Discover more from Popular Rationalism
Neo-Leninism is on Your Doorstep, and You “Know” It, But You Don’t Even Know It
In December 2019, a Not-So Subtle Academic Called for NeoCommunism, Right In Your Face - and Canadians Applauded.
If you told me anything that happened before, during and in the aftermath of COVID-19 could shock me more than the mangling of public health and our economy by Public Health, I’d say that you were insane. Of course, I saw the World Economic Forum’s meetings and speeches calling for a future without private property; I mean, who could forget the odd, cult-like heads up by Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum:
“You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy”.
Apparently the World Economic Forum wants you to forget; the opinion blog article Reuters Fact Check has declared it “false” that WEF has an agenda to take away the rights of property ownership, referring to Klaus not by name, but rather as “a man”:
Reuter’s opinion blog post is referencing a video clip of Klaus announcing his mantra-like statement, and dismisses it as follows:
“The three-minute clip, which has 862 likes and 1,100 shares at the time of writing, is captioned ‘Let's talk about the World Economic Forum's stated goals for 2030’ with the title: ‘How we can stop them from stealing everything from us’ (here).
'It features a man who says: “Now let’s talk about their stated goal, ‘by 2030 you’ll own nothing and be happy’. So, the question is, how do they get us to that point? How can over 10 years they get us from having private property to owning nothing?”
The WEF does not have a ‘stated goal’ to remove everyone’s private property by 2030.”
Really, Reuters opinion blogger? Then why does the WEF website have a video in which the following is shared:
“I own nothing: Have no privacy. Life has never been better.”
“And You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy”.
It seems that Reuters wanted to do some damage control, which is in part now why the video on Facebook, posted by a freedom and democracy-loving American, Mark Moss comes with a warning.
NeoLeninism (We Hope) On Your Doorstep
So, WEF’s agenda was, perhaps, a cat let out of the bag. Klaus was feeling the waters, but perhaps it was too soon. Maybe it’s his penchant for wearing space-suit outfits that make him look like Dr. Evil Visits Mork & Mindy. Or maybe that’s WEF’s attempt to warm the viewers up to old Klaus and his plan to remake the world according to his vision in which the “losers” are not given genetic modifications.
Either way, even that development pales in comparison to the shocking events on Dec 12, 2019, on the eve of the announcement of the pandemic. The event was a lecture in Ontario, Canada given by Dr. Jodi Dean, faculty at Hobart and William Smith College.
In this lecture, Dr. Dean, author of “The Communist Horizon” (which, she proffered in a very capitalist manner, was available for sale in the hallway after the lecture), attempts to begin with the downfall of capitalism in the west as a given, a fait accompli, or at least a foregone eventuality. According to Dean, capitalism is turning itself into neofeudalism. She warns the audience of a future in which the ubercapitalists like Jeff Bezos run everything. and no one has a job except to serve the advantaged (yeah, we’ll unpack that in a minute).
She then offers her alternative vision in which NeoCommunism (she calls it “Communism”) is accepted, well, demanded and enforced by the masses. Her slides use memes to convince the audience of a warm and fuzzy Communism (such as the dual-message slide of a Maoist Cat Says “Class Snuggle”, backed, of course by the playful little well-armed Lego knight in armor, the type of contradictory messaging designed to induce cognitive dissonance.
She has a rejoinder slide in which she casts a communist warm kitty with Mark Zuckerberg, so the audience can remember what she would have them believe were stark options.
Then, in an awkward attempt to make NeoCommunism the good guys, she throws in a meme on “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism”, as if homosexuality is not already widely accepted by people from across the political spectrum.
Her entire argument is a gross oversimplification and a falsehood on the available options. By restricting the options to Communism or Bezos/Zuckerberg, she attempts to open a space in which the downtrodden and lost can warm up to NeoCommunism, which, she assures the audience, is not like that old and nasty communism.
Dean comes across as mostly delusional in this regard, but she is also (albeit obliquely) calling upon, if necessary by force, the restriction of rural choices for Americans, calling upon some unknown force to undertake a Maoist rebellion (warning, she loves the word “hinterland”, which I take to mean those poor, lost conservatives and moderates who prefer rural living). In this passage, motivated by the existence of meta-data from cells phones, which we can only presume is not being used correctly:
55:10 “..better ways to use it, right, to assess how it works liberated from the constraints of capital accumulation we could finally grapple with fundamental choices regarding our collective life rather than having these choices determined for us and behind our backs. With respect to the cities and hinterlands the end of an economy of capital accumulation makes possible the dissolution of the rural urban divide and the division of labor that drives it with the vision of communism. Mindful of the hinterlands we open up new possibilities for organized struggle that build from current tendencies, right? You can think here of the Maoist strategy of surrounding the cities. At any rate the intensifying politics around migration and refugees, the class struggles unfolding in various forms on the outskirts of cities and the growing anger of the hinterlands dispossessed that we see vividly in France and in the electoral politics driving the right wing the rightward shift in the U.S., Hungary, Poland, Canada and elsewhere give us a setting of real struggle that is not yet decided. There's nothing inevitable about the shift to the right; it's a matter of organizing of offering a politics that speaks to a wide array of human needs and concerns and that offers the possibility of flourishing. Finally instead of plagued by insecurity and apocalypticism we can and must cultivate communist virtues of solidarity, courage, discipline and confidence virtues that emerge out of and engender a sense of comradeship. Anything less dooms us to Neofeudalism.”
Here Dean has cast the vast political expanse of “the right” as wandering souls, lost in a vast “hinterland”, who needs saving. These lost souls can only be saved by being relocated (again, implied if necessary, by force) to give up their property, their dwellings, and the tools by which they feed and nourish their families and in many cases make a living.
I can hear my conservative and moderate friends who live in rural areas now…
“Nah, lady, we’re good - we already have courage, discipline, and confidence, and as for solidarity, I choose my friends carefully”.
The far left ideal is that we all live in box-apartments next to railroads that bring us out and around the cities we all live in when we need to move ourselves; we all have single-occupant dwellings, we don’t reproduce, and we answer to a fuzzy, warm state who always has our best interests in mind because, well, we went through some nebulous, undefined, but necessary struggle through which we finally (?) grappled with our collective life.
I’m very interested in this concept of grappling with our collective life. Her version of Communism sounds Leninist, but will no doubt of necessity transform into Stalinist Communism, because, guess what - the people are not going to lay down their property at the feet of the state over kitty cats dressed in communist garb.
Now Dean anticipates this, to a degree, and contrasts what she is selling with the old, nasty type of Communism. She defines (16:35) communism as “the political form through which production for the sake of the capital accumulation of the few is replaced with production for the sake of meeting the needs of the many. It's a form for the collective self emancipation of the proletariate”.
What Dean leaves out is the that opposite of Communism is not Capitalism, nor Neofeudalism. The opposite of Communism is Democracy. It’s a classic hat-trick: backdoor communism through economic class struggle arguments. Blame the lack of wealth in the poor on the initiative of the successful. The answer? Destroy that initiative, and we’ll all be equal. For sure. In my last article, I summarize some key points held by Yaron Brook, who points out that in Cambodia, when the communists took over, they killed the so-called “advantaged” class, wiping out 40% of the population, killing people with glasses because it was proof they could read.
Communism, the great equalizer, in on your doorstep, and now you truly know it.
I have some thoughts for Dean and the far left who believe that “the State” will one day look after them - and everyone around them as they try to usher in a Communist west: open and run a business. See what it’s like. If you sell something of value, people will pay you for it. You’ll be fine. Be innovative and creative. Success comes from productive effort.
Be your own boss. It feels good. It’s empowering. You’re not dependent on anyone (let alone “the State”). Break the mold. Free markets allow all of that, and free markets drive initiative. Initiative drives competition. Competition drives innovation, and innovation leads to solutions.
Bezos literally laughed his way to the bank. Good for him. Do you realize that you’re biting the hand the feeds you? Bezos has donate billions to the left. If you are successful, the fervor for social justice will remember your selfish personal tendencies and the crimes you committed, such as selling your book for a fair profit. And when they come, ditch the glasses and rough up your hands.
Sorry, Dean, but you come across as someone who spends way too much time in your own head. We already have a collective will that, when it is not gamed, allows the people to express their desires on how the collective manages itself. We have a Great Equalizer.
In the United States, it’s called the Constitution of the United States of America.
Curl up with your kitten some time, and read it. It’s inspiring.
To my readers, I encourage you listen to Yaron Brook and Joel Kotkin. Yaron did this synopsis video “What it will take to win” live from Guatemala. It’s the best, shortest synopsis of his views that I’ve seen.
Joel Kotkin has a new book on Neofeudalism. He is sober, aware of the falsehoods being traded by Neocommunists, and concerned about the influence of the ubercapitalists. His concern is over influence, not their wealth per se. He’s a rational liberal, and I applaud his contributions to the marketplace of ideas.
Please consider helping rational capitalism thrive and pick up a paid subscription.