When being “anti-tax” makes you Red

Remember Grover Norquist? Would you be prepared to argue that his “opposition to taxes” so that it ultimately “reduces government to a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub” as conservative? In this historical biography of Karl and Jenny Marx, “Love and Capital,” by Mary Gabriel; it seems that Karl Marx also touted an anti-tax argument. In fact, his argument about government’s dependency on taxes, “and the people who pay the government to keep them enchained,” sounds downright Libertarian, does it not? But in the context of the crowned heads of Europe and mid 19th Germany, the refusal to pay taxes was an argument for undermining and overthrowing an oppressive government. Incidentally, a very similar argument that Mr. Norquist has also made.

Personally, I see Mr. Norquist’s arguments as being based less on ideology and more on pure greed. He wants what the best things this country has to offer, but he doesn’t want to help pay for it. Nor does he take into consideration, that business interests who rake in a lot of subsidies, tax breaks, and etc.; actually do present a tax burden to someone. It becomes a tax burden against education, the poor, the struggling middle class, most certainly the elderly, and children, as well as the public workforce. What government gives away to the monied interests, it must then replenish from other sources. And once programs and the so-called “entitlements” have been squeezed dry—principally programs and entitlements to benefit the elderly, the children, the disabled, and the poor—then our sources of continued revenue comes under even more duress. The monied “class” doesn’t want to pay taxes, the very poor can not, and the “middle class” such as it is, can’t hope to make up the difference in over all city, county, state, and federal revenue. Which is why we become a debtor nation to such hostile financiers as China.

Believe it or not, unlike mid 19th Germany, taxes in the U.S. do not typically go to keep bourgeoisie in “liveried” comfort. Even if the “monied class” would like that very much. Actually taxes must pay for a lot of things, including the roads Mr. Norquist drives on. the public libraries he has ever frequented, emergency first responders, in the event his home was to burn down, the U.S. Military and the Coast Guard that keeps him safe, the public school he attended, and the members of Congress that he has lobbied. Just as, as I have already described above; the monied interests also find themselves highly dependent on those taxes, as a percentage of their profits. All you have to do is recognize the fact that government outsources much of what it does to private businesses. It pays the businesses on a contractual basis, for what ever work the business does. That would just be one example. It is still a telling example. The money to pay the business interests for their products, labor, or services; comes out of yours and my wallet. Absolutely it does. And while Mr. Norquist has been known to vent about “tax theft” from his wallet (a la Marx?); he is nonetheless a beneficiary of what that “tax theft” has done on his behalf.

Or you take such people as “The TEA Party” and their spokeswomen such as Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Undoubtedly some people would say how “Ayn Rand” it is to oppose taxes based on the “enslavement” argument. But factually, if Ms. Rand fled the Soviet Union that had presumably based its ideological principles [at all] on the theories of Karl Marx, then no that would not have been Ms. Rand’s argument. After all, she was supposed to have rejected the communal whole in the name of the individual goal seeker. But societies do not happen to exist as a collection of individuals, who in an anarchist manner, each goes their own way. Yes we are individuals, and yes we do seek individual goals. Mine, as I have since become a senior citizen, is to finally write my books. But, it takes a society to operate and make profitable, a business. It takes society to create an operational government. It takes society to care for the least of these among us.

I fully understand what Karl Marx meant by “Communism.” I knew that even before I finally acquired this particular biography of him. An advocacy of the proletariat. And the conditions that “working class” had to deal with, and they were very deplorable conditions by the mid-19th century; you could certainly understand Mr. Marx’s advocacy. And at the same time, shake your head at the people who “controlled their countries” through divine entitlement: they wouldn’t do anything for their citizens. People got sick, they starved, they got angry and began fighting. Then the government cracks down on them, and lays waste to a huge number of people, who only wanted to better their lot in life. In reaction, would Mr. Marx’s thesis have gained traction, if the monied interests, the royalty, the nobility had better taken care of their own? No, I don’t think so. The “red” argument, then was against obvious greed and the tragic consequences that it caused at the time. Now it seems, this same “red argument,” is on the behalf of greed. Thus in summary, my opinion is this: if for what ever reason you want to borrow left wing dogma and co-opt it for your own purposes, don’t call it “conservative.” Being anti-tax was an argument of rebellion, even in the founding days of this nation. Rebellions are left wing, because they are uprisings against established institutions. Well then, just call it left wing, and with Karl Marx also touting such a thing at one time, call it RED too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: