her strawman attacks. Although leftists love to point out that there is a difference between Socialism and Communism, they also very conveniently basket the terms free-market, neoliberal, neo-conservative, Industrialist and Capitalism into the same concept – and substitute one for the other.
One could by a selective definition label Musk a Capitalist. He does have the 'billionaire habit of capital accumulation'. One however should not confuse this with the free-market – the natural habitat of the (moral) Capitalist. Capitalism also relies on the concept of private property – government is the violation/antithesis of private property. Musk for many of his ventures relies very heavily on public funds, from car subsidies to governments buying battery farms etc. He relies on corporate welfare – not the free market. Musk could more accurately be labelled a public parasite.
Could Musk also be tagged as a fascist? Fascism as defined by Mussolini - “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” One would need to investigate the privileges granted to Tesla. If it is true, as Razer suggests these, more aptly titled 'crony-socialists' have “a future that they feel entitled to manage” via government grant, rather than ideas to be voluntary adopted, then this would warrant concern.
Razer is enraged because the 'capitalist' Musk want “UBI to be instituted” because “It’s just peachy for him and his businesses, as it means his consumers will have more income to spend on his goods.” while also pointing out, “No one on a stagnant wage can currently buy the things that Musk..wants to sell them.”
Does she really believe that Musk wants UBI so that the people who cannot currently buy international space flights and $100 000 sports cars will now be able to do so? That would have to be some very large 'basic' income increase! Her argument is bogus! Making this more laughable is
the line “After all, the wealthier classes are also receiving UBI, which they don’t need to spend—they can transform that extra cash into capital, as Musk would.” Yes, Musk, “the man with so much [capital]” with projects worth billions, could really use that, what? - extra $500?? a week!
If economically challenged Razer understands that UBI is counter-productive then surely, as she herself points out, that someone who is money savvy – a former CEO of PayPal, understands this only too well also! Or not? Some people are successful in business (under current rules) but do not understand economics – Trump?
Why does Musk support UBI? Who knows? It may just be good public relations, as it has “appeal for many everyday advocates”. It may be that the powers of decentralisation and disintermediation occurring today threaten to make obsolete the collectivisation known as government. A support for UBI may simply be a strategy to ensure public support remains for the state – a significant source of funding for Musk.
Razers attacks a state parasite for supporting a socialist policy - and somehow magically this is the fault of Capitalism!! While leftists conveniently bundle together terminology associated with the 'right wing' they also can conveniently ignore the common premise of; government, socialism and communism – forced collectivisation. It is the funding from an instrument of forced collectivisation (government) that fuels Musk and many of the industrialists – not the voluntary exchange mechanism that is free market capitalism.
On one point of view we could excuse the public parasitism of Industrialists. When businesses loose competitive advantage they fail. When a legalised entity can grant competitive advantage, through exclusive licencing (monopoly) and implement laws to hinder competition etc, then the corporation that does not use the state is left at a big disadvantage, relegated to second class and at a greater chance of failure.
Razer mocks Musk, “Capital, says the man with so much of it, is of no consequence to him. “The main reason I’m personally accumulating assets,” he says, is to fund a multi-planetary future. “I really don’t have any other motivation.” then later “(Not that he cares about money, of course. It’s all about innovation!)”
What does this mean? Musk is saving up money because he has a goal! Accumulating assets is the wise thing to do – even the lower thinking animal can understand this. Squirrels accumulate acorns not simply for the sake of it, but for a goal – the greater value it will bring to them in winter – that of survival.
Musk may be overstating that capital is of no consequence to him, yet this does not diminish the goal of innovation. Innovation enriches us all in the long run. What Razer's derision is really saying is that she has no concept of money or value .
A speech by Francisco d’Aconia in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' may enlighten her a little.
“Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.”
The “give value for value” part Razer has some constipation with. This is probably due to the slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," - yet none to incentive and human nature. What weighs more – a kg of feathers or a kg of gold? A trick question, of course! Both weigh the same, however there are characteristic differences. One mush have greater volume to balance up, weigh the same as the other. Not all units are of equal value. Not all labour is of equal value either. One hour of labour holding a traffic sign is not as valuable as one hour of labour by a brain surgeon. Socialists, for this reason are unable to perform any real economic calculation as they have no substitute for a pricing mechanism.
She writes, “It was not Musk alone that produced these magnificent labor-saving devices, after all—it was also our labor” and “Perhaps he could offer us a wage, or even a dividend cheque, for our very useful assistance.”
Yes, Razer, many people contributed to the devices. People offered their services and consented to employment for an agreed upon remuneration. Value for value! Again, the speech by Francisco d’Aconia in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' may illuminate.
“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.”
Razer seems to suffer from the Marxist delusion that unthinking automatic robotic labour – that can be replaced by automated robots – is as equal and rewarding as the ideas of creators, inventers and innovators that enrich us all.
“Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.” - Francisco d’Aconia in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'
As an avowed Marxist Razer, has quite often called for seizing the means of production. Razer also suggests “a stake in Tesla itself”, which is to say she wants a stake in the fruits of Musk's mind. Such nonsense, is a violation of self-ownership – or in other words, 'indentured slavery'.
That said, there is a way for Razer to justify “a stake in Tesla itself”. As Musk is funded by government and government is funded 'collectively' by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer would have a right to a claim in Tesla as they (albeit without their permission) indirectly funded Musk.
For the same reason Winston Churchill quipped, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." it beggars belief that Razer says, “Our collective knowledge would be every bit as innovative..” for Musk to consider . If the average voter is generally ignorant of government policy and its implications, then collective uniformed input is meaningless at best.
As such, Musk should not waste energy on uniformed “conversation”, but consult with proven experts that he thinks can contribute. “Our collective” knowledge is a meaningless in this context. We are not of one hive mind. Individuals should participate in what they choose to specialise in, or choose to add their own informed value to.
“It was not Musk alone that produced these magnificent labor-saving devices, after all—it was also our labor, and the labor of our ancestors.” Yes, Razer, we all build upon and benefit from the past. As did the people before us – as such there is no debt to be paid! This historical collective knowledge is really an open-source cultural capital – not an excuse for distribution.
True, It was not Musk alone that produced, but those who helped him directly were compensated. Razer speaks as if the labour that assisted Musk was stolen. It may be 'our' labour but most of all it has been the great creative entrepreneurial minds, like Musk, that have allowed 'our' labour to be directed in exponentially constructive ways that benefit us all.
As far as 'collective knowledge' goes, two other points should be made. No one man knows all. This is why Capitalism is actually a system more of co-operation than of competition. Leonard Reed's 'ipencil' shows how a diverse, decentralised and spontaneous market goes about creating a seemingly simple object – a pencil. Seemingly simple but in reality very complex beyond the powers of centralisation. 'Collective knowledge' is actualised from individual action. The whole is more than the sum of its parts but only because the parts are autonomous.
If Razer wishes to have a collectivised work place, then she would do better to look at how the capitalist Patrick Byrne organises Overstock.com. His business management mechanism breaks down hierarchy (a management system Communists have a problem with) and encourages cross movement of ideas. Capitalism encourages competition of ideas. Even socialist solutions can have a chance to show their worth. Good ideas do not require force.
“When wages began to fall .. Western workers had less money to spend. So sure, your wage may have remained stagnant for years—but you could still afford that set of discount linens.” writes Razer. All this says is that everything is relative. Capitalism SHOULD push prices down through competition – and this benefits workers. Prices get pushed down as smart capitalists are able to either recognise under utilised resources or create technology to cut costs. Utilising resources means less waste and unemployment. Razer does not understand the non aggressive definition of exploitation: The action of making use of and benefiting from resources.
“Happily, for pre-Musk capitalists, labor exploitation was now occurring off-shore and the cost of many goods, along with the cost of labor, dropped.” With a glass half empty mentality, 'Exploitation', cries the Marxist, 'is unfair'. But what is more unfair is letting resources go to waste. Employment and cheaper prices are beneficial to all – especially the poor. In a glass half full mentality, exploitation is simply an opportunity when the alternatives are not as attractive. Denying exploitation has consequences -
“In one famous 1993 case U.S. senator Tom Harkin proposed banning imports from countries that employed children in sweatshops. In response a factory in Bangladesh laid off 50,000 children. What was their next best alternative? According to the British charity Oxfam a large number of them became prostitutes." (In Defense of "Sweatshops" Benjamin Powell)
Razer attempts to scare us with, “Most of us in the West know very well that our incomes are dwindling along with our future job prospects, which will be lost to automation”
Automation as has done all advances in technology, creates a period of disruption. In the short term jobs will be lost. In the long term technology benefits us all. Would Razer prefer that the labour disrupting washing machine was never invented? Would she prefer that women labour for two days scrubbing clothes rather than two hours. If so, women would never have had the spare time to demand better rights and assert themselves in society or the work place.
Razer makes a good point; “If we did not already know during 2007’s global financial crisis that an economic regime change is needed, we know it now, just by looking at our bank statements.” The problem is not the 'neoliberal era' but collectivism. With over 130 taxes in Australia - half of our labour is effectively taken from us – without our individual consent. People are the means of production, so we are half seized – half way to Communism. Our financial regime is controlled by Central Banks. Central banks are a tenement of Communism.
When Central banks set the price of money (interest) – you do not have a free-market in money. This creates distortions. e.g housing bubble.
When Central banks enforce their counterfeit 'legal tender' you have a contained and highly restricted competition in money – no free market.
'An economic regime change is needed' away from Communist control towards free voluntary exchange in all things.
Communist 'solutions' - “old-fashioned things like nationalizing ownership of companies” are not the answer. Nationalising Venezuela's oil did not help – unless the desired result is to have people eat stray cats and run for the borders in order to survive.
Capitalism (of which Musk is not an honest example) is not crushed by contradictions but by the state with it socialist mechanisms. It is forced collectivisation that is the real problem. Razer shows the futility of UBI but dishonestly points the finger at Capitalism when the real crime is the state and its associated mechanisms.
Anarcho-Taoist