Communists are completely wrong about the most fundamental aspects of capitalism. They argue that capitalism works off (and creates/maintains) scarcity, but it actually works from and maintains surplus. As usual, it's exactly the opposite, a complete inversion. 🧵
The essence of capitalism is that one (an individual) can accrue and use one's capital as one will, including to increase one's capital. Capitalism intrinsically and practically creates value as a result, and the mechanism by which it does so is not scarcity but surplus.
At bottom, capitalism produces value by allowing an individual to produce whatever he wants with what he has and, if he wants, to sell it to another individual. This process intrinsically creates value. It doesn't move value around or redistribute value. It creates value.
The way capitalism creates value is by creating conditions under which one individual is incentivized to produce something that he can sell for a profit. What that means is that he produces something that is of some value to him and greater value to someone else.
The idea in capitalism is that you can make something that you have less need or desire for than someone else in the market, and that person will part with some form of payment (barter or money) to obtain it. You get something you value more as do they in voluntary exchange.
A voluntary exchange between two free people can only take place if both perceive there's some advantage for them to engage in that exchange, so each one leaves the exchange believing they have increased the net value to their lives, needs, and wants through the exchange.
While value and perceived value are not identical, all value is ultimately based on perceived value: it's what people think something is worth based on how much utility or joy it can bring them compared against the difficulty of getting it (supply and demand).
Without getting into the weeds of the economics, what this means is the voluntary exchange basis of capitalism, which utterly depends upon the freedom and property rights of the individuals involved, creates value. Value that didn't exist comes into existence for both.
This whole process only works on a principle of surplus, though, not scarcity. Scarcity is related to supply and demand, thus perceived value, but value creation is related to surplus. This is extremely important to understand because it explains why capitalism produces.
If you are the one producing something, you will not easily part with it if you need it, if you want it, or if it has some sentimental value to you. You could sell it for a great enough sum, in principle, but you'll rightly prioritize yourself over a potential buyer.
If you are good at producing something, though, you'll produce more of that thing than you need, in which case you're incentivized to sell it (law of comparative advantage applies here). It has value but not as much to you as it does to someone who can't produce it!
You are therefore incentivized to produce more than you need of something that you are good at producing because then you can profit under capitalism, and in the process of profiting you are also creating value through the mechanism of voluntary exchange.
Capitalism therefore incentivizes and operates upon a principle of surplus, not scarcity, and scarcity is merely its inverse, which is utilized to (a) determine prices and (b) protect the fundamental mechanisms of voluntary exchange (the market) itself.
The market depends upon a form of scarcity that's the kind Communists not only oppose but see as the fundamental Sin at the heart of the Fall of Man: the fundamental right to exclude under private property rights. That is, it's a form of legal scarcity that markets depend on.
Because this scarcity is a legal artifact of property rights being protected, Communists are able to manipulate people into believing that capitalists rig the system itself so they can maintain property rights to exclude people and thus produce scarcity for profit.
The fact is, though, the market itself depends on the concept of private property, including the fundamental right to exclude, in order to enable the value creation process. Being able to guard a surplus outside of a voluntary trade or exchange turns the economic wheel.
Only under protected private property rights with the fundamental right to exclude do you have the conditions under which there's an incentive to produce a surplus and to sell it at a profit, which are the underlying foundations of abundance, prosperity, and wealth.
So capitalism operates on the principle of surplus through the mechanism of incentivized voluntary exchange, and this truly produces abundance (surplus) and creates wealth (value). It depends on a secured right to private property at the most fundamental levels, though.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Something everyone needs to understand about identity politics and "collective identities" (aka, "collective justice," aka "social justice") is that they are intrinsically scams and will intrinsically end up led by people who screw over the people "of identity" who support them.
Identity politics is not what happened in the Civil Rights Movement. What happened in the Civil Rights Movement was a bid by groups to not have to be treated as groups. The slogan black men carried on signs in Memphis was "I am a man."
The term and concept of identity politics as we understand it now was coined in the late 1970s in the Black Feminist Marxist group called the Combahee River Collective, which laid out the neo-Maoist program of intersectionality from Woke (Left) Identity Marxist perspectives.
It's exciting to see research you started getting taken further and more definitive. My friend @iamlisalogan has just released a bombshell report (linked below) about the spiritualist, in fact occultist, nature of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), that proves it's dark religious.
She calls her long, detailed (and unbelievable) report "The REAL (religious) Origins of Social Emotional Learning," and it's on her admirable Substack. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but I'll do a thread with some highlights here. lisalogan.substack.com/p/the-real-rel…
"Did you know that SEL 'circle time' practices used in schoos across the nation…" are based in a spiritualist (occultist) agenda that likely violates not just parents' rights but also the Establishment Clause of 1A?
Tbh, no they aren't. There's a mighty demon perched on top of their conservatism, and it's getting worse, not better. Maybe if Trump can deliver sufficiently it will temper them, but we're in for a very, very dangerous decade to come.
Almost every young man I talk to in the conservative movement, but far fewer of the young women, is at least open-minded about the idea of being ruled by a dictator, so long as that dictator agrees with their values (or pretends to). Sympathy to fascism is relatively high too.
The majority of young people, male and female, that I talk to who are part of the conservative movement are not just open or warm to but enthusiastic about a reactionary identity politics that gives the finger to Leftist intersectionality, thus making the same error again.
Jacques Ellul wrote one of the most important and clarifying books ever written on propaganda. In it, he insists a certain kind of person is the most susceptible to propaganda, giving three traits beyond his own ridiculous belief that he's immune to it. Let's take a look. 🧵
Ellul gives three traits that make someone not just susceptible to propaganda but also dependent on it (!). For us, they will be very unsettling. Before talking about those, though, he also explains that we generally misunderstand propaganda as being like tall tales and lies.
Not only are we susceptible to propaganda, then, we don't even have the ability to identify it. Sure, it's misleading, but it's more often misleading with truths than with outright lies. That's a first mistake most of us make in trying to recognize propaganda.
I just returned from the ARC conference in London where I had countless conversations with people face-to-face about the "Woke Right." While most by far were moderately to extremely supportive, some were duly challenging. I think it's worth talking about them and their variety.🧵
I will start by reiterating that (a) I had a LOT of conversations about the subject of the "Woke Right," far, far more than I wanted to, so it is definitely being widely recognized and discussed, and (b) that most of these were moderately to extremely supportive of my fight.
Of the conversations about it I had, which surely total over 100, at least four out of five were inclined to thank me for fighting it, some being extremely supportive. A couple dozen were challenging but not combative, which is fair around any controversial idea.
In the midst of the USAID scandal flowing to Christianity Today and, apparently, Russell Moore, who tried to gently transform the Southern Baptist Convention to soft Woke up through 2019, I have made a curious discovery: they did some of it with the occultist Fetzer Institute.
As reported in the Baptist Press back in 2019, the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberties Committee (ERLC), headed by Russell Moore and with the collaboration of many notable others, coordinated with the occultist Fetzer Institute to produce a report. baptistpress.com/resource-libra…
The report and project behind it declared American public discourse "dead" and aimed to iluse soft Woke insinuation and struggle sessions to bring about more "civility." It characterized public discourse pre-2020 as "toxic" and warns about the infamous "Big Sort."