It appears that some of our statist friends are offended by some of my recent terminology. After Under the Dome referenced my rebuttal to an article by the Budget & Tax Center, there was some focus on my descriptive phrase, “The North Carolina Budget & Tax Center, an outfit driven by Marxist ideology.”
There was an accusation of ad hominem and ad populum attacks. The descriptive phrase was actually intended to provide readers who were unfamiliar with BTC with some background information about the organization and their ideological motivations. Just as Civitas is described as a “conservative” organization.
I suppose the objection comes from their beleif that “Marxist ideology” is not an accurate description driving their vision for how best to organize society. So, just to clear the air, let’s examine the 10 planks in Marx’s Communist Manifesto – I’d say a fair summation of the primary objectives of “Marxist ideology.” (For an entertaining and insightful analysis, see this article.)
Spending a few minutes on their website – along with their sister organization NC Policy Watch and parent organization NC Justice Center – turns up some striking similarities. (To be fair, if BTC disagrees with Policy Watch or Justice Center on any of these issues, I’d love to hear from you)
- Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. From BTC: “Local governments should focus on land-based taxes and fees as the primary means by which to generate new revenue for transportation.”
- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. From BTC: “Maintain primary reliance on progressive income tax”
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance. From BTC: “North Carolina’s state leaders had the wisdom and the courage to maintain a state estate tax.”
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (do you oppose the taking of property or money from lawbreakers?)
- Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (do you oppose the Federal Reserve? do you oppose government taking over more of the banking industry through more regulation?)
- Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. From BTC’s sister organization, NC Policy Watch: “Roads –N.C. DOT may be flawed, but imagine if streets were owned by Halliburton” “The U.S. Postal Service – Amazingly cheap and effective”
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. More from Policy Watch: “Public water and sewer services — No privies or polluted wells for me”
- Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies (i.e. unions), especially for agriculture. (addition mine). From BTC: Repeal the prohibition on collective bargaining for public employees
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (hmm, ‘equable distribution of the populace’ -can you say Smart Growth?) from Policy Watch: “we have GOT to start rethinking from 20 year-old plans to build endless sprawlways and get serious about things like smart growth”
- Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. From Policy Watch: “Universal public education – At the heart of our success as a democracy”
8 out of 10 in just a few minutes time. If BTC has produced any material opposing any of the 10 planks from the Manifesto, I encourage them to forward it to me.
Brian, I think you understand very well the reasons I accused you of those two logical fallacies. The ad hominem is pretty simple, because you attacked your opponent’s ideology before you attacked his position.
My ad populum accusation may be less apparent to the average reader, but it hinges on this: Your reference to “Marxist ideology” doesn’t evoke images of the ten planks you detail here, it evokes images of Stalin, Kruschev and Castro, or Chairman Mao’s hordes sweeping across Asia. Whether it was your intent to do so or not, the average (American) reader recoils in fear when this imagery is used. Ergo, ad populum.
As far as your comparisons above, most of your connections are tentative at best. Supporting land transfer taxes equating to the abolition of property? Estate taxes the equivalent of abolishing all rights of inheritance? Today’s labor unions the equivalent of Marx’s “industrial armies”? Marx didn’t want to give power to labor with that, he wanted to shift the power to produce up to the state.
And the connection that I find so ironic is #10. Marx wanted education for all children so they could be properly indoctrinated, and he wanted to tie it to industry so the state could determine each person’s occupation in the collective, and seriously curtail intellectualism.
If you want me to, I can link to several pieces published by JLF and Civitas that attack intellectualism while promoting the idea that trade schools are a much better option, and more in line with the needs of the workforce, for a majority of students in our state. Tentative connection? Maybe, but that’s what happens when you open the door, Brian.
#10 on the list: What our current education system does to large numbers of children is criminal. You can tick that one off the to-do list. Intellectualism and independent thought curtailed as desired…
Steve,
Why do you say I “attacked” my opponents ideology? It was one simple, explanatory phrase. (BTW its instructive that you don’t object to the “statist” label.)
Is Civitas’ ideology being “attacked” when we are labeled as conservative? I don’t beleive so. Simple matter is that the ideological foundation for BTC and Policy Watch, whether intentional or not, is rooted in the ideas popularized by Marx. It’s not an “attack” if its accurate, its merely an informative label for those unfamiliar with the organization to put their analysis in perspective.
In terms of what images you believe are invoked by such a term, I can’t control that. That’s your impression, you can own it.
In short, folks on the left need to be honest with themselves and their readers about the foundation of most of their political beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with it, just be honest about it and go about trying to use persuasive arguments to convince people of the intellectual and moral superiority of your beliefs.
I was quickly able to search their sites and find support for 8 of the 10. I invite you to link to anything they’ve written in opposition to any of those ten. Until I see otherwise, I think my description fits.
As to the links I provided being “tentative at best,” I beg to differ.
“Supporting land transfer taxes equating to the abolition of property?”
The connection was actually to “the application of land rents to public uses.” I thought the connection was transparently obvious, given that the quote I provided supports “land-based taxes and fees (i.e. land rents) as the primary means by which to generate new revenue for transportation (i.e. public use).”
In regards to support for “abolotion of property,” show me where BTC or Policy Watch has advocated for the State to sell any of its land to private ownership. And show me any opposition to the state purchase of land for “land loss prevention,” public parks, open space,etc.
“Estate taxes the equivalent of abolishing all rights of inheritance?”
Well, which direction would you say estate taxes takes us? It certainly doesn’t strengthen the rights of inheritance, does it?
As to #10, your comments simply bolster my point. The desire for the state to “determine each person’s occupation in the collective” squares much more with the left’s support for ever expanding government, which means more of the labor force conrolled by the state. Furthermore, don’t BTC and Policy Watch praise “workforce development” programs funded and directed by the state? And what about the constant chatter of educating people for the “21st century, knowledge based economy.” If there isn’t a clearer example of the state determing each person’s occupation in the collective, I can’t think of it.
Moreover, show me where BTC or Policy Watch supports any form of school choice. I think you’ll find quite clearly that their default position is for state control, rather than parental choice. As to JLF or Civitas supporting trade schools, you further advance my point by admitting it would be in response to the “needs of the workforce” (i.e. market conditions) rather than the preferences of the state. Such schools would be an option, not a mandate, eroding the state control of education.
Its pretty clear that the connections aren’t tentative at all. If the current policy prescriptions of BTC and Policy Watch don’t invoke the full-blown end game of Marx’s ideas, its because they understand the art of incrementalism. But every policy decision leads in one of two directions. I think its clear which direction those organizations prefer.
Brian, I actually do object to being called a “statist”, but my objection is more of a philosophical one as to the accuracy of the term, as opposed to being offended by my inclusion in said category. There may be a small group of individuals who have total faith in the state as a paternalistic entity, but most of us simply have faith that the majority of people who make up the state will act in ways that benefit all. You probably don’t see a difference, but I see a huge one.
As far as JLF being labeled as Conservative, that’s either a compliment or an insult, right? Now, a true attack would be to categorize you guys as anarchists. Considering your Libertarian leanings on many issues, I could easily make that connection.
But I honestly don’t believe that you folks want to abolish all forms of government and/or the authority it exercises. Just like I’m sure you don’t actually believe that BTC and Policy Watch are working towards a totalitarian regime. Yet, your comments like “they understand the art of incrementalism” is a thinly-veiled accusation that they do have some long-term goal of achieving such an end. If you really do believe that, you’ve got some issues that can’t be fixed here. If you really don’t believe that, you’re engaging in behavior that should be roundly criticized.
“The connection was actually to “the application of land rents to public uses.””
No, the connection was supposed to be “application of ALL rents of land” (emphasis mine). In your world of incremental slippery slopes, a few percent may equal 100% (all), but the rest of us see the difference.
Tell you what, Brian. Take some time and reread some of John Hood’s stuff. I am at odds with him on many issues, but he has learned to explore issues and make his point without (often) resorting to hyperbole and character assassination. I’m still working on that stuff myself, but we have to find better ways to communicate.
Steve,
You avoid the fact that I used the phrase “driven by Marxist ideology.” I didn’t say Marxist – I was merely pointing out that the roots of what motivates their point of view can be found in Marx’s writings. Even you have to admit the similarities are too large to ignore.
Moreover, “No, the connection was supposed to be “application of ALL rents of land” (emphasis mine). In your world of incremental slippery slopes, a few percent may equal 100% (all), but the rest of us see the difference.”
Are you suggesting BTC has recommended expenditure of property tax revenue for anything other than public uses?
Furthermore, conjuring images of “a thinly-veiled accusation that they do have some long-term goal of achieving such an end” and saying that I’ve “got issues” is the only part of this exchange that smacks of hyperole and character assassination.
I am at least able to admit the foundations of my ideological beleifs, which you and BTC seem unable to do.
(As an aside – I’m not sure why you use the term “you guys” when referring to Locke, I don’t work for them.)
You’ve done an impressive job of making a mountain out of a six-word (accurately) descriptive molehill.
I offer this to you again, if you think I am engaging in baseless “character assassination” then show me where BTC opposes any of the tenets of the ten planks I originally discussed.
Short of that, get over it.
I’m just about over it anyway, so I’ll part with this:
Marx didn’t invent Collectivism, he applied his own definitions to ideas that had been percolating for a couple of millennium. He pushed sound ideas into absolutes, and created a nightmare.
Of course you’ll find similarities between what BTC proposes and what Marx proposed, because they’re both drawn from centuries of mainstream political and philosophical thought. Let’s see how Marx’s planks apply to the birth of our country, why don’t we? The following are either excerpts from the Constitution or Acts of the fledgling Congress:
#1 Land Ordinance of 1785 and Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
#2 “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” *You’ll notice it doesn’t say taxes will be uniform…
#3 Stamp Act of 1797
#4 Alien and Sedition Act
#5 “To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”
#6 “To establish post offices and post roads”
#7,8,9 The 1812 creation of the General Land Office (BLM’s precursor) was all about the State (Federal government) controlling property and dictating settlement and cultivation.
#10 Again, the Land Ordinance of 1785: “There shall be reserved for the United States out of every township the four lots, being numbered 8,11,26,29, and out of every fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be found thereon, for future sale. There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township, also one-third part of all gold, silver, lead and copper mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of as Congress shall hereafter direct….”
Now, unless you want to posit that our Founding Fathers were channeling future writings by Karl Marx, then how about we both get over it?
Wow – desperate.
I agree, let’s close this. In sum…
1) I accurately use a descriptive phrase to describe BTC
2) You make accusations of ad hominem and “attacking” their ideology
3) I assure you there was no “attack,” merely an accurate descriptive term
4) I present evidence of why my terminology is accurate and invite you to refute
5) You fail to refute, and accuse me of character assassination
6) I again state that my descriptive term is accurate, and ask again for you to show it is not
7) You again fail to refute (even admitting you think Marx had “sound ideas”), and then create a ridiculous straw man
Final verdict: BTC is “driven by Marxist ideology” whether they want to admit it or not, and you never make a case that my descriptive term is inaccurate.
Steve,
Sorry to jump in late to the fun here, but I was wondering when you’d be denouncing Andrea at Policy Watch for calling one of our employees a bigot.
If attacking ideology before attacking position is wrong, where does making personal attacks before attacking position fall?
Brian, you can make all the summaries and verdicts you wish, but it’s up to the reader to decide if I’ve made my case.
Chris, it looks like Andrea’s already taking some heat over that, so my input is not needed. And yes, you can classify that as a “clever dodge” if you wish. ;)
This is good stuff but I’m more interested in seeing the BTC folks defend their “brief” that seems ignorant of points of agreement among economists.
Unfortunately I can’t find an instance where folks at BTC chose to engage Brian’s critique of this policy analysis (http://civitasreview.com/budget-taxes/bizarro-world-analysis-from-ncs-leading-statists/).