Give me some context!

I really wish people would stop quoting other people, especially historical figures, without providing some context to what they are saying.  Today, I happened on a quote that is being used all over the internet, and consistently without any context, as if the context is self-evident.  The quote is from Lenin: “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstone of taxation and inflation.”  On first reading, it does appear that the context is, in fact, self-evident.  But in actuality, we can’t tell, just from this quote, what exactly Lenin’s mindset was at the time.  We don’t know whether he believed that himself or if he was saying that to soothe the proletariat masses.  Not being a history expert, I actually don’t know why he said that, and I don’t claim to know.  I will say this, though: it seems to me as if there are much easier and quicker ways to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor than hyperinflation, especially given that inflation generally hurts the rich much less than it hurts the poor.  So, just take the rich folks' property, and lock them up if they cause a fuss.  After all, Lenin also said: “We do not have time to play at ‘oppositions’ at ‘conferences.’ We will keep our political opponents… whether open or disguised as ‘nonparty,’ in prison.”

Just so everyone knows I am neither a conservative nor a liberal.  Ideology wise, I’m probably closest to Libertarian, but I really dislike labels like that, and I don’t necessarily think that Libertarians have it all right either.  I think the government has way too much control over our lives, and I’m all for lower taxes for everyone.  There are times and circumstances, though, when I have to leave my ideology behind and consider the best course under the current conditions.  Consequently, there may be times that I say one thing because that is my ideology, and then later I may say something because that is what I see as the best action given the current conditions.  It doesn’t mean I’m contradicting myself, and yet if the comments are taken out of context, it may seem that way.  Here’s an example:

I am against having a minimum wage.  I really believe that the only thing a minimum wage law does is make low paying jobs illegal, thus decreasing the number of jobs available.  It doesn’t allow workers the ability to compete for jobs in any way other than by answering ridiculous questions like “What’s your greatest weakness?”  If a job doesn’t pay enough, then nobody will apply for that job.  That’s capitalism at work.

But, capitalism is actually dependent on people’s concern for the well-being of others, at least in my opinion, otherwise it becomes dysfunctional, kind of like it is today.  So, a while back, I wrote a post that said that Wal-Mart should pay its employees more, and in that post demonstrated that Wal-Mart’s shareholders would be no worse off, that shoppers would really be no worse off, and that as a whole, financially, society would be better off.  If a company like Wal-Mart fails to act on that kind of evidence, then yes, as much as I hate to say it, I think the government needs to step in and raise the minimum wage.  In other words, if the company won’t do the right thing, then the government should force them to.

The point is, at one time I might say that there should be no minimum wage, and other times I might say it needs to be raised.  I’m actually not contradicting myself, and the context in which the statement is made is the only thing that gives the statement meaning at all.