Marxist Label Is Adequate

Cary Brunswick writes that calling someone a “Marxist” alone does not make a valid argument. Yet in our world of brief letters to the editor, tweets, and sound bite media, expressions must be succinct. The use of widely known and accepted “buzzwords,” however inadequate, is a necessity.

Happily, Mr. Brunswick, who openly and eagerly appropriates the label “Marxist” for himself, provides meaning to the word within his own column. He first attempts to describe Karl Marx’s ideology positively: “In reality, Marx was all about working people obtaining freedom from inhumane conditions that left them with little else in lives that were destitute and joyless, and the freedom to do what they do best and satisfy their basic human needs.” All well and good, but he later reveals how Marxism is actually implemented: “Universal health care would have appealed to Marx because he thought a strong central government was needed to plan a nation’s economy so industries produced the products that enlightened leaders thought the society needed.” Read that again, and let its full impact sink in. It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that Marxism’s central planning mandate does not give way to the “freedom to do what they do best.” Think Cuba, for instance.

Mr. Brunswick admits that Marxism is associated with “dictators who squelched people’s freedoms,” but he attributes that to “transitions forced on societies that were not prepared for them.” Free societies are never “prepared” for Marxism; at least, not if they seek to remain free. So perhaps Mr. Brunswick should check back in ten thousand years to see if societies have become prepared for Marxism. In the meantime, as clarified by Mr. Brunswick, calling a proponent of central economic planning a “Marxist” alone is a most adequate argument.