Why did Karl Marx want an unequal income tax and what? Central Bank?!
Martin Luther, Ghandi, and other greats of history, changed the world.
But if you’re going to support “change”, make sure it’s change for the better, and beware of the unintended consequences.
One could say Karl Marx changed the world too, and now we have a central bank and a “progressive” income tax that stunts economic growth. I used to wonder why he would see an advantage for Communist Party plans in a capitalist nation to those two things.
But two plus two equals five. They found a way to wrap it in a nice “alms for the poor” package: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” for taking more from each dollar of income from some people than from others, and “maximum employment and stable prices” for a central bank.
When I was a socialist dupe, I wasn’t even thinking about why a socialist movement should call for a central bank. After learning later on after changes in my thinking that ensued among other things from the growing distrust of the whole “dictatorship” part of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and observing the superficial self-serving hypocrisy of many of the radical movement leaders of the time.
Some are sincere, but like C. S. Lewis pointed out, the most dangerous power grab is the one motivated by “doing good”, because its fruits engender a pompous arrogance toward others who “don’t understand”.
WHY KARL MARX WANTED A “PROGRESSIVE” INCOME TAX
–In capitalist countries
The progressive income tax increases political power over private wealth and moves the issues of wealth and fruits of production into the arena of government power and political discussion. It brings “class warfare” into public discussion, and promotes class envy, and when done with savvy demagoguery, distracts from the fact of property as a natural and civil right to the idea that it all belongs to the government to use for the “common good”, for the use of the collective.
In other words, it’s a Trojan horse, meant to both concentrate control of wealth into the hands of political kingmakers and money changers. It even brings the owners of wealth to centers of government power to beg for relief, and makes it a political issue pitting confiscators concerned about the poor (as if) against people who make too much money. Or have too much. (Never mind if you notice the “confiscators of wealth” never let their own be confiscated.)
So it’s a matter of setting up private wealth as something a strong central government allows you to keep if it serves a “public” purpose, and promotes collectivist thinking. Especially the poor, and middle class, are fooled into thinking confiscation of whatever individuals own is “fair game” for political discussion.
That’s the way it has happened.
WHY KARL MARX WANTED CENTRAL BANKING
–In capitalist countries
This one is not quite the obvious Trojan horse as the “progressive” [sic] income tax, because it provides hints that maybe there’s pieces in the strategy he kept in the dark. As a matter of fact, the Kremlin in the “new” and “capitalist” Russia still has some writings of Karl Marx under lock and key in secure vaults and has not allowed them publication.
Karl Marx knew for a fact when he wrote this in his Communist Manifesto that central banks in capitalist countries would inevitably be run by private banks, or at least bankers with deep ties to private capitalist banks, because who else would understand banking?
Most people understand that their government’s central bank has an official function relating to the economy.
In the States (USA), the central bank is known as the Federal Reserve Bank, surely because even as late as 1913 Americans still had some memory of Abraham Lincoln’s warning against “the money power” and Andrew Jackson’s calling central-banking advocates a “den of thieves and vipers” when he dissolved the then central bank.
In fact, it has to do with control over a nation’s economy and “do good” by way of manipulating the official money supply. But over time, having the money supply chained down by adherence to a gold standard limited how much manipulation they could get away with, and since power corrupts, and people in positions of this or that kind of power, always see their “hammer” of power as way to fix anything in the “nail” of the economy or banking.
In other words, the pressure on all central banks was to drop the pesky habit of giving people gold for their certificates.
So the pressure on central bankers –and politicians, easily lured by easy money– was to “free themselves” from basing currency on value and moving it to fiat money, a simple government declaration that it has value.
But now they could just print money to cover any kind of contingency.
Okay, so central banking concentrates control of the economy through monetary policy into the hands of central planners.
Free market forces are still at work, though, and in fact central banks count on the “free market forces” when they print money or remove it from circulation to manipulate the money supply.
Now comes the endless cycle of tweaking that forever requires a central bank to fix its own errors, and to “fix” the blowback that free market forces inflict upon central planners all the time.
Printing money, especially if a central bank can make it a “loan” to the rest of us, would have been a dream come true for bankers and money changers in the Middle Ages.
But now you have the corruption of power kicking in. The central bank creates this fiat money out of thin air, and it is created as a debt to itself by member banks. Those banks are the next beneficiaries, because they now have more money to work with for loans. This “new money” next gets to the biggest debtors, biggest corporations and government entities who now work with it for their own ends.
More goodies and bennies for government officials, and corporate enterprises, with special positioning for those who are politically connected. There is now more money in more hands to chase after the same production of goods, so suppliers run out of inventory faster, so they start gleefully ratcheting the price upwards. Even if they peg it to a CPI, it’s the same effect.
The money keeps on “trickling down” through the system and the last guy in line is the poor wage earner.
Now THAT is what “voodoo economics” really is. That’s the “trickle down” that hurts the poor.
It’s a simplification of what happens, and other factors are left out of the scenario, but in essence this is what happens when you add it the other considerations.
But what is visible to the “masses”, especially when the media they count on is clueless or compliant, is that the rich are making off with all this money, so blame the rich.
Well, in fact, the central banking institutions are indeed run by the rich, but somehow until Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns, they have escaped scrutiny by the body politic.
It is now inescapable though. There is a lot of big money and bigger power at stake, lots and lots of it, so it is difficult to predict what calamities might ensue if their gravy train is threatened.
But back to Karl Marx. All this concentration of wealth at the center, with the biggest and most powerful private bankers wedded to the political class in the person of the Central Bank. Power corrupts, and as Thomas Jefferson warned the tendency of all governments is just grow and never shrink.
Central banking works to concentrate power over the private economy in the hands of central planners. This tends to impoverish the nation as described above and devalue the currency but eventually when people lose confidence in their shrinking currency –with its value being robbed by stealth without even leaving their pockets– they become fodder for radicalization and demands to nationalize the wealth.
But on the darker side, we see that central banking also is a game that favored the richest capitalist bankers -at least some of them– in one point of Karl Marx’s Communist Party platform.
What’s up with that?
More on that later..