Looking at the left these days, it is easy to think of them as separate from the left of the past.
They rarely use explicitly Marxian rhetoric. They don’t talk about “the workers” or seizing “the means of production” much anymore.
They have done an impressive job of distancing themselves from Marx, from the totalitarian monstrosities he spawned, and from their murderous reign of terror in the 20th century. The Postmodernists saw to that, and all of the left’s subsequent tactical rhetoric has reinforced it.
Many people today have fallen for it, and would argue that today’s left is entirely a distinct phenomenon.
It isn’t.
They sound different. They have different issues and champion different groups. They have invented different ‘enemies.’ But they are just one more branch on the left’s family tree, and their core objective has not changed all that much.
Background…
The American and French Revolutions marked the beginning of the end of hereditary rule. Political inequality began to fall, and with it came the Great Enrichment—a 2,900 percent increase in human income over the three-dollar-a-day baseline that mankind had lived with forever.
This produced a new kind of inequality—material inequality. Some people were getting fabulously wealthy while others remained poor by comparison. Of course, no one seemed to notice that everyone had become richer in comparison to all of humanity, for all of time. They just noticed the contrast with the industrialists and “robber barons.”
The rise in political equality had not produced material equality. Many people—as members of a species who appear to be wired to resent inequality—were extremely frustrated by this development. The left was born from this bitterness, and from a desire to level the playing field.
Except “level the playing field” is a euphemism. The classical-liberal revolution had already begun leveling the field—that was what was producing the explosion in human productivity, and with it the differential outcomes as people with different levels of talent and drive were free to pursue success.
Socialist activists’, operatives’, and intellectuals’ use of terms like “fairness,” “justice,” and “level playing fields” was cover for their actual objective: taking from those who have produced more and giving it to those who have produced less (and skimming some for themselves, naturally).
Nothing has changed.
Take the supposed “pay gap” between men and women. When you measure average pay of all men and all women, there is indeed a gap. Men are employed in higher-paid professions and choose to work much longer hours. When you compare apples to apples—type of job, level of education, hours worked, etc.—the gap evaporates.
Apples-to-apples is the only way to do this statistic. Looking at overall wage numbers by sex raises interesting questions about why the general gap exists, but that is it. It produces no useful information about any possible political inequalities.
But the left is not interested in useful information. They are interested in using this supposed gap to acquire money and power. The Soviets wanted coal miners paid the same as factory owners. Today’s left wants daycare workers paid the same as business owners. Anything else is evidence of “unfairness.” It’s the same shtick.
To whatever extent they might be successful in achieving this result, they have managed to achieve a measure of their core objective: redistribution.
But the attempt itself, even if it bears no direct fruit, is a means by which to acquire funds. NGOs, university professors, public intellectuals, politicians, and the rest of the left’s foot-soldiers are all kept in business by this constant agitation. Yes, some of that money comes from private sources, but not all of it—some of it ends up coming from taxpayers. This is a jobs program for the Leftist Industrial Complex.
Public schools are another example.
The idea that unions’ enemy is “management” is mythology. Private unions’ real enemy is the non-union worker. Public-employee unions’ real enemy is the taxpayer.
When a teacher’s union negotiates for wage and benefit increases, they do not negotiate with the people who will actually pay for them. They negotiate with government. The union gets power. The teachers get more money.1 The politicians with whom they negotiate end up getting their support and votes. Like humans wired into the Matrix, taxpayers are the food for this machine. It’s a racketeering operation.
Think you’re going to get rid of public schools? Think again. It’s not about your kids. It’s about your money.
Transitioning children is another racketeering operation taking place, in part, within these public schools.
As I have written elsewhere, there is big money to be made in transitioning children. It requires pharmaceutical drugs and surgeries. It makes more work for councilors and the rest of the social, educational, and psychological infrastructure associated—thus perpetuating and creating new jobs in those fields. The more kids coaxed into transitioning, the more of this infrastructure will be needed. Educators, councilors, social workers, therapists, etc. tend to be on the left. Tax money will be used to fund those positions.
The business involved, the school personnel, the activists—they all get money. The politicians get their support and keep the gravy train rolling. Redistribution.
There are laws that allow environmental organizations to sue the government at taxpayer expense. This is money taken by force and given to the left. Redistribution.
Funding the fight against “climate change” redistributes money from rich countries to poor countries. Tax exempt organizations and publicly funded media… solar and wind industries given massive taxpayer subsidies… publicly funded academics and scientists (but only those who toe the line)… they all know who butters their bread. The Leftist Industrial Complex marches merrily on. Redistribution.
Why do you think there are such loud calls for reparations. This isn’t about ‘justice.’ It’s about taking money. It is a racket.
Even trans men in women’s sports redistributes trophies, endorsements, scholarships, etc. from actual women to trans women. And all the agitation keeps the Leftist Industrial Complex rolling. IT IS A RACKET.
Remember the 2009 stimulus? Close to a trillion dollars was taken from taxpayers (and their children, through printing money and creating eventual inflation). And where did that money go? Local governments. Public and private unions. Chrysler dealerships—but only those whose owners had donated to Democrats.
Are you getting the picture? There are plenty of other examples.
When you hear the left agitating about this or that, look for the redistributive agenda underneath. How would the ‘issue’ get ‘solved’? Chances are, it starts with M and rhymes with “honey.”
When people deny that the left of today has the same core objective as the left of the past—that they’re no longer “socialist” or that they are a different phenomenon entirely—they are either ignorant of the truth or deliberately lying to you.
It is about money. It has always been about money.
If you like my work and want to see me continue—and expand my efforts on behalf of human freedom and consent—please consider becoming a supporting subscriber. For the cost of about one hour’s wages for the whole year, you can keep this train rolling!
Note: per unit time worked, teachers are already the third-highest paid profession after doctors and lawyers. They are not “underpaid.”
Great piece. Yes, there is no money in just being a classical Marxist anymore maybe just a good mustache and a slick beret. I like the leftist industrial complex, it’s a racket you did there similar to General Smedley Butler. And yes, per unit worked teachers are not underpaid. My former in laws were all teachers and this truth would not be tolerated. It was a narrative (that they were underpaid) which would be upheld and I knew if I cracked the surface just a little bit it would be chaos. I always dropped a “well you’ll be ok with that pension at 55 and go off into the sunset” in a kind of passive aggressive way to get my point across.
Money and power.