 |
1917 - 2017
Russian Revolutions |
✮
Extra...!!!
Extra...!!!
America Explained...!!!
Long
and boring with the usual U.S. style sociological mish mush.
Since
1792, the left-right divide has concerned class and the political
economy. The left wanted to abolish capitalism (Socialists) or
substantially regulate it so as to provide living standard
protections and worker co-participation (Social Democrats). The right
practiced race-to-the fittest, free market capitalism (Liberals).
(I'm
not going to go into fascism because that term has been misused and
politicised into hysteria-inducing meaninglessness. Suffice to say
that it provided populist economic measures combined with
authoritarian politics. Lenin didn't see much difference with social
democrats whom he called "social chauvinists").
In
Europe, the word "Liberal" has always retained its original
meaning. In the United States, it came to mean pseudo
social-democracy: catching up with Bismarck's social legislation 50
years after the fact. But U.S. Liberals were never not capitalists.
Whereas social democrats in Europe called for worker-participation in
management and nationalisation of infrastructure, American Liberals
never did. Perhaps the best term for them would be "First
Reformed Liberals" a quasi denominational thing mixing up
feel-good moralism with the pursuit of getting ahead in life.
In
the U.S. economic reform got displaced by the Peculiar Institution of
segregation. Of necessity, reform liberal efforts were displaced onto
what was then called Negro Civil Rights. The vague idea at the time
was that once Blacks got integrated into the system, attention could
then be refocused on improving workers rights for all.
Instead,
black civil rights got copy-catted by feminists, hispanics, gays and
every other imaginable "cognized group" of victims. Whereas
fascists redirected economic class conflict on to issues of
"ethno-nationalism" First Reformed Liberals redirected it
onto issues of "individual-validation". Validating "us"
vs. validating "me." Meanwhile, Orthodox Liberals (the
Neanderthals of the Market) covered their nakedness with a lot of
religiosity and moralizing. (Big Money actually funded Protestant
Fundamentalism in the 19th cent).
But
behind these idiotic culture and identity wars, the fact of economic
class remained. The Democrat Party of LBJ drove a wedge between the
working class (who were sent to Vietnam) and the college deferred
middle class (who were draft deferred so they could protest the war,
start communes before going on to make money in the usual way). The
Democratic Party under Carter-Clinton-Pelosi et al. gave up on the
working class altogether shifting focus onto all the "identity
issues" of which the Guardian and its contributors are so fond.
Fact
is, the Generation of 68, sold out its own children which is why
millennials are now in the position of the once working class. The
DNC and Clintoncrats are in the upper 10%-15%. They are not oppressed
by debt. They all have mortgages and retirement accounts. They have
the luxury of being free to emote over their "identity"
issues which they preach about with hauteur and endless virtue
signalling. There is no bridging this "tribalism" as the
article insipidly calls it. Either one class is taken down or the
other will remain oppressed.
Falanx
Post
published in The Guardian
Thursday
26 October 2017
✮
Zu den Waffen selbst...!!!
¡Reciprocidad! ¡Repatriación! ¡Revolución!
¡Caciques al GULAG!
Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt euch!
