Did Margaret Thatcher change the world for the better?
Yes, but socialism won in the end.
No, but she might inspire the next generation.
Other (please explain)
Total votes: 19
Capitalist Internationalism and How Objectivist Victory Will Become Inevitable.
Submitted by Hugo Schmidt on Thu, 2012-08-30 21:44
This is a follow on on my previous post. I should like to start this with a story. While I was at Oxford, our Union hosted a debate on the subject "this House believes that making money is the surest route to happiness". As you might expect, on the panel were a self-made millionaire and an old-school trade unionist. As you might not expect, they were on the same side, defending the motion. On the other side were nothing but Oxford students, studying sociology on Daddy's dime (I was a scholarship student).
So, when I described the first world left as nothing more than a "gang of dropouts, upper-middle-class permanent students, left-over hippies, and champagne socialists", I was not joking. Consider the recent student protests in the UK. What are they demanding? That their tuition continue to be subsidized. Well, by whom, exactly? Logically, by those that cannot afford to go to University, no matter what the fees. That's class struggle of a kind I guess.
This is true across the board. Name me one of the great causes of the Left that its modern scions are not trying to negate. Class struggle? See above. Anti-racism? They are the most fervent purveyors of it in the wretched mess of "identity politics". Fierce atheism? Please - they are fine with religion as long as it toes the party line. Internationalism? Ask the Socialist parties and the trade unions of Iraq who got to watch the first world left singing the praises of those who were out to murder them.
Which brings me to my next point. In the developing world, there still exists a real, fierce Left. What we need to understand is that these people are not our enemies.
Here comes a second story about my experience with a Chilean gentleman who happened to have been a member of the Communist party when he was younger. The reason for this was simple: he had seen the horrors of the Pinochet dictatorship up close and had been shown fascism under the name of capitalism. He knew too much about Cuba and Soviet Russia to be a member of the party now, but distrusted capitalism because, as he said, what was the chance of he and his countrymen succeeding against the US agribusiness (and other) giants that had relentless subsidy and defenses in the forms of tarifs and others?
What I did was to point out that the same people who make sure that he and his countrymen remained impoverished were my enemy as much has his. Not through some ridiculous altruistic motive, but from sheer practical self interest - that while the wretched collusion of Oren Boyle style 'big business' impoverishes him in Chile, it picks my pocket every time I go to the supermarket. I added that this obscenity was further made worse through the foreign aid racket which subsidizes tyrants everywhere. The combination of trade barriers that immiserate the poorest of the poor, and the subsidies and foreign aid to the exploiters - the genuine exploiters - is a racket of such brazen evil that Berthold Brecht would have blushed to describe. I concluded by saying that what was needed was the creation of a capitalist international, an understanding that, as members of a global economy, we would damn well act like it. Whom do I have more in common with? The farmer in Africa who works from sunup to sundown to feed his family, or the bastard who demands payment for not destroying the farmer? Or the bastard in my government who demand that I be taxed to support incompetent tycoons, or the tyrants draining the aforementioned farmer?
Here's the thing. The Chilean gentleman ended up agreeing with me. From communist party member to defender of capitalism in twenty four hours. And I did not even have to mention that it was Miss Rand who had Kissinger's number when it would have made a difference.
Now think for a few seconds of that extended to the entire planet. Imagine the peoples of China, of India, of Latin America understanding the Big Lie they have been sold, of how they have been tricked and betrayed by those who live on their blood.
The number of truly evil and wicked people is vanishingly small, less than a tenth of one percent. The only reason that evil succeeds is because of trickery. It is by deceiving many, many good people, and turning their virtue to evil ends that they survive. So those who desire nothing more than justice and an end to their own exploitation turn to socialism, not understanding that they are calling for the very ideas that bleed them dry.
But what if they could see through that?
I contend that the developing world has been betrayed. Emerging from colonialism, they sought the best ideas to advance and develop, for the best reasons. But they were betrayed. Instead of the ideas that made the West great, they were offered the evil nonsense of socialism and communism by our intellectuals. In comparison, the faith healers who convince their duped followers to forgo scientific medicine in favour of faith are clean and wholesome. This is the crime for which I can never, ever forgive our intellectuals.
But imagine the people of the developing world could see through that? Imagine they could see that they have been denied what should be theirs by right by the evil liars in our own societies.
How many would rally to the banner of Capitalism under such a change? How many would descend with righteous fury on the very deceivers who are our main enemies?
Destruction of the criminally unjust system of international trade - as it exists now - is worth it in its own right. If I could live to see the total destruction of the trade barriers and an end to "foreign aid" I would die a happy man. But it also provides the opportunity for our final victory.
To be continued...
More SOLO Store
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand