In our polarized political rhetoric today we often hear about the threat of Communism from an opposing party or policy. It’s worth looking past the motivations for riling up one’s side to what truth there is to this line of critique. Our economic system and elites view themselves as having triumphed over the Soviet system and this victory defines the stance of many thinkers and superrich towards alternative systems. Given this recent history, it’s no surprise people would resort to these warnings–it’s effective as a rallying cry against perceived enemies. And yet, such criticisms at times seamlessly morph into tirades against actual corporate elites on “the other side”. But let’s leave aside the operations of government as the evidence of this far-left ideology and focus on how government and parties act towards the wealthiest individuals.
It doesn’t take long to notice that both parties depend critically on financial support from wealthy elites. The role of money in politics has been fully documented for generations, and despite efforts to reform the practice, only appears to become further entrenched each cycle. Congresspeople spend hours each day raising money on the phone, leading to much of their communication getting colored by those donors. At a state and local level, these funding sources can be even more influential. We also see the outcomes when it comes to policies, where laws and priorities correlate better with the views of the donors than what the public wants.
Naturally, when the corporate elites who run things come into contact with a political figure who aims to take steps to correct the scales, there is a well-worn tactic to tie that troublemaker to communism, that ever-present boogeyman. So now we have to untangle a reasoned take on practical economic strategy from what often turns out to be pure elite-produced or elite-favoring propaganda. From an honor-based perspective, Communism failed because it weakened the link between honor and status, not because it had more planning than the market seems to prefer.
When we peel back the heightened rhetoric, what do we find? Basically, what we’ve always had: mainstream parties who are fully in the employ of the large corporations and wealthy elites. Comparing either one of these to actual communism is laughable, as is any attempt by one’s own side to claim that they’re the ones who could hold these elites to account (which the people do actually want). Even a 1% wealth tax could not remotely be considered communism. Maybe it’s 1% closer, but still not close, and claiming as such is a sign that someone has subverted their own integrity to their partisan tribe. It’s intellectually dishonest to ascribe the Communist label to those who have always wholeheartedly embraced capitalism.
What looks to be happening is that Western elites are somewhat concerned about the rise of China, and rightfully so. It probably does represent a serious threat to their standing in the world. But are they Communist? It’s been clear for quite some time that the CCP operates more as business managers than a state-run economy. However, they are much better at building public goods with speed and efficiency that Western states can only dream of, from high speed rail to new hospitals. Unfortunately, this muscular state activity only seems to associate our own public goods needs with Communism in the eyes of many, and that is one of the saddest casualties of our political convulsions and fear of the other.
