RSS 2.0 FeedSocialists Don’t Like Profits
by Brad WarbianyEarlier today, Doug posted an excerpt from a Larry Kudlow article on oil profits [and Democrats wishes to tax them]. He rightly pointed out that the result of taxing those profits will be to hurt ordinary Americans, but he brought up a question that wasn’t answered:
The bottom line is that our economic system is all about free-market capitalism, and at the core of that system is profit. Profit isn’t a dirty word. From profits spring the abundance of this great country. Profits are the mother’s milk of stocks and the economy. Expanding profits provide businesses the resources to enlarge production operations and hire additional workers. This, in turn, is how incomes are created, wages that are then spent by American families. Why can’t liberals grasp this?
I hate using the word “liberals” in this manner. “Liberals” aren’t liberal; they’re authoritarian socialists. I’m liberal. But that’s a different point.
I call them authoritarians socialists specifically to bring up a point. THEY’RE NOT CAPITALISTS! They don’t believe in free-market capitalism. They don’t believe in the worth of our economic system. Specifically, they don’t for a moment agree with the statement that “Profit isn’t a dirty word.” To them, profit is a very dirty word.
To a socialist, profits don’t legitimately belong to the owner of a company or to the capitalists who invest in the company. Profits should belong to the workers of the company. Essentially, they believe that the capitalists are stealing that value from its rightful owner, the worker who produces it. Thus, they see it only natural that democratic government should steal that value right back from the capitalists, and hand it over to the workers, in order to right the “wrong”.
When a capitalist talks about Exxon’s profits, he’ll probably use the word “earn” in there somewhere. After all, the process of finding, extracting, transporting, refining, and selling oil and gasoline is not an easy process. With smart decisions, they’ve served consumers and made money in the process. As Kudlow points out, they’ve made huge dollar amounts on very high revenues, but at a relatively modest 10% profit margin.
But when Hillary talks about these profits, she won’t use the word “earn”. To her, those profits weren’t earned. Those profits, therefore, should be taken away and given to the people who truly “earn” in this country, the worker. Hillary Clinton is a socialist— not a liberal. To her, profit is a dirty word, and she’s more than willing to take them away “for the common good”; regardless of what economic growth they could fuel as investments.
We don’t have a free-market capitalist system. Indeed, the very idea of “free-market” and “capitalist” may be blatantly contradictory.
As for the people attacking oil profits, they aren’t socialists. They don’t plan on putting the means of production in the hands of workers. Hell, they’re not even going the state capitalist-socialist route of putting the means of production in the hands of the state. They’re just going to spread a little of the profit around to buy off actual discontent over genuine inequality (rooted in government intervention).
Big government liberals are the running dogs of big business, and these attacks on oil profits are more of the same.
- Josh
Comment by Wild Pegasus — February 11, 2007 @ 10:28 pmJosh, free market and capitalist are not blatantly contradictory. Free market and corporatist, which is what we currently have, are.
Oh yeah, taxing profits and redistributing them within society is a mild form of socialism. And that is precisely what Hillary & Co want to do. Ergo, socialists. The reality is that Fortune 500 corporations much prefer mild socialism to free markets.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 11, 2007 @ 11:05 pmMost “naive Socialists” don’t have a thing against profits; indeed they realize the value of a profit-driven economy. However, the thing they don’t really like is working for someone who somehow deserves to make as much as they do in a year in under a day of work. This is the problem that capitalism must overcome, the problem of bad PR and of seemingly unbalanced wages.
Comment by jokulhaups — February 12, 2007 @ 8:22 amAnother valid problem that Socialists have is with what Adam called Corporatism in the above comments. Many educated people feel our society giving the corporation too many rights; that we are treating the corporation as more human than human. As a result, they feel we are endangering ourselves by forcing the corporation to not serve the society, but to only serve it’s bottom line. Whether this is a legitimate premise is not my point; it’s another image problem that capitalism must overcome.
Josh,
They haven’t *yet* taken over the means of production, but with the regulatory codes, they’re getting close.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 12, 2007 @ 10:05 amJosh, free market and capitalist are not blatantly contradictory. Free market and corporatist, which is what we currently have, are.
Has there ever been a capitalist society which wasn’t also blatantly corporatist?
Oh yeah, taxing profits and redistributing them within society is a mild form of socialism.
How is it socialism when the means of production stay in the hands of the capitalist class? This is a cheap bribe to keep state-privileged profits flowing.
- Josh
Comment by Wild Pegasus — February 12, 2007 @ 10:36 amThey haven’t *yet* taken over the means of production, but with the regulatory codes, they’re getting close.
LOL. Who do you think pushed for those regulatory agencies in the first place? Do yourself a favor and get a copy of The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko. Big Government has always been the brainchild and servant of Big Business.
- Josh
Comment by Wild Pegasus — February 12, 2007 @ 10:37 amJosh,
I realize that corporations often push for regulation that will harm them slightly, but harm their competitors far worse, helping them to gain market share.
What does it signify when the state creates regulation that in effect protects their favored businesses and demands insane taxation as tribute for the service? It’s a partnership between big business and big government. The government may not own the means of production, but they’re in bed together. I technically own my wife’s car (my name is on the title), but that doesn’t change the fact that she decides where it gets driven.
I know we’re both arguing this from the same side (i.e. we want to see the end of corporatism), but don’t you see how the fact that business and government are in bed together due to the regulatory state belie your point that government doesn’t control the means of production?
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 12, 2007 @ 10:48 am