Why left-wing zealots like Mélenchon can cause more inequality
Mr Mélenchon, the far-left politician attracting crowds of ignorant young students in France, has praised the economic systems in Latin America frequently on many TV and radio programs. I personally have no idea what has made Mélenchon a fan of Cuba; in any far-left politician’s mind, Cuba is a good sample of “equality”; of course, Cuba is a country where people are equally poor. Perhaps in Mélenchon’s opinion, in order to please young voters who want more economic equality, it’s better to make France a country of equal poverty.
All left-wing zealots such as Mélenchon, including the previous political star among young people Jeremy Corbyn, have similar theories for making society more equal. That is: let’s rob the wealthy of the rich and distribute it to the poor; all politicians and entrepreneurs have got their successes by plunging the public; therefore if I become the president or the prime minister, I will raise the rate of tax for rich people to 70% (or even higher).
Young people are relatively ignorant about economics and sociology, even though many of them are studying these subjects in universities, therefore, they are easily attracted to politicians like Corbyn and Mélenchon. This populist manifesto is also attractive to those who don’t want to work but still want more social welfare. From a psychological perspective, the ideas of Mélenchon and Corbyn are attractive because they are pleasing very fundamental humanity: human beings tend to blame others’ successes for their own failures or unhappiness; people do not care about whether themselves are poor, but they do hate people who are richer than them.
Are we suffering from a widening wealth gap? Honestly speaking, yes (I will write another article specifically on this topic in the future). But history and economics have told us: those who robbed the rich to redistribute wealth all left their countries with bigger wealth gaps and deteriorated economic situations.
A very typical example should be Argentine. It used to be a country much more wealthy than Japan in the 1950s. But when the wealth gap started enlarging, president Perón practised what Mélenchon and Corbyn are advocating now. Soon the inflation in Argentine started being out of control, and to transfer domestic conflicts, the Galtieri got into a war with the UK and thoroughly defeated, which consequently deteriorated the economic situation in the country. Since the 1990s, most of the time, Argentine has suffered the largest wealth gap in the world.
Cuba is another good example. And the communists there did more extreme things. But people like Mélenchon insist Cuba’s poverty was a crime done by the US and the West. The communists confiscated all private fortune in Cuba after the revolution, including the properties owned by American businesses — Why shouldn’t a country arbitrarily robbing others’ money get punished?
We can find many other examples to show the agonies caused by the left-wing zealots. Economists have proposed many highly theoretical models to explain why these left-wing fanatics finally drove their countries in the opposite direction of their dreams. As a matter of fact, these theoretical explanations are superfluous and unnecessary. Even from common sense, we can notice two logical dilemmas of any far-left economic ideals:
First, if the government robs the rich, then will there be any more investment in the country? Zealots like Mélenchon are telling you: let the government invest! The next question is: will the government be as agile and sensitive to diversified demands as the private sector? Following this, we can ask a further question: if private businesses are suppressed by taxing them 70% or even 80%, will they have more motivation and ability to expand their investments and provide more employment?
The other fallacy of “robbing the rich” is the exodus of the rich. Don’t forget, we are living in a world different from the one in the 1930s; it is even distinctively different from the one in 1990. Businessmen can conveniently move their businesses from one country to another. If one government starts robbing the rich, the rich will move their core personnel and investments to another country, and the outcome will be increasing unemployment and decreasing economic activity in this country. This is the reason why Mélenchon-lookalike governments all led their countries to astronomically high inflation.
Second, Corbyn and Mélenchon all believe that the government can rob the rich to give people more social welfare. But from the first point, we have seen that robbing the rich will lead to a general decline of social capital, then the social welfare will be paid by the tax paid by the people, including the working class; as the inflation increases, people are generally paying more for worse social cares. The whole society, therefore, is getting into poverty, instead of prosperity. Under this condition, the elites are still able to get the best welfare from expensive, private services. The inequality of welfare in this country is practically enhanced.
These lessons have been taught by history frequently in the past 100 years. However, zealots such as Mélenchon and Corbyn are still attractive to the public; because hatred against successful people is always a part of humanity. A very dangerous trend is that young voters are skewing toward them. If young generations are brainwashed by all kinds of political correctness and extreme moralities, they will finally elect a left-wing fanatic to ruin their country, as the young people in Iran did in 1980.