"he might agree with Marx on that topic, but that certainly doesn’t make him a Marxist...."
RICHARD SPENCER IS NOT A COMMUNIST
PUBLISHED: 6th May, 2017 | By JOSEPH ROSS
No “I, AnCap” Richard Spencer is not a Communist.
Mr “I, AnCap” is a writer for Liberty Hangout. The owner of the site is one of the few libertarians that I still have any respect for, so I want everyone to know that this is not an attack on Liberty Hangout.
This guy wrote an article asserting that this tweet by Richard Spencer makes him a communist.
Just by looking at this tweet, you can tell that something is missing from this conversation, so I went to Spencer’s twitter feed to see what he said before Mike Enoch responded, and this is what it showed:
Now, he might agree with Marx on that topic, but that certainly doesn’t make him a Marxist. Marx had a theory that under “Bourgeoisie Capitalism” eventually the entire proletariat would become the same, indistinguishable from one and other, and then the proletariat would rise up and have a worldwide communist revolution. Now I personally don’t agree with this theory, but just because Spencer does, doesn’t make him a Marxist. The main difference is that Marx believed that a communist revolution is a good thing while Spencer believes it’s a bad thing.
The absurdity behind the claim astonishes me. A bank CEO might say that the federal reserve prints money out of thin air, loans it to his bank at a very low interest rate, then his bank loans the money to individuals and corporation at higher rates, which equals massive profits for his bank. The CEO of the bank probably loves that policy. I suspect that “I, AnCap” would agree that the lending policy leads to more profits for the bank. If someone suggested that he was in favor of that just because he agrees with the CEO, the person making the claim would rightfully be mocked
On my personal Facebook page, I made a post calling his article out for being incredibly dishonest. He then made this comment:
This brings up an interesting point. I then examined Spencer’s views on healthcare. The writer should consider reading Spencer’s actual views. Here is a paragraph from his post:
“The red pill on healthcare also means recognizing the implications of human nature. Libertarians are probably right that a true, unfettered free market would provide “universal” healthcare, much like the markets for vacuum cleaners, hamburgers, and smartphones. But this is ultimately irrelevant. People can’t deal with the notion of rich “fat cats” buying up all the care and poor people getting kicked to the curb. Senator Bill Cassidy was right when he said recently, “There’s a widespread recognition that the federal government, Congress, has created the right for every American to have health care.” Find the entire post here.
It should be clear to everyone that Spencer is not ideologically attached to the concept of universal healthcare. He’s just examining things in terms of the current situation. I don’t even agree with Spencer on this issue. I wrote up a piece addressing this topic, but my main reasons for opposing it are that the only places where the universal healthcare can be seen as even remotely successful have significantly higher taxes, basically no military, lower rates of obesity, and are significantly whiter than we are in the US. Just because I disagree with him on this topic, it doesn’t mean I’m going to lie about his positions and accuse him of being a communist.
Does being pro-choice really make you a communist? That’s a claim that I’ve never heard any serious person claim before. I also find it ironic that a self described anarchist would support having the state outlaw abortion.
Now look, Spencer’s position on the EU makes me cringe. I can’t defend it. I will say that, at least according to a group of European libertarians I met in real life, all of the free market advocates in Europe loved the concept of the EU so that people could sell products and services across national lines without having to pay massive tariffs. Would “I, AnCap” consider them to be communists, or leftists, as well?
I think that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Spencer, as there are with all public figures. Criticism is useful because it keeps us honest and prevents us from having our positions unchallenged; however, this is just a dishonest hit-piece that makes CNN look like an honest news source.
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.