A Debate (Argument) between an Azadist and a Marxist
Preamble
The tone of the replies may sound odd since this is not in chronological order. These comments were left in on 2 separate posts (which I link to at the start of each exchange) and across different comment threads. I have tried my best to put them into logical order so it should make sense regardless. I have made some edits to correct spelling and punctuation but if you are interested, or want to double check for any manipulation, the original comments are still up on Instagram unless my interlocuter deletes his. Although this isn’t that big of deal where I expect some criminal investigation scenario to take place, it’s literally two guys on the internet arguing with each other. I hope you find this entertaining yet educational in how Azadism deals with Marxism. Additionally, where appropriate I will link to other writings from the Azadist Manifesto and Instagram Posts. In future, I will write a more comprehensive critique of Communism and explore the other “isms” in more depth also.
Debate (that turns into an argument)
urfrnd__tru: Dear Friend, are you saying that giving powers to Private Sector is akin to giving powers to the people? Really? I don’t know where you are from. But you must have a look at elite Businessmen of India including Adani and Ambani, Adani being among the top 5 richest people in the World. I hope you were present in India when the GREAT FARMERS PROTEST was taking place. We lost many brave warriors in the protest who wanted to ensure that they do not get sold to any Adani or Ambani.
azadism_official: Hanji, because if you look into the definition of Private Sector, it is “the part of the national economy that is not under direct state control”. This covers all sectors that are non-state. Entrepreneurs, charity workers, religions, even institutions such as the family count as private (or independent sector). The examples you have given of Ambani and Adani are an excellent representation of what happens when the State colludes with so-called “private” actors. In fact, most of the largest corporations blur the lines between the private sector and public sector (the part of an economy that is controlled by the state). Ambani and Adani lose their private status since they no longer operate separately from the state. It is this link between the two that Azadism wishes to break by putting an end to corporate political activity such as lobbying. So, no, I am no fan of those two or any corporation that works with/for the state to enact policies that give them an unfair advantage over competition in market system.
If you are interested in a more in-depth review of the Kisaan Morcha from an Azadist perspective, I have written about it in an essay I released earlier this year. You can read that at www.azadism.co.uk/kisanmorcha.
urfrnd__tru: Interesting to see how you denounced only the examples I gave as it had an element to promote your agenda. You very well know that many people have been amassing wealth for centuries through Capitalism without such collusion with the state.
azadism_official: Well yeah, those were the examples you gave me 😂, who else do want me to denounce?
Firstly, what is wrong with amassing wealth? Our Gurus also amassed great wealth. It’s not how much money you acquire, it’s how you acquire it and what you do with it. If you got it through using force or the threat of force (like taxes) then that is what is wrong, not the money itself. If you use it to enact violence on others, then that is obviously wrong too. Both of these are common traits of government, not private actors.
Secondly, Capitalism is a fairly new idea, and it is an umbrella term. I can’t speak for all of Capitalism and the different ways people understand it or use/abuse the term, I can only speak for Azadism. However, even if we use the most basic definition “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” then show me a system that is purely Capitalist?
In reality, most nations are mixed economies with elements of both Markets and Central-planning. If we observe economic history, those nations and peoples that favoured a greater proportion of a Market approach prospered far greater than those that tried (and failed, to the detriment of their people) to enact more central-planning. The Azadist Manifesto goes into more detail as to exactly why economic freedom leads to greater prosperity and I invite you to read through that. If you want, we can even get on a ZOOM call to discuss further if you like?
[END of thread] [As expected from many of these types, they never accept the offer to call and go through it properly]
urfrnd__tru: Gentleman, your work for putting forth the fact that Caste and Class are not same seems purely unnecessary as there is this idea of Equality that Sikhism promotes which renders the concept of Capitalism (or Free Market) completely invalid in a Society which preaches Equality to all Humans. This fact can be used by anyone, not just Marxists, to oppose Capitalism (where the means of production are privately owned).
azadism_official: Akaaal. Thank you for your respectful disagreement. I disagree with your disagreement sir and would like to ask you how exactly free markets are invalidated by Sikhi? From my understanding Sikhi promotes diversity and the freedom to pursue range of lifestyles (provided it does not harm others). If someone wishes to be a painter, they will be compensated differently for their effort than a doctor would depending on the demand and supply of each type of labour in society. Should someone who worked 1000s of hours to hone a valuable skill and works for 40+ hours a week be paid the same as someone who spent an hour learning how to pick-up a box for just 2 hours a week? Why would anyone work harder or seek promotion if there is no higher reward in doing so? Where is the incentive?
The real issue isn’t necessarily that of inequality, but of poverty. It’s more important to determine the purchasing power of the poorest in society. A person in a completely income-equal society may be way worse off than the poorest of an income-unequal society. Which is indeed what we see when you look around the world and throughout history. Marxism makes everyone equally poor, whereas Market systems have made the rich richer, but the poor got richer too! We must learn to differentiate relative poverty and absolute poverty, and work towards prioritising everyone’s absolute position, no matter how rich the richest one gets. The economy is not a “fixed-pie”, wealth grows. Richest haven’t got rich because they are taking off everyone else (in a market system at least), this is a common fallacy and have a previous post on it you should read. If anyone does forcibly acquire funds by stealing it off others, then this is something that Azadism is obviously against. A good example of this is the State with its forced taxation, something that Marx loves.
[For more on Inequality, read opening of Section IV of the Azadist Manifesto]
And also, what is wrong with private ownership? Do you want complete State ownership like Marx too? Do you want even your children to belong to the state? There is only two options here: either the private sector (people themselves) can own the things that they themselves produce or obtain through voluntary exchange in trade, or the public sector (state sector) where the state forcibly acquires property, wealth and even people at extremes through force or the threat of force? I’m fairly certain what the private sector entities that were our Sikh Gurus would have chosen, are you?
urfrnd__tru: I’d suggest you to delete your comment to avoid people making fun of you and getting your wealth creation tool tainted. I also wish you had studied what you are criticising, not just because your criticisms are fallacious, but also that you yourself seem to be supporting Communism — which you are pretending that you are against. I say this because of following reasons :
REASON 1 : Marx did not support the ownership of Capital and means of Production by the State. He envisioned a form of Economic System which was devoid of State (Yes, State does not exist!). This was called “Communism” — devoid of State, Money and accumulation of Wealth. Since almost all the Powerful Businessmen would have negated it, he suggested a means to achieve this state of “Communism”, which was called “Socialism” — a state where all the wealth and Means of Production came in the hands of The State. Socialism, this way, was just a means to achieve what he actually envisioned — “Communism”. Yes, there has been no Communist country in the world ever. All those were socialist countries, but not Communist as Marx envisioned Communism.
REASON 2 : Your arguments for insistence of Capitalism seem to be arriving from the belief that people should have considerable power in their hands and they should not merely be a toy for the Centralised Powers or State for imposing. But you need to understand that Capitalism, throughout history has been completely opposite to it. As Capitalism has always resulted in accumulation of power in only few individuals (without State support as well). What you seem to be saying is that you want power in the hands of people — that is what Communism is my friend — Communism empowers Communities.
azadism_official: Out comes the truth 😂. I knew you were a Marxist Communist! Of course, you want me to delete my comment, I am exposing the flaws in your broken world-view. And what wealth creation tool? I make no money off any of this 🤣.
REASON 1: Classic “Marx was anti-state” rhetoric. Marx himself was confused and confused generations of people with his broken logic. If private property is that property that is not owned by the state, then when Marx outlines the 10 planks in his Communist Manifesto of which some are:
“Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes”,
“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”,
“Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly”,
among other disgusting plans, this is hardly an advocation for people’s direct ownership of capital, is it? The land is acquired by the STATE, the taxes are extorted by the STATE, the money supply is monopolised by the STATE. Of course, you will likely repeat the lie that once all these things are acquired by the state, it will just hand it back and fizzle away… be realistic. If you were just going to privatise it all in the end anyway, why not do so in the first place!
I’m glad you admit that those experiments were indeed Socialist, many do not even concede that. Communism never came into existence because it is economically flawed to the point of impossibility. Ludwig Von Mises and later Hayek proved as much with their work on the economic calculation problem. You can’t centrally plan a state that big, especially when you get rid of the market price mechanism.
REASON 2 : Again, like I told you in another comment on another post. I can’t speak for capitalism as it is a wide, umbrella term that covers many conceptions (and misconceptions evidently). I can only speak for Azadism. But yes, you are correct, Azadism is against the centralisation of power, unlike State Socialism as you yourself have admitted. Just like you say, pure communism hasn’t existed, neither has pure capitalism either. Again, as I also explained in a previous reply, we have lived and currently live in mixed-economies with each country having a unique blend of market systems and centrally-planned ones. So, as I already asked you before, please do give me an example of a company that accumulated and centralised power in a purely capitalist system (or better yet, an Azadist one) where the state was not used in any way (e.g., no lobbying, no special regulation exemptions, no tax-cuts, no bail outs etc)?
Lastly, as you have correctly recognised, if you truly believe (like me) in wanting power in the hands of the people, then I don’t care what you call that. But at least be consistent in your logic when assessing policy that achieves it. If you want to ignore parts Marx’s approach to this ideal that he claims to want, then that is fine too.
urfrnd__tru: “While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom, there is no State.” — Vladimir Lenin
azadism_official: No one was stopping Lenin absolving the state. Either he had good intentions for all those he starved and sent to gulags, or maybe perhaps… the tyrant was lying! I understand, that’s hard to process that such an upstanding person like Lenin could lie. Might need to go lie down.
Also, was that quote before or after he realised that he messed up by collectivising the farms and establishing his New Economic Policy to introduce privatisation into the economy to help fix his mistakes?
[For more on this, read the opening of Section V of the Azadist Manifesto]
urfrnd__tru: LoL. Don’t delete it. Why do I worry? I was worried as people would have associated a fool with Sikhism. Now, since you have expressed that your conscience is based on Capitalism and not Sikhism, I am convinced people would not do that. I am neither a Marxist or a Communist, I will readily accept other ideas which actually promote equality and are better than Communism. However, none of it exists of now as far as I know, that is why I support Communism. And imposing your own broken understanding of what you are criticising on others says a lot where you are coming from.
Thank You for expressing your hatred for Marx. Now I can better understand where your ignorance originates from
azadism_official: I didn’t randomly wake up one day and decide “I hate Marx” 😂. But after reading his work, and learning about him and his ideas, I just found him misguided and confused. He had predictions that were wrong and promoted policies that are immoral. He gave way to tyrants who further abused his teachings to enact authoritarian hell holes that led to mass suffering, genocides, famines and decimations of cultures and populations. So no, I am not going to do puja of someone who is advocating to take away my freedoms and has directly inspired others to carry out his horrible plans
Lastly, saying “you’re not a Sikh” is such a childish and weak argument, I could say the same to you and it would hold equal weight. You started off pretty good in terms of professionalism but right now you are becoming more and more emotional. Relax.
urfrnd__tru: Moreover, Marxism is based on ensuring Equality in the sphere which affects everyone the most — Economy. Are you saying that Gurus were against Inequality only on the basis of Caste and supported all other forms of inequality? I’d suggest you to look into the Sikh Philosophy again as you seem to be lost.
azadism_official: You are confusing human equality and economic equality. Of course, Azadism promotes human equality where everyone no matter their race, gender, religion etc has the same rights as everyone else. Azadism believes that each person should be free to live however they want to, as long as it does not impede the right for others to do the same. As part of that people may decide to live in ways that pay them less or more depending on their own subjective priorities. This naturally means economic inequality. You can’t have human equality and economic equality without one being sacrificed for the other. A Marxist system is considered quite evil because it sacrifices human liberty and rights in order to establish economic equality (which expectedly and evidently stifles innovation and prosperity). Perhaps it is you who needs to look into Sikhi again.
[END of thread]
urfrnd__tru: I’ll counter just one argument of yours here. Others would be countered in a reply to the other comments of yours. Sir, Equality is Equality. There is no such thing as Human Equality as what we mean by Equality is itself ‘Equality among Humans’. What you seem to be comprehending from your self assigned term of “Human Equality” is a society where every Human will consider other Human as a Human — that is devoid of Racism, Caste based discrimination or Prejudice of any kind. Here, I’ll have to state that Economic Equality is itself a component of Equality or “Human Equality” — the way you like to call it. Equality exists when there is no discrimination of any kind. I hope you agree to this previous statement because without understanding the Concept of Equality it would be a bumpy road ahead. Now, in the current state of the world, which is dependent on Capitalism, people are discriminated against for accessing products, services and means of production on the basis of wealth. This implies the basis of Discrimination in today’s world is Wealth. If you say that it is legitimate way of Discrimination, then I’ll be forced to say to you that you have not understood the philosophy of Sikhism. If you still support that basis of Discrimination, I’ll have to say that your Conscience stems from what is scene “fine” in the current world, or simply Capitalism. Someone who is a proponent of Sikhi can’t be supporting a Conscience which is not pro-Sikh. Sikhism is for Equality — all kinds of Equality among Humans. Your saying that Economic Inequality is approved in Sikhism is completely false.
azadism_official: No, this is mere semantics. There are various forms of equality, not just one. Equality itself just means a state of two or more things being equal. What I mean by “Human Equality” was paraphrasing what you yourself said when you said, “Equality to all Humans”, which I understood as Social Equality. The world today doesn’t “rely” on capitalism so much as it “relies” on the state. I implore you to avoid using this term and speak plainly, since I don’t know how you understand this term or are using it, especially given your other comments on different posts.
This idea of discrimination based on wealth you put forth seems respectfully ludicrous. Should we get rid of all market prices then to have price equality? Should the government force the price of a luxury mansion to be same as a bag of peanuts? What about the example I gave you in another reply; should wages be equalised so that a surgeon is paid the same as a dog walker? Again, you would destroy incentive structures (like the Soviet Union did) and a surgeon would ask what is the point of studying this many years, working so hard if I am not compensated for this extra effort? Why work 40 hours a week when you are paid the same for just 2 hours a week? Why work at all? The entire society would collapse in pursuit of this blind equality ideal of yours!
The reality is that there is no limit on the right to human liberty. It is not a scarce resource where only a few humans can have rights or else it will run out for others… unlike goods and services. If there was no discrimination of what people could buy based on wealth, then there would no cap at all on consumption. We would run into mass shortages and starve to death, just like in the Marxist experiments through history. In an Azadist market system, you can only acquire wealth by providing a good or service to society that people are willing to pay for voluntarily (no appealing to politicians to enact favourable policies / lobbying to get unfair advantages). What you earn through this is then used to buy things that you voluntarily and are willing to pay for. The more value you provide to society, the more you earn, and in turn the more you can give back when you spend or give more.
You are reducing equality to just “sameness” in everything, which is critical error. And how exactly do you envision equality to be forced on everything and everyone as well? Through the State? The Mughals too wanted an equality in religion. In pursuit of your misguided ideal, you are willing to give up fairness, justice and liberty.
I have never claimed that Sikhi approves economic inequality. Sikhi approves freedom and the ability to live your life according to your own ideals if you so choose (as long as it does not harm others), which is the prime lesson of the Shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur when he sacrificed himself so that the Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus could practice their traditions. As result, inequality, or more accurately, diversity is natural since human beings are different with varied preferences and backgrounds. This is why I differentiate Social Equality and Economic Equality; they are not the same thing!
urfrnd__tru: If according to you, every human is driven by incentive, were the Gurus and the many warriors and people alongside them who sacrificed themselves for Humanity aliens? Parents care about their children. Relatives care about their Relatives. Friends for Friends. What are they? Not Humans? Aliens?
I get where you are coming from. You are another victim of Capitalism whose conscience is based not on Sikh Philosophy, but on Capitalism. The point that there are not enough resources for everyone is the stupidest argument one can give in support of Capitalism. Capitalism also promotes Materialism — that is, it creates products that are not needed and with time, creates a demand for such products and services. If you are talking about the dearth of resources to produce such products, then you validating the argument against Capitalism as this is a result of Capitalism.
I have already explained how Capitalism is a means through which discrimination is validated. Through this I have pointed how Capitalism promotes Inequality. I don’t know which sameness you are talking about. Equality is independent of being Diverse or not. I never challenged Diversity. Your comprehension of my comments is wrong.
azadism_official: I know this won’t sit well with you and your blind-equality stance, but every human does not have equal value systems. People are incentivised by different things. The Gurus and our Shaheeds valued human liberty and justice over subservience and so had the incentive to act in ways that honoured their legacy. Where’s the issue? I don’t know where Aliens came into this.
I keep telling you brother, I’m an Azadist not a Capitalist. I don’t know how you personally define Capitalism (I don’t even think you know), but you are for sure not using the dictionary or economic literature, or usage amongst actual economists to define it. I can’t accept that label from you, so let’s stop throwing it around if you can’t use it properly.
Also, for context I used to be a Socialist first before all this. Sikhi isn’t a competing ideal to Capitalism, Socialism or whatever, it’s a spiritual framework designed to achieve Mukti. Sure, it can help us inform how states (or lack thereof) can be organised, but that’s not it’s primary purpose. Azadism is just looking at some of the core principles from Sikhi and the Khalsa ethos and extracting them to see how they can be applied to modern world. It just so happens that economic freedom, markets, human liberty, anti-state sentiments all seem coincide with these values quite well. Azadism just fleshes them out and draws from things like the Austrian School of Economics to conceptualise it in terms of modern economic language. I’ve covered this elsewhere before, but the reason why Free Market Economics appealed to me more than Marxism and Socialism etc was precisely because of Sikhi and applying that when observing hundreds of hours of debates, interviews, lectures and literature (from both sides).
R.e. scarcity. This one of the first lessons you are taught when formally studying economics. I don’t see how you can deny this. Sure, in theory, the universe is your oyster and resources could be infinite. However, scarcity takes into account accessibility also. Just because we have many resources, doesn’t mean we can always access them. This is where markets come in to allocate labour to process and create things that are needed in society depending on demand. To outright deny scarcity is the height of stupidity. If a hotel has 25 rooms, then it needs a pricing mechanism that is appropriate. If it charges nothing and gets rid of all prices, then what stops someone coming in and booking all the rooms? Nothing does. It is only because a price can be attached to a scarce resource (hotel rooms) that prevents shortages and overconsumption. This is all ignoring the fact that the hotel wouldn’t even exist without a compensation mechanism since owners are unlikely to provide the services at a loss to them financially and in time and effort.
You say Capitalism promotes materialism which just further highlights your inaccurate personal definition of the word. Materialism exists regardless of the system you are in. Capitalism is what is what is left when you remove state interference in an economy. If people are materialistic, that isn’t capitalism’s fault. That’s the role of religion and spirituality to mitigate. But even then, this is a far better problem to have than starving to death under central-planning. Secondly, you mention that it creates products that are not needed. Not needed as decided by who? This highlights the authoritarian traits of Marxists and pro-Central-Planners who suggest that whatever the State decides should be made. In a Market, those things are produced that there is an actual demand for. If an entrepreneur makes something that he can’t sell to anyone because they don’t want it, then he fails! Under the system you seem to advocate, things are made by government decree and are produced regardless of actual demand. There are very famous examples of this in the Soviet Union, such as that of the State giving quotas to factories to make iron nails. They told them they must produce X kilograms in total, and so they produced massive, car-sized nails to meet the quota even though they were completely useless.
Markets respect people’s own subjective value systems and no one is telling anyone what they should and shouldn’t produce or buy through force. The market system is the reason why you and I can even communicate right now!
[END of thread]
Conclusion
I hope this shows you how easily terms like equality can be manipulated to serve broken ideals. He himself may genuinely believe in these values, but since his principles are inconsistent with each other he will inevitably run into problems like this. This is because the Marxist worldview is self-contradictory and not well thought out in many places. If you want to further understand how Azadism sits amongst other ideologies I have written about this briefly here. However, this is now quite an old article and needs updating. Follow Azadism on social media for more!
If you disagree with anything mentioned here, please do not hesitate to (respectfully) let me know. I will only ever mirror your tone so if you speak properly, I will also.
