Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Here’s some bad news, Stephan:  You can find similar lines from American books used in high school history classes.  In fact, go to any ‘elite’ private school, and you’ll see similar statements offered to the spawn of capitalists, to try to give them a more “enlightened” view than the teachers feel the kids are likely to get at home.  I’ve experienced this personally.

What amazes me is that so many supposedly capitalist parents are oblivious, tolerant, or wholly supportive of this approach.

Stephen,

I’m curious: under what conditions or in what situations would the use of capitalism be immoral, in your opinion?

A thriving market in human flesh. I’m thinking butchered human flesh, but a pre-teen sex trade would also be an immoral market in human flesh.

Capitalism has done more good for more people in a shorter time than any other form of human organization in history.  To even ask the question proves utter stupidity.

Wanted to second Hui there-- what immoral ends can capitalism be used for? I think the gun analogy is way off-- you can’t shoot me with a voluntary exchange. I can’t be forced to engage any other individual in capitalism unless I choose to do so myself.

Capitalism is far, far from needing any defense at all. If anything, it’s the only moral system. The headline is like reading “Is Freedom Immoral?”

No, it’s the opposite.

You forgot perhaps the two most eloquent defenders of capitalism.  Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek.  The Road to Serfdom remains arguably the best piece in support of the merits of capitalism and its ability to uplift entire societies as compared to any form of collectivism, and should be required reading for high school students.

I think the reason this is being brought up is not so much that the books are here anti-capitalism but anti-globalization. The first could be tolerated, but the second is a big non-non to certain powerful groups.

Hui,

William F. Buckley had an analogy he used for communism and freedom where one man pushed an old woman un front of a bus and another man pushed her out of the way—and another person condemned them both because they both went around pushing little old ladies.

“The use of capitalism” implies that you think capitalism is inherently immoral, and you want someone to say, “well, yes, I think X situation is immoral,” and then you can pounce and say “But X happens daily!”

Short answer—capitalism is not immoral. Period. Unlike Communism, capitalism is intrinisically not an immoral system. It is an amoral system; it is freedom. It allows people to act according to their conscience (or market dictates, whatever), and there will be immorality because people are immoral. But it neither causes nor fosters immorality. There is no situation where capitalism is the *culprit* of immorality, and certainly no situation where it would have been more moral to be communist, socialist, fascist, feudalist, or something else.

Anti-capitalist proselitizing justifies the class interests of those who direct and manage organs of the state. You’ll notice that such criticism, as a system, assumes that ‘public’ enterprises (e.g. cultural, academic, regulatory, law making) do not suffer from the failings of free-market enterprises for the simple fact that they are not free market enterprises. That is, free markets are corrupting and so state enterprise cannot be corrupt because it is not free. This is an absurd but useful construction because it also implies that those who are employed by the state are morally superior to those who are not and so may use coercion to enact just results on society without recourse to democratic processes.

"I’m curious: under what conditions or in what situations would the use of capitalism be immoral, in your opinion?”

Trading in slaves, for example.  Or, assassins for hire.  Trafficing in narcotics.

Alternately, even if your product is legitimate, if your business practices are deceptive or dishonest, then the business is dishonest.  For example, if you advertise your adhesive has been tested to provide so much holding power per square inch, and in fact it doesn’t do so, then this is immoral.

I could see capitalism construed as amoral, but only in the sense that evolution might be similarly construed.  But even if one went to far as to see both processes as in part value-neutral, one would still have to consider the net benefits of both.  There can be no doubt that capitalism is the best system in terms of progressively better products and services, and thereby raising the quality of life for the greatest number of people.  I suppose the contrary argument would be that it’s not worth it if it necessarily involves ecological degradation, but it does seem that market pressures have had the effect of improving capitalisms performance on that score.  The alternatives to capitalism seem doomed to failure, regardless of any higher immediate morality we might ascribe to them, because they fly in the face of the evolved selfish aspects of human nature.

Capitalism is well-suited for fallen man, since it causes the most selfish person in the world to do good he did not intend, through the power of the invisible hand.

Whether this makes it more moral than the alternatives is questionable. But it certainly doesn’t make it less moral.

Albert Jay Nock was fond of pointing out that, once you get past barter, every economy must necessarily make use of something that has come to be called capital. Soviet “communism” was actually state capitalism. The question as to whether capitalism is moral is meaningless.

I second Hui’s question.

Communism, for example, strikes me as inherently immoral. But well to the contrary, capitalism strikes me as inherently moral.

The point in the article is dead right - French high school philosophy readers are very similar.

Capitalism is morally neutral. Without political freedom it doesn’t benefit Mankind, and can be used by unfree societies to Man’s detriment.

Most rich and elites dislike Capitalism. Having made it to the top themselves, most of those guys seem to hanker after a revived form of feudalism.

here in the heart of capitalism,where almost every child is the beneficiary of free market wealth, the private school kids sport Che T shirts and our public school’s AP history course is taught by an avowed Marxist. My kids survived that nonsense but were then subjected to a firehose of bs when they hit college. Saved one, lost one and the jury’s out on the third, bit she claims to be reading the copy of Atlas Shrugged I sent her.

Any system will achieve some level of morality based on the actions and beliefs of the people participating in it.  Capitalism is as moral as the people participating in it; no more, no less.

A friend of mine (in America) was taught American history from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” in high school.

Is any additional comment necessary?

Qwinn

I like to see that sort of thing in European textbooks - helps us on this side of the pond to keep our competitive edge.

Anyway, to dispute that “capitalism is immoral” idea isn’t to say that capitalism is inherently moral either.  It’s like roads and bridges - to be measured in terms of its effectiveness at accomplishing its intended purpose, rather than given some grand moral dimension.  It just happens to be more effective at wealth creation than any other system ever devised, and ought to be adopted for that reason, though I’m not aware of any religious tradition that specifically endorses it.

Capitalism is the method for providing 80% - 90% of societies wants and needs, with the Government’s job being to fill in the gaps where there are market failures, police, roads, schools, the indigent etc.

Europes problem is that Government seems to be in the business of engineering market failures with maximum work weeks, mandatory vacation minumums, iron clad job security, subsidized industries, etc., that end up bloating the public sector up to 50% of the economy.

How about on a sinking ship or other triage situation?  There, the market traditionally (but not always in practice; see:  Titanic) gives way to non-capitalist Western values, such as “women and children first"… or at least, that’s what was upheld as the standard before both capitalism and Western values in general were denigrated.

Only the Left sees it as immoral, while to them, almost everything else under the sun is merely amoral.

In particular, there is a fuzzy undefined feeling about assigned value, i.e., a local artist’s painting should cost as much as roof on your home; making supply and demand an abstract construct instead of the simple and forthright reality it is.

It is amazing how much the word “free” and all its applications and implications scares some people.

Not only is capitalism not evil, it isn’t even an “ism”. Remember, “capitalism” is a Marxists term. “Capitalism” is what Marxists call what happens naturally when you leave people alone. I call it “freedom”.

When I began teaching this school year in Dallas, I came in expecting the worst from this inner-city district.  I was pleasantly surprised to see capitalism presented in a generally positive manner in the geography and history curricula.  Various problems are not glossed over, and things like environmental damage from pollution are given the expected heavy-handed treatment, but it is made crystal clear that the free market is the only economic system capable of producing the sort of vast wealth, vast availability of consumer goods & high quality of life we enjoy.

I think the right answer is that capitalism is ammoral, which is quite a different thing from being immoral. In fact, I think we can safely say that all economic systems are ammoral. Only human beings can be said to be moral or immoral. Economic systems lack the capacity to create or destroy morality. Only people can do that.

That said, it’s still a valuable question to ask which economic systems are most compatible with human morality. I would not consider slavery to be such a system, for example. So it’s not as if all economic systems are blank slates of moral equivalence. My knee jerk evaluation would be similar to Churchill’s evaluation of democracy: It’s probably the most immoral economic system out there, except for all the others.

I think of capitalism as “transaction management”.  For example, if I need a new roof on my house I call several roofers over to look at it, get bids, question the bidders, check out their references, find the guy I like best, haggle over the price, settle on a deal, get a new roof on the house, pay the roofer. We have negotiated a transaction.

I just don’t see how any government controlled system could improve upon this basic system of relationship.  What agent of the government would care if the new roof on my house was the best that I could get for the amount of money I was willing to spend?  What would that system offer me, and the roofer for that matter, that we could not handle for ourselves?

Would it not be more “immoral” for someone with no stake in the outcome to be the one making the decision?

If capitalism, or to be more precise, freedom is deficient and needs to be replaced, then what would it be replaced with?  The ONLY answer is a system with LESS freedom.

For the record, to a few posters above, I wasn’t stating that capitalism is or isn’t “inherently immoral.” I was curious what Stephen thinks.

He says in his post “Like any system created by fallen men and women, capitalism is capable of being employed to achieve immoral ends. But so is socialism, communism, mercantilism, and so on.”

I’m a bit shocked to hear him say that. As a result, I’m curious what situations or uses he has in mind. I may be wrong, but my impression of Stephen all along has been that he’s a believer in capitalism always being moral, unless its procedural market mechanisms are tampered with. That said, again, I’m curious what immoral uses it can be put to if the mechanisms aren’t tampered with.

I disagree with those who are suggesting capitalism is “amoral.” I don’t want to be the straw-man that thinks the market produces perfect results: imperfect humans are going to create messes, here and there, no matter what.  But capitalism provides incentives for moral behavior.  Those teens that ask “Can I help you?” when you enter The Gap will only say that because their job requires it.  The great capitalists that the media likes to spin as “selfish” acquired wealth by determining how to create value for others.  Businesses that don’t treat employees with dignity lose good employees, and with them, profits.  In no other system are virtues rewarded and vices punished as efficiently as in the free market.

You’ve left out the best defender of Capitalism (and the only defender on *moral* grounds): Ayn Rand:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

“The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.”

“If the good, the virtuous, the morally ideal is suffering and self-sacrifice—then, by that standard, capitalism had to be damned as evil. Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell men to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned. In all human relationships—private or public, spiritual or material, social or political or economic or moral—capitalism requires that men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle of justice.”

A capitalist and a socialist were walking through the park one day and heard the cries of someone drowning in the lake.

The capitalist promptly jumped in to rescue the person.

The socialist stood on the shore and shouted to the drowning person, “Are you useful?”

....
Q: I don’t get it.  Why would the capitalist do that?

A: Typical socialist.  Rather than act, you debate motives.

Mike Smith is just about the only one who even comes close to the truth: capitalism IS freedom.  The principle of individual rights does not cease to exist when a dollar is involved—that is, there is no such thing as “economic” versus “political"” freedom.

So that is the real question here—is freedom moral?  Is the freedom to choose moral?  If you understand that morality, to be morality, must be chosen, then the answer is, hell yes.

(I’m assuming that the readership here is smart enough not to conflate political freedom with mere physical capacity; that’s the distinction made clear by the common libertarian observation that “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.")

There is only one fully consistent and moral defense of capitalism, untainted by the self-defeating pragmatism of the “it lifts all boats” argument (which is not to say that it doesn’t—only that such is not its justification), and that is Ayn Rand’s ”Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”. 

Early on I knew that she was closer to the target than Hayek or Friedman just from the amount of flak she still gets to this day.

Like any system created by fallen men and women, capitalism is capable of being employed to achieve immoral ends.

Well, the anti-moral concept of “fallen” people aside, that’s the rub about freedom that irks conservatives and the Left alike: freedom necessarily means that other individuals will make choices different from yours, including ones you won’t like.

If you don’t like it, too goddamned bad.

"I’m curious: under what conditions or in what situations would the use of capitalism be immoral, in your opinion?”

“Trading in slaves, for example.  Or, assassins for hire.  Trafficing in narcotics.”

Capitalism can only exist in a society in which the laws protect people from the initiation of force and from fraud. This precludes the existence of a slave trade (no one volunteers for slavery; they have to be kidnapped) or assassins for hire (murder is obviously the initiation of force).

As for trafficking in narcotics: why is that immoral? As long as everyone who purchases them is a consenting adult, what objection is there? And where do you draw the line? Marijuana? Alcohol? Tobacco? Caffeine?

“If you advertise your adhesive has been tested to provide so much holding power per square inch, and in fact it doesn’t do so, then this is immoral.”

That would be fraud, which is incompatible with capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system where the initiation of force is prohibited. This is why it is moral.

Capitalism is the only system that requires a rule of law, the protection of property rights, and voluntary trade among individual men. If any of these are missing, there is only, at best, a mixed economy, which is immoral to the extent that capitalism has been compromised. For example, a slave trade can only exist if certain people are denied rights to their own bodies and/or the rule of law is bypassed.

Ayn Rand is the best defender of capitalism as a moral system—there are many free videos and audios at http://www.aynrand.org including one by Ayn Rand speaking at Ford Hall Forum where she discussed “What is Capitalism?”

Arguably, the best defense of capitalism I’ve encountered so far can be found in the writings of Ayn Rand. She does not only defend capitalism on grounds of efficiency or public utility, but recognizes that you cannot defend it without reference to an individualistic morality. Utility will always be outdone by morality; and public utility cannot serve as a moral base for capitalism because capitalism primarily profits the individual - who by his own effort develops his mind and skills and thereby accomplishes great productive feats. It is this vision of human excellence that is so characteristic to capitalism, and which Ayn Rand makes one of the core tenets of her morality. In this, she is closely tied to Aristotle.

From her perspective, man qua rational animal survives by reshaping his environment. Following Francis Bacon’s famours dictum “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”, she recognizes that it is man’s mind that, by a rational process of thought, has to discover the law’s of nature and act in accordance with them, if man wants to live, flourish and achieve his happiness. Capitalism is the social system that allows man to freely pursue the values necessary for his life and well-being—and to do so in peaceful, friendly and voluntary cooperation with other men, to mutual benefit. Capitalism and the pursuit of happiness are intrinsically tied to each other; and that is what makes capitalism so good.

I advise you to go and read about it: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and “Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal” are excellent starting points.

I have no fear of any business leader that comes to mind.  I do fear the acts of populist politicians and their agents in the state who work to expand their own power and to redistribute my earnings to do their own definition of good.  I fear, too, the consensus of the ignorant masses who believe they have right to property and wealth they have done nothing to earn.

In my mind our progressive marginal tax system is already past the bounds of what should be acceptable by a capitalist society.  If my reaction to this seems fervent then it’s only because of the intrusion we already suffer into what should be an even more free market economy/society.

For the best moral defense of capitalism, I’d like to highly recommend the Ayn Rand book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”. 

Rand explains why capitalism is essential to human survival and flourishing, because it is the only system that allows men to freely use their minds to create and trade the products they need to survive.  By leaving men free to pursue their rational self-interest and restricting government to outlawing the *initiation* of force in human affairs, it respects the rights of the creators, and allows men to prosper according to their efforts and ability.

Although America is a mixed economy (rather than a capitalistic state), it is the capitalistic elements that have made this country a beacon and inspiration for the peoples around the world.  My family immigrated to this country because it was literally the “land of opportunity”.  Every time you benefit from a cheaper, faster computer, or a safer, more powerful antibiotic, it is because someone’s rational mind created something of value and he was able to trade for it in the market place with you.  That’s the virtue of capitalism.

Capitalism is by far the most moral system.

What exactly does it mean to have a moral economic system? A code of morality is essentially a set of values that dictates right and wrong.  In order for an economic system to be considered “moral” I would argue that it has to uphold the values considered to be “right.”

So ultimately it has to come down to what values do you consider to be the right ones? The essence of Capitalism is the preservation of individual rights, not subject to the dictates of any ruler, ethnicity, or economic class. If this is your standard of morality, then Capitalism is the only possible moral system.

"He says in his post “Like any system created by fallen men and women, capitalism is capable of being employed to achieve immoral ends. But so is socialism, communism, mercantilism, and so on.”

“I’m curious: under what conditions or in what situations would the use of capitalism be immoral, in your opinion?”

Child labor in the coal mines of 19th-century industrial Great Britain comes to mind.

However, while now banned in the USA, child labor exists today in China, the last great bastion of communism. The USSR used it to industrialize itself as well. The same pattern exists with the use of slavery, which is not based on capitalism. It existed long before the free trade system and its existance depends on other factors. 

Such abuses don’t appear due to the type of economic system, but rather, to the type of industry, as well as the cultural and legal mores of a region. Somehow, I doubt whether changing an economic system alters a populations’ acceptance of abusive labor practices.

You could argue that abusive labor practices are related to the stage of a region’s development. Normally, pre-industrial countries are struggling out of extreme poverty,and ignore western labor standards; especially on a family farm or shop. Poor families would scramble to obtain new jobs opened through industrial development.

So does an early industrial stage of development(and increased jobs) automatically trigger the increased use of child labor? That’s not based on different economic systems, but rather on industrialization.

Does poverty combined with an agricultural-dependent economy,and in addition, influenced by certain cultural beliefs encourage the acceptance of slavery? The same type of arguement could apply

Chris Fountain said:
“...Saved one [kid], lost one and the jury’s out on the third...”

Be of good cheer—you may get the “lost” one back when he or she gives you a grandkid.  It’s amazing how becoming a parent can completely reorient even the most head-in-the-clouds leftie.

People misunderstand what Capitalism is.

Apart from Communism—a historical exception—most civilisations have had trade, tradesmen, contracts, money lending and/or banking, wealth creation, markets, competition and free enterprise to some degree (and our civilisation hardly enjoys complete freedom of enterprise).

Capitalism, as it developed in the early modern era, is defined by the Corporation, the corporate entity which can enter into contracts—and to raise capital—in ways that were previously only allowed to individuals.

Much of what is wrong with ‘Capitalism’—injustices and inequalities—are problems we have inherited from our feudal past, and much of what we love about Capitalism—for example the chance to live free by the one’s effort and ingenuity—are historically not exclusive to Capitalism.

Capitalism: a limited idea, but a good one.

A euro-centric view to leaven the all this freedom puff that I’ve just ploughed through.  Firstly, define the terms, the capitalism we are talking about is presumably archetypal laissez-faire capitalism, as pioneered by Sir Robert Walpole.

Society has some needs that capitalism cannot address, even after the Hayek benefits have been obtained.  Capitalism will not address these issues - in a timely way - because it is a system, not a moral actor.

Amoral behaviour in a morally challenging context is immoral, ergo Capitalism is immoral.  The pharmaceutical industry is a splendid example.

Left to itself, Big Pharma would let poor people die for want of its drugs rather than lower its prices.  This is what Hayek and Rand would counsel (again I presume, because I’ve read neither).  A moral intervention is occasionally required to help Big Pharma to “see sense”, especially when continent-loads of indigent sick people are about to die.  This injection of morality is provided by some other system, Democracy.  Democracy is the moral agent that curbs the occasional amoral, and therefore immoral, excesses of capitalism.

I Rand would have defended the pharma industry’s right to their profits. They invent and produce the drugs. Without them, so many life-saving drugs wouldn’t be around. Since they created it, they have every right to charge any price they deem appropriate. And it doesn’t matter whether other people need those drugs. Their need does not give them the right to enslave those who are able to invent and create the drugs.

If you see it from the economic point of view: Why should anyone expend the money and effort to create new drugs if they are forced to give them away at inappropriately low prices? Besides, prices will be brought down by competition sooner or later.

But still, the main point remains: He who produces a good desired by others has the inalienable right to set the terms of exchange. Everything else would be exploitatin—exploitation and destruction of those who create the values that make our life so much more worthwhile. After all, they have a right to their own life, too.

If you are withholding drugs from ill people because you own them, why not withhold food?

And, if so, why not the genocidal starvation campaigns by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine?

In which case is your form of Capitalism any different from Communism? ...or is the similarity due to another obvious common factor?

"And, if so, why not the genocidal starvation campaigns by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine?

In which case is your form of Capitalism any different from Communism? ...or is the similarity due to another obvious common factor?”

Yes, because, to put it simply : in the capitalist system the people of ukraine would have an option. That option would obviously be to grow their own food, but they would have an option.

Under the communists they did not have such an option. Some people, about 7800 miles away, decided they had to die, and could not be allowed to save themselves.

Capitalism -versus- communism

Both are dealing with the same problem (food shortage) - which is the moral system ?

Note that “just give them food” was NOT an option (there wasn’t any food to give them). So that option is out.

Besides, evolution is a hell of a lot more cruel than the capitalist system (it could, for example, suggest cannibalism as a working solution for the people of ukraine and wouldn’t care -at all- for the moral implications).

They couldn’t grow their own food; they didn’t own the land. They couldn’t keep the food they had stored; they didn’t own the food. The state owned it all.

In that situation, does it really make any difference if the party withholding the product that will save your life is a corporation, an individual or a communist state?

"They couldn’t grow their own food; they didn’t own the land. They couldn’t keep the food they had stored; they didn’t own the food. The state owned it all.

In that situation, does it really make any difference if the party withholding the product that will save your life is a corporation, an individual or a communist state?”

Yes obviously. The state refused to use the land. A corporation would obviously be open to leasing the land for a portion of it’s profits (food would obviously commend a premium in the market there, so the corporations would be inclined to produce more, and they’d find ample workforce trying to help). That’s capitalism.

Yet with the state a single party of “compassionate” socialists decided that anybody growing food would be shot. That’s communism.

So yes, it makes a difference. And while you’re correct that capitalism would, under some circumstances be unable to save everybody, communism would fail to save ANYBODY under much less stress.

Welcome to the real world.

The real problem you’re having is simpler, however : you don’t know how to grow food, nor do you know what is edible and what is not. So, to be frank, for you there would not be any difference (barring serious study and work on your part). But this is your own fault, not capitalism’s fault. That’s also why you want communism : to force others to solve your problems for you.

It’s nobody’s fault that your mother couldn’t be bothered to show you the real world, except your mother’s, and yours obviously for not fixing that error.

Sorry to disappoint you, but even the most die-hard capitalist is not Jesus, but neither is any socialist. We cannot feed an entire country with 6 bread and 7 fish. Instead, capitalists will tell you how to grow your own food, and, by way of investment, give you a bag of grain and a piece of land, in trade for, say 10% of your harvest.

Yet die-hard socialists are stalin’s. They’ll claim to solve your problems ... and then kill you if you give them the chance.

The hard part for you is to realize that this is an inherent property of the ideology. Like population rise, open societies and opportunity are inherent to capitalism. Socialism leads to massive misery, destruction, death and war (when the socialists realize that the only way to maintain any part of the economy is to go and plunder their neighbours, which is why hitler attacked, the same reason hugo chavez would attack any weak neighbor. Fortunately columbia does not exactly appear weak). This is not obvious, you need to understand a bit about economics before this becomes clear. But it’s true nonetheless.

The way to fix your problems is to START FIXING THEM. And to change YOURSELF, not to demand the change of the entire world to suit you. Afraid that you’ll fall without food ? Buy a few plastic boxes, fill them up with dirt, and start growing, well, start easy. Stick some tomatoes in the dirt, see what happens. Look up how it’s supposed to be done on the internet. Etc. Etc.

So you’d expend your fellow man; via a different method, and on behalf of a different philosophy, but still hard-core Libertarianism is not meaningfully different from Communism. Revolutionary, utopian and anti-human, both.

Philosophies, like political policies, should serve Man, not vice versa. A small dash of libertarianism serves man well, but pure libertarianism would enslave us.

That corporation (as in : not me) would give him a chance to live, and it would prosper. Only if that person fucks up would he be “expended”.

You would kill everybody. Either they starve, or they get shot for breaking the law (that says they should starve to death rather than grow food privately).

I agree both of these are NOT ideal. But capitalism is distincly more moral than your idiocy.

So why do you choose communism ? Easy, and you don’t even deny this : because it allows you to steal. You’re a thief, not an ideological communist. It’s really that simple.

You’re not saying anything new, or persuasive.

I would add that I most certainly am not a Communist, nor anything approaching one. The only way you could construe that is if you assumed that everyone who doesn’t believe [insert ideology here] must be a [insert ideology here].

Which is exactly how Communists think, further proof of what I was saying before.