Close

In Defence of Capitalism


S A T I R E


Abrar Fahyaz


There has been, for quite a while now, a growing resentment between the people, especially the younger generation, and the economic model predominantly present in the current world. I find this development to be particularly troubling because it seems as if today’s youth are growing progressively distant from the truth, embracing the leftist interpretations of history and contemporary geopolitics which, if I may point out, are completely untrue. Therefore, in order to vindicate the system, I have decided to write down my thoughts as a humble contribution to the struggle against the erroneous arguments of the left-wing.

As our first order of business, we must establish a dichotomy because, just like genders, there are two and only two politico-economic viewpoints in all of existence: Capitalism and Communism; anyone who says otherwise is, obviously, nothing but an imbecile. Following that up, we enlighten everyone about the history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, effectively blurring the line between the political entity and the economic school of thought, because, for all intents and purposes, they are the very same thing. Now, bring up every single skeleton present in the Soviet closet: The questionable acts of the Soviet Secret police, the mass deportation of ‘Kulaks’, the deaths of millions in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in artificial famines, the forceful suppression of political opponents, the crackdown during the Hungarian Uprising and the Prague Spring, and so on and so forth. This ought to silence any sane apologist of the regime.

However, there’s a distinct possibility that they might counter by claiming that the US is culpable for the very same crimes it accuses the Soviets of committing, such as secretly carried out projects, like MK ultra, on unsuspecting US citizens by the CIA, the ‘removal’ of native Indians culminating in the Trail of Death and the Trail of Tears to name a few, the forceful laying off of workers from their jobs for being sympathetic to socialist ideals, the US interventions in sovereign nations to overthrow their democratically elected governments for the crime of not being a Western Ally and so on and so forth. If and when they commit this deplorable logical fallacy by bringing up the crimes of the United States, a political entity, clearly different from the economic idea it endorses; be absolutely sure to point this out to them. One must never confuse these two ideas with each other, an ideology and a nation-state are utterly distinct concepts, and therefore it is crucial to be able to distinguish between the two.

So, as you can see, to deliberately understate the aggressive behaviour of the US, the tens of millions of deaths which resulted from the faulty economic policies of the East India Companies, the famines in Africa under their very friendly European Overlords—to discredit all of these is actually in the best interests of the people. The US or the British Empire might have the Paris Catacomb tucked away in their closet but it’s all justified.

When it comes down to it, finding arguments in support of communist ideas is rather difficult; like finding a piece of hay in a massive stack of needles—every time you try to look for it, you prick yourself. Such barbaric suggestions like cheaper healthcare or lesser income disparity or not selling military equipment to totalitarian despots or taxing the rich, are simply economically unfeasible and can never be, nor should be, implemented. These are policies that are indefensible when looked at under the light of reason.

Capitalism is good for the ‘individual’, it endorses freedom and advocates for creativity. The free market is self-sustaining, it doesn’t need any external influence or government intervention to keep itself stable. The system breeds development and innovation through the means of competition between freely functioning, individual corporations. And contrary to popular belief, it not only makes the rich richer, but it also makes the poor less poor. Capitalism is the epitome of a system that’ll safeguard the freedom of the people.

However, while we’re on the topic of freedom, laissez-faire capitalism isn’t as much of a high flyer as it is a low flyer supported by occasional gusts of wind. You see, while it does advocate for complete individual liberty, it’s simply not economically viable; giving individuals complete freedom isn’t necessarily in their best interests. Wall Street gyrations have repeatedly challenged the view of self-regulation. And since the future’s uncertain, our outlooks are frail; that’s why free markets are so prone to fail, in a volatile world, we need more discretion, so state intervention can counter depression. Don’t worry though, this is definitely not just a smokescreen to conceal coordination between the state and the ‘free’ market to control the economy, definitely not a way for corporate powers to gain a foothold in the government laying the groundwork for an oligarchy and definitely, unquestionably, not a technique for preserving the status quo. Nothing totalitarian going on here, it’s just good ol’ friendly corporate control of the state, not to be confused with the vile state control of the corporations.

Besides, unregulated free markets, you see, always give rise to monopolies as seen time and time again, from the Dutch East India Company to the Rockefellers. Freedom doesn’t necessarily equate to being fair, for a truly free market one must extensively curb the freedom of the marketeers. Otherwise, new monopolies will arise that’ll threaten the delicate balance of power between the already existing monopolies. We can’t let that happen, now can we? Therefore, external ‘safeguards’ on liberty is the most eloquent policy to preserve liberty.

Now, socialist movements are asking for higher minimum wages, universal healthcare and stricter taxes on the rich. What appalling suggestions! 

They want us to pay more to the common peasantry? Why in the world would anyone in their right minds do that? Think of the adverse effect it’ll have on the economy! And besides, the masses are just uneducated, indolent dunces. If they deserved to be paid more, they would’ve been—it’s a free system after all—just look at the billionaires. I mean, sure, most of the elites were born to already substantially well off families, but that’s simply an exception that happens to apply to every single one of them.

The incredibly efficient US healthcare system with its daylight-robbery mode of service has performed valiantly in countering this pandemic, and undoubtedly, has no need for immediate reform. Yes, they may have racked up more deaths than the total casualties they suffered in the First and Second World Wars combined and while it does sound like a lot of deaths, it’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make to protect innocent Americans from Socialism, staying true to the “better dead than red” ideal.

And if all those preposterous propositions weren’t enough, they want to impose higher taxes on the rich? Does their petty jealousy know no bounds? The wealthiest in 2010 had a worth of around 70 billion, and even now, more than a decade later, there are ‘only’ a couple of people with over 150 billion in their banks! Those poor centibillionaires—so much hardship and so little growth. I feel for them, really. And to put more taxes on them would be inhumane; how is Musk going to send out more rockets if we tax strip mining of Cobalt from Africa? How is Apple going to produce those new ‘innovative’ iPhones if we tax slave labour in Chinese sweatshops? These leftists just don’t understand how taxing it is to be a billionaire.

Communism might sound great in theory but it doesn’t translate so well into practice. People will never work without incentive. Thus, communism doesn’t work. That’s all I have to say about it, chiefly because I have nothing more to say as I haven’t really read anything on that topic. But I know for a fact that I don’t need to; whatever they have to say—even though I have no idea what—is definitely wrong. In my quest for finding the truth, I have left every single stone unturned, so as not to disturb the status quo. And what’s with this “real Marxism has never been tried” nonsense? It’s just evading the point, mouthing empty arguments which avoid taking responsibility.  What they’re doing is making an easy-going attempt at self-justification. And I should know, I’ve spent years honing my mastery of it!

And finally, the most essential part of any discussion; the Ad hominem argument. Whenever in conversation with a communist, direct all your intellectual prowess towards the person you’re debating, instead of the idea that is being debated. It’s obviously just a desperate plea for help on your part; trying to justify and defend the state-of-affairs because you’ve been spoon-fed the lie your whole life, that capitalism prioritises individual talent and merit, and that if you work hard enough you’ll one day have the riches and luxuries befitting your hard work; even though in reality you’ll simply just end up being exploited by a company driven by profit, as it pays you just enough to get by while you slowly come to terms with the pleasant thought that your labour profited others and not you, the only thing you getting out of it being a life long hatred for your work—but anyway, I digress.

Back to the keynote concern, you need to follow these simple instructions: First, observe what sort of phone the commie owns, combine it with the place you’re having the discussion at, and in a single statement, point out their glaring, simply despicable hypocrisy. Here’s an example: “Bold of you to bash capitalism while you’re sitting here in Crimson Cup with your iPhone 10.”

Be absolutely certain that this will hit ’em harder than John Lennon did to his wife—if not for your immaculate tact and flawless logic, then surely for your lack thereof. And don’t worry about it not applying to the person in question, because no matter where you are in the world, it’s a given that the means of production are still privately owned and your country is predominantly capitalistic, thus leaving virtually zero chance of it being any other way.

I’ll conclude with this short quote that captures the essence of my thoughts,

“It might not be perfect, but it’s the best system we got.”

– Louis XVI, shortly before getting executed.

Probably.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

13 − eight =

Leave a comment
scroll to top