- Reply to: The Nation Of Islam And The Freemasons
Reply to: Left, Right or Islam?
This subject is probably your weakest point, your obstruction in your thinking, if you will. Communism has nothing to with charity. If anything, it aims to destroy charity. Charity is willful action. Since everything will be planned in communism, there will be no need for or the possibility of charity in such a system. How will there be any charity without private property?
"Progressive economics" as you put it, was the backdoor to the corporatist economics of today. They wouldn't be able to dupe anyone into this trap if they went on and told their intentions about creating billionaires by giving them access to newly created money and government auctions before anyone else, so that they can buy anything of value before the prices go up because it. Of course, they had to tell that economic control was for helping fellow humans, especially the poor, everyone's soft spot. Any good willed economic control policies prior to the OPEC crisis was conveniently turned into tools for leaching for the rich.
Let's discuss the ponzi scheme called "the social security system" as an example. They told us that it was just a collectivization of savings in order to invest them efficiently. The government was going to save instead of us, invest the money and then when we retire, we would be able to live off of the investment. Some of the money would also go to "the poor." The first participants got much more than they put in. Look at where we are now. It is without distinction a black hole in every governments budget while making many private sectors rich. No government has any real savings, they just take money and spend it, and then borrow and if not enough, finally print money and confiscate from anyone else who hold that kind of money. An effete system cannot work regardless of the intentions, and social security is a pyramid scheme. Same goes for minimum wage laws and any other for of so called good willed economic interventions.
Central banking and fiat money are all communistic ideas which led to the state of affairs we live today. And heavy government involvement in the economy in a democratic system renders voting into an auction for stolen goods.
"Nevertheless, the profound appeal of Marxism was due to its promotion of a fair redistribution of wealth, and was therefore eagerly adopted by compassionate and fair-minded people all over the world."
You couldn't be more wrong. It is not the redistribution but the distribution of wealth. Communism is not about charity, it is about full economic planning and control. In such a system there is no need to redistribute.
"The truth is, neoliberalism is designed to advance the interest of the corporate class, mainly the reduction of taxes and the removal of regulations that represent to them impediments on their activities."
David, do you have any idea how much taxes the so called rich pay? Over 50% in the US, over 70% in France and it goes on and on. Only the ones who have ties to the government (read: supported the political winners) can get away from them. An entrepreneur who has no buddies in the government pays more than half of what he makes. Do you think that it is fair? The serfs during feudalism paid 25% of their products as taxes and it was considered to be cruel. The efficiency and productivity, which by the way was created by the rich, should have eased everybody's lives but instead it just enhanced the leaching. Neoliberalism is corporatism, you are right in that, but not because it plans to abolish regulations and taxes, but because it wants to privatize the government monopolies while keeping them as they are (keeping the licenses and regulations). If what they did was to abolish licensing, let anyone enter to a sector and really privatize, everyone would be better off. You have to understand that most regulations are there in order to prevent newcomers. A big company who pays all its employees already above minimum wage would of course would push for an increase in minimum wage in order to push its competitors out of the market. What is the point of making someone work below a wage, illegal? Even if he is willing to do so. If minimum wage is such a good deal why not make it $100 hourly or even $1000? It would cause unemployment, right? So where do you draw the line? Any regulation which supposedly protects the employees such as mandatory clinic, a legal department, or a mandatory job security officer for any workplace above 50 employees would only make small to middle sized companies to go bankrupt.
"The invisible hand is a myth. It has been recognized since the dawn of time that in any society, the wealthy will only seek their own advantage, and if allowed to, will not only hoard money to themselves, but given the opportunity, will infiltrate government structures to ensure their ability to do so, at the expense of the rest of society. The excuse they will provide for their greed is that each man should be responsible for himself."
It is not a myth. It's called rizk as in the name al-razzak. The wealthy can only seek their own advantage if there is an institution which they can bribe to confiscate wealth and give to anyone it wants (or "redistribute as you put it). It is the government god of Hegel at work, taking the holy name al-razzak of Allah and giving it to the government. Get rid of (or limit to the traditional Islamic practice of 2.5% zakah) governments ability to redistribute, and there would be no need for or meaning in bribing the government. It is why they introduced this concept as helping the poor and opened the door for all kind of abusive taxing. That's the conspiracy you are missing.
Islamic economics as the Prophet (s.a.s) practiced is free enterprise, free market and sound money. I would really like to hear your case against this.