We have a deformed political structure in the United States.
Every other country in the world has a respectably-sized communist and/or socialist party. Oh, they don't name them that anymore, but they are there.
We here in the US have witch-hunted these parties and philosophies off of the map. By doing so we have thrown our country open to the depredations of the oligarchs and the fascisti.
We had better start looking at a balance here folks. We are in the pickle we are in because we gutted the Left side of the political spectrum here in United States and let the political Right run without an organized opposition party to hound its every move.
Now, some of you will start screaming "look at Barack Obama"......Give me a break. He is as middle of the road and business leaning as his forerunner Bill Clinton, who in every other country in the world would have been forced into the conservative party.
So, think about it. Think about the whole government that you want. With checks and balances of political theory and a complete spectrum of thought.
If you just plug in the left side of the equation you will get the nanny state with all the sharp corners rounded off. If you just vote in the conservatives, you will have an economic free for all with you pockets being picked by unfettered business.
Of course, we could just hire George Bush and his buddies and get both.
11 comments:
Interesting thought. I've never understood the communist hunt that went on in this country or shy communism/socialism is so reviled. It's just a different economic policy and, like capitalism, has strong points and weak points.
Hmm, looking really hard for the strong points of communism and socialism. Both have the same philosophy/economic policy: "WE know what is best for you." Also looking very hard at who will be qualified to work on the Obama Civil Works Movement, you know, the building of needed bridges and fixing roads.
For some odd reason, here in America, we have so thoroughly anathematized the left wing of the political spectrum that folks will automatically say that the left has no redeeming qualities.
This is simple nonsense. The left and especially communism says simply that business is not to be trusted. The events of the last year would lend big support to this way of thinking.
PW: I genuinely hope that you continue perusing this blog...but in a sense, your comment brings home my point. The current right-wing/oligarchical administration has been incredibly efficient at blowing away any number of natural rights. I sincerely doubt that BHO will have anything resembling W's impact on individual liberties.
Business must be restrained. They have proven it over and over again. The only force in society capable of restraining business is the government.
That is the core of communism/socialism. We might want to re-examine whether or not it is appropriate.
You must be joking... as if the left didn't cause the problems we are having. I guess when the left wanted to keep pushing for lower income families to own homes that it wasn't bad. No it's just a different thought is all... yeah right. The sad truth is that the Marxists are here and the sheep are following the wolves to the slaughter. Obama is not only left he is far left, there isn't a middle ground there at all. While I will agree the right is almost as bad when it comes to destroying our rights, the left I will contend is far worse. Restore the Constitution! It isn't business that needs to be restrained it is people making stupid choices for themselves. The left and wanna be rights keep flinging fiat money at the business' and expecting them not to take it. I still find it so hard to believe that you have failed miserably in history, thinking that at anytime these so called systems are used they fail just as miserably. That they lead to tyranny. Open your eyes for the Gods sake.
Rogue:
There hasn't been a confirmed Marxist sighting in the US for fifty years. The things that you are ascribing to "Marxism" are more likely the depredations of the business elite and Madison Avenue.
I am talking here about the actual written word and political theory behind Marxism. Not the abominations that it became in Russia and China.
The abuse and repression of those people are a long term historical trend, it has nothing to do with a fairly recent school of political thought. It has much more to do with the cultural precedents set by the Golden Horde in the Mongol Invasions.
Political Marxism says that you cannot trust business. I agree.
I would argue that you cannot trust business once it has partnered up with government. Our problem is not capitalism. Our problem is that our political leadership are in bed with big business and more importantly the banks.
To me the last several months are evidence of that not against it. Government bailing out big banks. It was government that encouraged them getting TO BIG TO FAIL in the first place. Government bailing out their buddies, their campaign doners.
As for the only force capable of keeping business in check being the government. I would agree but in a different sense then you. It is governments job to prevent monopolies. It is the consumer who is responsible for keeping them honest beyond that. Government competition (which is what communism and socialism expouse) simply change the playing field so that government becomes the monopoly. The sub-prime fiasco could not have happened if not for the "something for nothing" types who accepted loans they couldn't afford. A philosophy born from the ideologies of marxism.
Chris:
Interesting view, I'll have to chew on that a bit.
The only issue that I would have is that business has an inherent advantage over citizens due to organizational structure, defined mission, and money. As such, business will always place itself into a position of advantage vis-a-vis the citizenry. The money will always allow them to purchase the government they wish.
Again, business and banks cannot be trusted.
Its interesting that you state that business will always have the ability to BUY the government yet its the businesses we should not trust.
Do you not see the irony of that statement? So in communism and socialism we put all our trust in those who seem easily BOUGHT so that there is no need to buy them?
Seems to me that the solution looks a bit more like 1800 America and a lot less like 1930s russia.
Chris:
In a sense, I can agree with you.
The other side of the coin is that business is set up for profit as its sole and only motive, in nearly every case it will bend its efforts to those ends and use whatever resources it has available to accomplish this mission
While government can be turned to corruption, it is an active turning away from it's mission of protecting the people.
At then end of the day, I believe that persons (read here business) who corrupt legitimate government functionaries will reside on a lower level of hell than the government functionaries who will be corrupted.
Well I would argue that history has shown that government is never the ideal entity we all wish it could be. Something about power corrupting. That is every bit as true as your statement about business being about profit and having the means to achieve it over our desires.
The difference is that business can't lock me in prison and take away my life like government can. And governments formed around communism have taken the lives of their prople every where they have existed in the real world. Millions of their citizens to be exact.
Chris:
I think that your emphasis in communism as despotic and dangerous is somewhat limited in scope. Government is nearly always a dangerous beast. While I freely admit that the Soviet Union, aThe Khmer Rouge, and to a lesser degree China killed a lot of folks, they aren't alone in that effort.
A despotic government kills its own people, and the nature of despotism is that it resides on both ends of the political spectrum. Ottoman Turkey Wiped out the Armenians, Nazi Germany wiped out just about everyone, Fascist Italy took their sahre of folks to the reaper, yet why aren't these regimes noted in your discussion.
Simply put, the percentage of despotic governments at any given time remains somewhat constant. The particular political flavor that fuels these aggressive/dangerous regimes can take any form.
Communism and Socialism have had many gentle and good incarnations. The Scandinavian countries, the French and greeks in the seventies.
So, just maybe, the drive for repression isn't a function of the overarching ideology, but rather, it is a function of the leaders who run the country.
Post a Comment