Classic EssaysJohn Young

Failures of Our Age: Capitalism and Communism

Both systems view man and society as purely economic entities; both crush the human spirit, both lead to enslavement and destruction of culture, nation, and race. 

by John Young

MOST AMERICANS have grown up under the erroneous assumption that capitalism and communism are polar opposites, because the former system provides for private ownership of property, whereas the latter does not.

Like most effective lies, this misconception is promulgated through the absence of full information, thereby leading to false conclusions.

On its face, capitalism allows for the ownership of private property; but upon closer examination, that ownership is illusory and conditional.

Under capitalism, most significant individual property — such as real estate — is purchased through loans which, if unpaid, serve to relieve the borrower of ownership of the property without even a court proceeding, even if the borrower has already paid the lender several times the amount originally borrowed.

Even if the property is owned outright, it can be seized by just about any lawyer. If, for example, someone slips and falls while on the property, a lawyer can quickly relieve the property owner of any ownership rights unless he has previously agreed to make large and lifelong payments to the insurance corporations. But insurance comes with myriad clauses and exemptions, including a long list of things the insured must do — and must not do — on his property in order to be protected. Thus, the owner is compelled to give up many of the assumed rights of ownership in exchange for imperfect protection.

Of course, no insurance protects property against government seizure. The IRS seizes 10,000 homes a year; and civil property forfeiture — where the owner of the property need not even be charged with a crime — is used some 3,600 times a day in America to seize everything from cash to cars to real estate.

In practice, then, ownership is illusory since there are a bunch of government agencies, insurance agencies, and mortgage contracts that tell people what they can or can’t do with their property; and it is conditional in that missing just a couple of payments, getting sued, or getting in the crosshairs of the government will terminate even the illusion. What an owner really has, instead of ownership, is temporary exclusive use within a set of guidelines established by mortgage companies, insurance companies, and numerous governmental entities.

Capitalism, in effect, has very little to do with ownership of private property by ordinary people; and everything to do with their enslavement by an elite. A closer look at the finances involved in the preceeding hypothetical house reveals quite a lot.

An important thing to understand is that various governmental and banking machinations distort the free market and artificially raise the price of housing. Unlimited immigration — even if the immigrants aren’t going to the particular neighborhood in which a particular house exists, still serves to raise the price because of the phenomenon of White Flight which raises demand. The deductibility of mortgage interest serves to increase the price of homes, as does the existence of mortgages at all.

Mortgages raise the price of housing by placing buyers who plan to pay back loans over a period of thirty years in competition with buyers who have saved up their money to buy the house outright. A person can much more easily come up with a large loan than actually save money; and the amount of money accessible by financing far exceeds what the average person is able to save in a reasonable amount of time. Likewise, the availability of financing raises demand, and thus prices. Since not all houses go up for sale simultaneously, just a small proportion of buyers using mortgages can raise the price of houses outside the range of people who are trying to save the money to buy a house without a mortgage. In practice, then, wide availability of mortgages causes prices to rise at a rate faster than the rise in wages, meaning that saving to buy a house outright without a mortgage is impossible for most people. So the mechanism of mortgages in and of itself serves to raise the price of housing high enough that mortgage loans are required in order to purchase a house at all.

Here is a case where capitalism in the form of banking is obviously in play, but the actual free market is distorted rather than facilitated by capital, and the distortion is to the detriment of people who wish to own a house, both in terms of absolute price, and in terms of the excessive costs incurred through purchasing via a mortgage.

In practice, using a mortgage to purchase a house destroys, in absolute terms, any financial benefits of ownership.

As an example, take the case of a house purchased for $170,000 using 100% financing at an interest rate of 7.5%. The average person stays in a particular home for five years. Assume that the price of the property appreciates at 4% compounded annually, which is double the rate of inflation, so that the property sells in five years for $206,830, at which point he still owes $160,850 on the mortgage — netting the owner $45,980 in cash, minus the 6% real estate commission of $12,400 for a net profit of $33,580. Not including any upkeep and maintenance requirements, what did the owner have to invest in order to net $33,580?

First, he paid about $9,000 in closing costs for the loan. Then he made sixty monthly payments of $1,189, for a total of $71,340. Then, he paid $3,100 a year in property taxes for a total of $15,500. Finally, he paid homeowner’s insurance of $710/year for a total of $3,550. The grand total of his investments over five years, from which he has netted $33,580, is $99,390. So, over a five year period, even with the value of his house increasing at a compound rate double the rate of inflation, he has actually lost $65,810.

So, if the owner has lost — who has gained? Mainly the bank. Over the same five year period, the bank has collected about $80,000 including closing costs. The bank’s cost for the money from the Federal Reserve was only $8,500, netting the bank a cool $71,500 without ever breaking a sweat. Since the property owner needs to earn about $62,000 yearly in order to afford such a mortgage, that means that over the prior sixty months, he has worked fifteen months for the bank — or fully 25% of all of his productive effort has gone to producing $71,500 in free and clear profit to the bank and $8,500 to the Federal Reserve. At the end of the five years, he still has no practical ownership since, if he gets injured and misses just a couple of payments, the bank will simply take ownership of the property, sell it themselves for $206,830, and distribute far less than the $33,580 to the erstwhile owner since they get to deduct all of their “reasonable” legal costs. In practice then, after sixty months of hard work — the bank has everything, and the owner has nothing.

This is the “ownership of private property” of which capitalists are so appreciative. In practice, private ownership only serves to force people to invest 25% of their productive effort into the banks, while reserving for the banks all of the real power so that anyone who finds himself injured or out of work for even a relatively short time is quickly reduced to absolute destitution. The only difference between such capitalism and Bolshevism is that the illusion of private ownership serves to keep the workers more motivated, so they work harder. But they are still slaves in that they have no real claim of ownership to most of the results of their productive labor. In the one case the Politburo members lived large, while in the other case the bankers live large. But in both cases, at the end of the day, the workers on the global ant farm end up with nothing. Capitalism and Bolshevism are both, therefore, alternate means to the same end.

Private ownership of businesses is very little different. Communism is often described as a system in which ownership of the “means of production” is vested in the state as a proxy for the people; which in practical terms means that control of the means of production lies in the hands of a powerful elite. Capitalism is supposed to be different in that ownership, and therefore control, lies in private hands. In practice, though, this is not the case since control lies with government rather than the “owners.” In a democracy, elections are controlled through media perception; so whoever controls the media controls elections in the main; and so, in practice, control by government also translates into control by a small elite.

Control of private business becomes vested in the government through the clever mechanism known as “incorporation.” Unincorporated businesses vest liability in the individuals within that business, especially the owner. Long ago, lawyerly notions of tort and “joint and several liability” created an environment in which no individual would be able to do business productively since all of his profits — and then some — could be gobbled up by lawyers at the drop of a hat. Thus came the idea of incorporation — in which the state created a corporation — an artificial person — in law which, at least in theory, the owners could control as a proxy while limiting their civil liability. The problem lies in the fact that a corporation is actually a creation of government rather than the creation of an individual, and therefore, once created, has to live under special laws that affect corporations but not individuals. Natural persons have rights, however imperfect; but corporations do not. Likewise, the laws for corporations were crafted by the very same lawyers from whom people seeking to gain some protection through incorporating were trying to shield themselves. As such, incorporation is just another scheme for vesting all important control in the hands of an elite, while reserving all the liabilities for the owners.

This has even had an appreciable effect of the separation of church and state, whereby churches which incorporate in order to shield themselves from liability from an attendee slipping and falling on the front steps, have found themselves forced to follow government dictates that would conflict with their religious views. Government laws against discrimination on the basis of religion, for example, force incorporated churches to hire individuals who don’t even subscribe to their religion.

So, as a result of government regulatory control of corporations, they serve, in practice, as extensions of the System’s power rather than as the portrayed bastions of private initiative and free choice. Corporations collect federal withholding taxes, enforce affirmative action laws which take away choice in hiring, enforce political correctness with an iron fist against people who express disallowed views even when outside the workplace, and otherwise act as a proxy for the same elites that control government rather than for free individuals. They serve as a mechanism for applying economic pressure to individuals in order to make them conform to societal standards generated by an elite.

Once a company has become publicly traded, the matter gets even worse in that, through the action of numerous regulations, the original creators of the enterprise can be forced out entirely and replaced with individuals who work better within the corporate framework. This can also be done simply through a cabal purchasing enough corporate stock. In this way, corporations can be perverted from their original goals; as happened when Michael Eisner took over the Disney Corporation and started cranking out pornography and propaganda destructive to Western peoples and values. Controlling a huge media empire, corporations such as Disney can also control the fate of other corporations and even legislators through selective and biased reporting, giving them enormous power.

The concept of ownership is tightly linked with the idea of control. If someone owns something, they control it in nearly every respect that doesn’t harm others. But in the case of corporations, the idea of ownership has been separated from the idea of control; leaving the least important decisions in the hands of the owners, while all of the important policy decisions are made by those who control the government. On top of this, the original shield against liability has long since been compromised, particularly in matters related to political incorrectness and taxation for which individual employees can be held liable, along with the corporation.

All of the foregoing should put the capitalist notion of private ownership of the “means of production” into better perspective. In the case of both capitalism and Bolshevism an enterprise’s most important decisions are controlled by the (elite that runs the) state, thus vesting effective control, and thus ownership, in the state. In both cases the personnel running the enterprise serve at the pleasure of the state, and can be removed from that control at any time. In both cases, enterprises serve to extend the supervision and power of the state into the lives of the workers. The only practical difference is that in a capitalist system, as long as participants play by the rules, they can derive greater profit without having to hide it from the workers; but in all other respects it serves the same end in both systems, with only a difference in methodology.

Capitalism is likewise advertised as promoting competition and thus lowering prices for consumers. In practice, this is not the case. What actually happens is that large corporations establish a sort of feedback loop with politicians who need money for campaigns. This feedback loop creates an environment in which regulations which prevent competition are passed. These regulations serve to create such insurmountable barriers to entry into the market that only the largest of corporations that have surplus cash for a large contingent of lawyers and regulatory compliance officers can even hope to compete. Thus, capitalism serves to stifle real individual enterprise and creates artificially restricted economic environments that serve to raise rather than lower prices.

Since the only thing that capitalism provides over Bolshevism is the ability to openly profit; it stands to reason that the drive of capitalists is purely a profit motive.

While benefitting from one’s efforts cannot be said to be inherently evil, and can actually be quite just; corporations are not individuals and the decisions they make are totally devoid of the considerations of an individual; serving only to further profit at any price. In other words, while an individual’s ethical system may hold any number of things as a supreme value, a corporation’s supreme value has to be profit; because that is its precondition for survival.

Two notable examples of this are the fact that many corporations that notoriously pollute the environment will move manufacturing facilities to countries with fewer environmental regulations rather than invest the money to comply with stricter regulations in their home country. Likewise, corporations have no loyalty to the people of the nation in which they were formed, and seek to reduce the cost of labor through any legal method, which increasingly puts the people in Western nations in direct competition with low wage or even slave labor in the Third World; with devastating long term effects in terms of both national wealth and labor displacements. Corporations even sponsor the importation of alien labor, forcing domestic wages lower, stressing social service systems, and placing the genetic continuity of the domestic population at risk. All for a profit.

These examples, again, show no difference between capitalism and Bolshevism in that, in the end, both systems have the same effects and therefore only differ in methodology. Legislation in Capitalist systems serves to create de facto state enterprises in important sectors such as media and electricity, while pollution, wage depression, and globalization without regard to cultural preservation or preservation of human bio-diversity work the same in both instances.

How can these systems be so similar in their results?

The first answer lies in their remarkably similar fundamental premises. Fundamentally, both systems see man in a purely economic or materialistic sense, with humans being interchangeable with each other as long as productive work is accomplished in the most profitable fashion for whomever is in charge. The very term “Human Resources” used in so many corporations spells this out pretty clearly. Aesthetic, historic, evolutionary, and spiritual aspects of humans aren’t considered by either system except insofar as they affect production and the maintenance of control by an elite. (I mean elite in terms of position, not necessarily merit.)

The second answer lies in the matter of control. All economic systems, no matter whence derived or their ultimate motivation, are run by humans; and will tend to take on the character of the humans running them. The cabal which runs today’s capitalist system is a continuation of the same cabal which ran the early USSR. In fact, many of the oligarchic dynasties exercising ultimate economic control in Russia and the United States were tightly connected with the communist and underground criminal apparatuses during the Soviet period. The fact that the original funding for the Bolshevik revolution was provided by bankers in the United States should speak volumes about the true nature of what is going on; and the fact that Capitalists and Communists are actually allies rather than foes. When the New York bankers funded the Bolshevik revolution, they were making an investment — but it was not an investment in purely economic terms. Rather, like all banking investments ultimately turn out, it was an investment in the control of human beings.

The complementary nature of the two systems can be further seen in that Americans considered themselves to have been the victors in WWII, in which they aided the Jew-founded USSR in taking control of all of central and eastern Europe, which went on to plunder and murder by the millions. They, lest it be forgotten, murdered approximately 65 million people in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Even before WWII, it was widely known that they had murdered 20 million people, yet our capitalists and media establishment readily allied themselves with that murderous regime.

The portrayal of capitalism as a road to freedom, just as Bolshevism’s portrayal as a road to freedom, is a lie. It is just a different road to the same envisioned global slave plantation. The good news is that lies have a limited lifespan before they, and their promulgators, are revealed, rejected, and reviled.

The time draws nigh for the revelation of the lies and the unmasking of the liars. The time draws nigh when, once again, an American can speak his thoughts without fear; which means that the slippery ones will have a great deal to fear, and had best be packing their bags.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

White Racialism: Natural and Necessary

Next post

Friedrich Hayek and the Jews (Part 2 of 3)

1 Comment

  1. Walt Hampton
    October 30, 2018 at 1:28 am — Reply

    Don’t think these Capitalist Jews
    do not have a twisted sense of humor,
    if you can call it that. Armand
    Hammer? Arm and hammer? Coincidence?
    I think not:

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.