|
Part 7 in a multipart series examing solutions for our ailing economy, presented by Art Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society.
One of the most misunderstood terms used in America today is “middle class.” Because people think they know what it is, they are very misled when and how it is used.
The greatest boon to an economy, likewise the freedom of the people, is a vibrant and growing middle class.
For this reason, Karl Marx attacked the middle class, or what he called the bourgeoisie. Marx was never against the rich. After all, his greatest associate was Frederick Engels, himself a rich man. Neither of them ever advocated Engels giving up his riches in empathy for the downtrodden masses.
Marx and Engels and those who used them only objected to certain people flush with "old money." It wasn't because these people had money, that the early Marxists opposed them. Power, not wealth, was their concern. Those in power had wealth in the form of "old money," handed down through the wealthy aristocratic classes. The Marxists wanted nothing more than to take the reigns of power for themselves and away from the old ruling class, and they wanted to undermine the cultural and societal architecture that supported the old governing structures in order to make way for their own. Their criticism of wealth, therefore, was simply a rhetorical device to be used to that end, nothing more, and their supposed fellowship with and concern for the downtrodden was only a vicious lie.
Because the middle class was part of the old cultural and societal architecture they sought to replace, in the Marxist view the middle class needed to be destroyed. We ought not use the past tense, either. For today's Marxist follows the same stategy.
Universally, communists, socialists, Nazis ― Marxists all ― work to destroy the middle class, which in Marx’s day was a growing segment of all Western society, and a threat to any accumulation of power.
So just what is the middle class and how does it pose a threat to Marxism, but is a boon to the people in general?
First, what it is not. It is not a standard of living. And this is what most people think it is. This definition misses the mark.
The middle class is essentially entrepreneurial. It is a condition of risk taking and responsibility, both emblematic of the exercise of essential individual liberties and freedoms. A member of the middle class may be a professional or a businessman. What he must be is an independent (i.e., free) professional and businessman, with an ability to provide a service or a product. He must be able to start up a practice or a business simply due to the fact that he has the innate ability and desire to do so. He must be free to form contracts with others. He is not a manager, but may function as a manager. An entrepreneur risks his fortune; a manager risks his boss’s fortune.
The owner of a small hardware store is a member of the middle class. The manager of the local Wal-Mart is not, even if he makes more money than the hardware store owner. An entrepreneur has a heightened sense of responsibility since he not only risks his fortune; he risks his family’s as well, and the fortunes and families of all he employees, even the businesses that supply him with the goods and services he requires to carry on his trade. If he makes the wrong decisions, he risks losing everything — including his family in some cases.
The frequent references to the middle class made by the media typically gloss over or obscure what the words "middle class" really mean. But, to solve our economic woes and to save our freedoms, we need to constantly remember what the middle class really is so that we understand the ramifications of its dimunition or destruction.
The middle class produces new products, provides better services, creates jobs, etc., and many are amply rewarded for their work. Some are not. But they only do this well when they are free to do it. Yet we are told that by regulating business, which really means putting controls on the actions of the middle class, government is doing the people a great service. We have seen what regulation has done to Wall Street. And now we hear that more regulation will solve the problem.
Taking that attitude and visiting more regulations upon the middle class, soon there will be no middle class. And that is the point. The people who want to socialize Wall Street are the same people who want to regulate all business. They will destroy the middle class in the process.
Since they are in essence free men and have independent means, the middle class is a threat to those who want power. They can provide the wherewithal to oppose would-be totalitarians, both with money and the means to fight the accumulation of power in the hands of the few.
This is the reason would-be tyrants hate the middle class ― it has the ability to stop the growth of total government.
The reason that we need to stop government from regulating and nationalizing business has as much to do with our future as a free country, as it does with providing the atmosphere for the economy to grow. When the middle class grows, the country benefits.
Trackback(0)
|