For those who believe "property is theft," success as exhibited by SpaceX's catching of a huge booster or South Korea's prosperity compared to the north is prima facie proof of guilt. How could anything be so successful without diabolism? By contrast, destitution and dysfunction are irrefutable signs of virtue because failure is -- to some people's way of thinking -- caused by victimhood. Recently North Korea blew up some of the few roads it had in rage at the unfairness of it all. Self-multilation enhances the virtue effect because the previously pitiable become even more so.
There is a theory is that people, states and institutions are unsuccessful because failure is imposed on them. Hamas, for example, justifiably committed ordinarily unspeakable atrocities on Oct 7, 2023 because they were driven mad by decades of settler colonialism. Criminals are flooding into the US from all over the world because America has made the rest of the world unlivable. "It's your fault for being richer than Venezuela." Not theirs. Victims are never at fault.
Since every economic achievement is rooted in greed and crime, achievement must be regulated. British Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle wrote that "to my mind, the notion that billionaires should not exist is rather commonplace, and I am confident it’s an idea shared by the majority of the population." The notion is indeed shared by prominent American politicians. Bernie Sanders proposed that billionaires be taxed out of existence during the Democratic primary debates.
Because the pie is only so big North Korea -- and in a larger sense Hamas -- must be poor because their opposite numbers have left them with so little. That means extreme wealth is evil. A Guardian columnist thinks this should be self evident: "The fact that we are even having this debate is a depressing indication of the extent to which extreme inequality has been normalised. Of course billionaires shouldn’t exist. This shouldn’t be a remotely controversial thing to say; it shouldn’t even be considered a leftwing thing to say." The evil of material success is not worth debating.
If we want to abolish failure one must perforce abolish success. Then society will move into the sunlit uplands more slowly, but surely at the speed of the slowest ship, a convoy commanded by the right thinking. Success only makes future unfairness inevitable. SpaceX's technical achievements are unleashing inequity on a cosmic scale. JD Vance openly proclaims, "I believe the destiny of this country is to conquer the stars. Whatever your views of Elon's politics, this is something that should inspire all of us." Can Vance hear how evil that sounds? Destiny. Conquer. Could the danger be clearer? SpaceX is extending settler colonialism to the universe, exporting "surfacism" to the new "sacrifice zone."
Space colonization has been discussed as postcolonial continuation of imperialism and colonialism, calling for decolonization instead of colonization. Critics argue that the present politico-legal regimes and their philosophic grounding, advantage imperialist development of space, that key decisionmakers in space colonization are often wealthy elites affiliated with private corporations, and that space colonization would primarily appeal to their peers rather than ordinary citizens. Furthermore, it is argued that there is a need for inclusiveand democratic participation and implementation of any space exploration, infrastructure or habitation.
Unless the American billionaires are stopped the US will seize or claim the inner solar system before North Korea or Africa even put a man into orbit. Something must be done or success will unleash poverty -- or so the argument goes. But then the question arises: why then do new industries arise without the intervention of government? Why doesn't old wealth dominate forever even with the help of government? Could success be due to something other than ripping the poor off?
The evidence that economics is more than just about dividing pies is overwhelming. It is also about finding better ways to make bigger pies. In the 1950s, after political partition, North Korea was considerably richer than South Korea. Today per capita income in South Korea is 30 times greater than in North Korea. But South Korea didn't victimize North Korea. They're not even connected, and if they were the connecting roads are now blown. During the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, Israel was far from dominant. In fact it was ludicrously outmatched by the Arabs in manpower, weaponry and in Western trained regular units. Where did Israel's present superiority come from despite the fact that the Arabs had oil?
The change in the composition in the Fortune 500 between 1994 and 2022 is even more intriguing. In 1994 General Motors topped the Fortune list. Today it is not even in the top 20. Amazon, Apple and Google are currently much bigger than General Motors. Did they victimize General Motors? But perhaps the most dramatic challenge to the pie theory of economics is the saga of SpaceX versus Boeing.
This is a test of evolutionary fitness.
Boeing epitomises the end of the late industrial era. It is burdened by bureaucracy; it relies on regulatory and political capture; and it has taken management theories like outsourcing past the extreme to the absurd. The firm has dispersed R&D and manufacturing across a global network of suppliers – a strategy that yielded quality issues and, at times, had fatal consequences.
In contrast, SpaceX embodies the vertically integrated model of the Exponential Age, with in-house production that delivers rapid innovation and dramatic cost reductions in space launches.
Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has brought down the cost of space launches into low Earth orbit by 90%. Ten years ago, Boeing received a $4.2 billion contract from NASA to develop crewed launch vehicles with zero success. The same year, SpaceX got a $2.6 billion contract and has completed nine crewed launches so far. The tenth will be the rescue of the astronauts stranded by Boeing.
Boeing should have been poised to conquer the stars. It had the advantage of size, government support and even tradition. "Instead SpaceX will do 80% of all mass to orbit this year. China will do 12%. The rest of the world will do 8%. That includes Boeing, Lockheed, and everyone else." Perhaps the Left have got it wrong. Maybe success is principally the result of getting things right and failure the outcome of getting things wrong. That's why the Fortune list keeps changing, because some get it righter than others. Perhaps victimhood is not so much due to what other people have done to others, but what one has failed to do or failed to learn.
Communism has been trying to succeed through failure since 1848. No luck so far. Perhaps they'll succeed someday but not anytime soon.
