The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Productive vs. Parasitical Societies

Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish,
penned an excellent and perceptive essay, “The
Rationing Society
.” My chief problem with the essay is in the choice of the
terms “production society” and “rationing society,” which misdirect attention
from the fundamental issues. Mr. Greenfield’s focus in the essay is the
mechanics of wealth distribution in a “rationing society,” at least of such
wealth would remain in an economy crippled by controls. I have selected a few
of Greenfield’s statements to throw some light on their validity.
best literary depiction of a dystopian or “rationing society” or polity is George
Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Regardless
of the value of Orwell’s perceptive insights into the means and ends of
totalitarianism – and they are many and spot-on – his basic conception of a
functioning totalitarian regime was flawed.  A “production society” means
free minds, minds free to innovate and sustain a technological or industrial
civilization, free to act, and free to trade and to move about and assemble
with others or not. A “rationing society” depends on the very attribute in men
it wishes to leash or exterminate: free minds free to act.
Orwell’s other famous novel, the parable Animal Farm, was merely
an attack by a “democratic socialist” on Stalin’s regime. Stalin and Soviet
Russia lost many supporters in the West on the occasion of the Non-Aggression
signed by Stalin and Hitler in 1939. But when Nazi Germany invaded
Soviet Russia, its Western supporters hurried back into the fold.  
A rationing or authoritarian society seeks
to freeze things in a state of stagnation, the better to control things and
everyone, but even a technologically stagnant society still needs minds that
can sustain it. This is an implicit confession that the state is neither
omniscient nor omnipotent. A rationing society will put a premium on the
competence to even repair a telescreen or a “Floating Fortress” or weaponry or
manufacture razor blades. A free, independent mind is such a society’s primary
enemy. The result of leashing or punishing it is  the impoverishment of nearly everyone but the
entrenched political class – and then collapse. 
Until the collapse occurs, competent minds able
to prop up dwindling products such as shoes and razor blades and food which
must now be rationed, until the assembly lines halt, raw materials become
scare, and the stockpiles are depleted. The minds that could have replaced them
will have been snuffed out, or, as happens in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, those minds will finally
have gone on strike and disappeared. Rand noted in For The New Intellectual:
freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without
economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
Greenfield wrote: “A socialist
monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it the full weight
of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated into every man, woman
and child in the country.”
In a capitalist society, force is banned
from human relationships, including trade. This is why monopolies in a
capitalist society can be overcome. Innovators have a chance to rise and
prosper. In a socialist, rationing, or authoritarian society, force is not
banned and becomes the primary arbiter and determining factor, or the “economic
tool” of first choice by statists. Innovators are discouraged by the threat of
force or directly by force. The force can take the form of literal policing
with clubs and guns and with the seizure of property and persons, or with
punishing fines,  taxes,  draconian regulations, or a combination of all
Among other inevitable consequences is the
involuntary transfer of wealth to the state and its patronized special interest
For example, New York has the highest taxes
on cigarettes and other tobacco products in the nation, compelling smokers to
cross state lines to purchase them, order them online, or rely on cigarette
smugglers (many of whom, today, are Muslim gangs). The taxes, imposed by the
federal government, by states, and by municipalities, are intended to
discourage smoking, but these same governments nonetheless depend on the tax
revenue. Taxes are imposed on gasoline purchases to discourage an increase of
carbon emissions, yet these same governments depend on that revenue, as well.
Another instance of an authoritarian grip
on another commodity is education. At the moment, “Common
,” an educational system calculated and guaranteed to dumb down any
child forced to attend a “public school,” is being mandated across
the country, with private schools in many states compelled to adopt it, as well.
 With what penalty if a private school
does not adopt it? A raid by a SWAT team? Financial penalties? Loss of
accreditation? Jail for the school’s governing board and teachers? The
sequestering of the school children? Big Brotherish monitors assigned to all
classrooms? Your guess is as good as mine.
Why is Bill Gates’s Gates Foundation a “special
interest”? It is because his “charity’s” educational goals mesh with the
federal government’s, to turn American school children into “responsible” and
proactive ciphers to advance what the state says is the “common good.”
Another instance of a rationing society is
Obamacare. I don’t think I need elaborate on the federal government’s mandating
Americans to purchase of health insurance.
Still another instance of a “rationing
society” is the nullification of the right to move one’s property out of harm’s
way – that is, out of reach of government taxation, regulations, and controls. See
this story about our Authoritarian-in-Chief’s rules for moving
corporate headquarters
out of the U.S. to friendlier foreign shores, and
then moving profits and earnings back into the U.S.  The Washington Post quoted Secretary of the
Treasury Jack Lew, who chortled:
But the rules would
not block the practice, known as tax “inversion,” and Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms.
“These first,
targeted steps make substantial progress in constraining the creative techniques
used to avoid U.S. taxes, both in terms of meaningfully reducing the economic
benefits of inversions after the fact, and when possible, stopping them
altogether,” Lew said in a written statement.
The Authoritarian-in-Chief himself waxed
sanctimoniously, according to the New
York Times
“While there’s no
substitute for congressional action, my administration will act wherever we can
to protect the progress the American people have worked so hard to bring
about,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the regulations on so-called
corporate inversions were announced.
Barack Obama and Jack Lew and all the other
Progressives and leftists in and out of office want to imprison private
property to better slice it down to a “fairer” size – and also to pay off a national
debt that can never be paid, not even in six generations of slave labor.
Lenin saw the consequences of Soviet
Russia’s full implementation of Communist rationing policies and devised his New
Economic Policy
(NEP) to stave off starvation and possibly a revolt of the
“proletariat” against the “Revolution.” It allowed a modicum of freedom of
trade.  He “saved” the Revolution by
adulterating Communism – for a while. It was rife with corruption that reached
the highest levels of the multitude of bureaucracies. Instituted in 1921, it
ended in 1929.
Stalin succeeded Lenin and atavistically
reverted to full Communism, kicking off the starvation of millions, a vast
expansion of the Gulag, and the infamous purge trials. However, Soviet Russia could
not have survived for as long as it did except for what it could steal, cajole,
or wheedle from the West. As long as there were semi-free nations willing to
grant it bank credits and send it grain and build its factories, it could stumble
along as a gasping dependent, counting on the very “economic” forces it wished
to eradicate in Russia and around the world. As long as there were semi-free “production
societies,” it survived, but just barely and by force. The same thing happened
in Mao’s China, but after Mao’s passing the Communist regime there saved itself
by opting out for “free market” fascism. However, it’s not really “free
enterprise” when the ruling political class insists on having a hand and role
in any enterprise.
Greenfield wrote: “Paradoxically, the
rationing infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the falloff of
production as lower production requires even greater rationing.” 
It isn’t actually a paradox. Under
authoritarianism, dwindling production is a function of the number and severity
of controls imposed to ensure everyone’s “fair share” or ephemeral “social
justice” or some other state-designated end. It’s an absolute corollary of
basic economics, a matter of fundamental cause-and-effect.
Laissez-Faire capitalism is the
ideal “production society.”


Muslims and Self-Sacrifice


Euphemisms: The Euthanasia of Words

1 Comment

  1. 95BSharpshooter

    Ultimately, society is not productive or parasitic, only individual people are either.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén