The Right continues to taut the 'Socialism' of millionaires
like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. These politicians advocate a form of
social democracy which actually falls within Centrist orbits in the rest of the
world. They are advocates of the market and finance capital. What they're
arguing for is that the state as an organising principle should pool some of
society's excess profits and redistribute them to the poorest elements of
society.
That's socialism some would argue. It's redistribution. Note,
they're only advocating a skimming off of profits
through the form of taxation and using some
of the moneys for social programmes. Not for a moment are they advocating the
state seizure of the means of production and the liquidation, redistribution or
nationalisation of the banks, utility companies and the like... which is what
actual socialists advocate.
What they're really suggesting is a form of patronage which
is in principle opposed to socialism as it retains the classes and even the
radical class distinctions. The rich don't have to give up anything
substantial. They're only making a sacrifice in terms of a portion of their
profits and these 'handouts' are not going to bring the poor into the middle
class. Rather, they're merely going to enable them to survive.
And of course actual socialism rejects the idea of 'handouts'
but instead argues on the basis of a different theory of labour and value and
thus the 'handouts' are actually justly earned remunerations. Neither Sanders,
Warren or Ocasio-Cortez argue along these lines. These are all people
advocating market based positions that fall well within the capitalist orbit.
It's unspoken but I sincerely believe there's an
understanding that if the poor are brought too low, then civil unrest and
revolution will follow. Though some seem to think such things won't happen
here, those who have even a basic familiarity with history will know better.
These patronage/redistribution schemes are more stop gaps
rather than any sort of principled execution of principles or ideology. Sanders
is notorious for waxing vague or falling silent when pressed for details. Is he
being surreptitious? I think not. I think he's running a campaign and once in
office would cut a compromise deal that would amount to little more than some
bread crumbs... patronage on the part of the rich. He has no plan. He has no
real principles. He has a sense of injustice and makes popular appeals but
since he's unwilling to mount an existential challenge to the system, he has
nothing to actually offer.
There's no serious challenge of the Wall Street order nor the
military-imperialist order wedded to it. Sanders and Warren don't actually
stand for anything. If they do stand for something it is ironically... the
Establishment. In the end all they're doing is to make sure the Left sticks
with the increasingly Right-wing Democratic Party. That's no revolution and
it's certainly not socialism.
Warren retains a great deal of her wealth in the form of
bonds and mutual funds. So in other words she's profiting from the fees and taxes
being paid by the public to support infrastructure. Additionally as a holder of
mutual funds she's invested in the full Wall Street spectrum, from resource and
utility companies to the military industrial complex. She's a millionaire and
in terms of her Leftist credentials and claims... she's exposed as a complete
and utter fraud.
These people are members of the 1% and while they pander to
the masses as they campaign, their own rhetoric and lifestyle choices indicate
they are unprincipled and certainly willing to compromise. If they were willing
to 'give up' their wealth, assets and lifestyles they would have already done
so in principle. The idea that an ultra-Leftist (as she's portrayed) would own
a $3 million dollar home and be worth more than $10 million dollars is
ridiculous.
The American political spectrum has shifted so far to the
Right that wealthy pro-Capitalist, pro-militarists who do little more than
argue that some largesse should be shared with poor are cast as ultra-Left
socialists, the close cousins of Marx and Lenin and are identified with the
crimes of Mao and Stalin.
What's sadder? The fact that people on the American Left
believe this is socialism? They're being duped. Or perhaps the fact that
Right-wing leaders, teachers and ministries are so dumb and ignorant of history
and politics that they think this is socialism? Or is the real shame that they
know better and yet they're willing to tell bald-faced lies in order to score
political points and manipulate their ignorant audiences?
The continued equation of Sanders and Warren with Socialism
is to put it simply, a travesty.
The term's usage has reached a point of absurdity. It's
become almost a catch-all for anything in opposition to the Right. Recently our
'Christian' Right-wing congressman responded in the newspaper to the Trump
impeachment inquiry. He referred to the move by Pelosi as a 'socialist tactic'.
What in the world does the Trump impeachment have to do with
socialism or socialist tactics? Nothing. It's just become a form of invective
and such confusion is percolating and permutating throughout society and it has
entered into the Church with little resistance. Once again, so much for
Christian 'worldview' as the Church seems to be very fertile ground for the
most juvenile and obsequious forms of propaganda and manipulation. And the
'worldview' teachers are often the very people promoting the lies. I don't know
about you but lying isn't in accord with a Christian 'worldview'.
This is judgment. What will it take to wake people up?
Elizabeth Warren is not a socialist. In fact socialism isn't
even a part of the American political spectrum. Once that's finally
acknowledged maybe a real discussion can begin.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.