A vote for Romney is a vote for radical socialism

[snousle]

I know a lot of you don't care for Sullivan, but he has written a really excellent essay that summarizes exactly what I think about inequality in the US:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/extreme-inequality-threatens-americas-portfolio.html

The Rauch link is also very worth reading in full. I realize that I'm not nearly as lefty as many of you reading this, and less right wing than a few, but his middle of the road approach strikes me as being pretty much on the mark.

There has been a whole lot of tongue flapping about "socialism", and the Republicans have defined it down to the point of meaningless. But there is such a thing as real socialism, and it involves the state appropriating private property - such as corporations - and directly controlling the means of production. And this would be a real disaster. Ironically, the chronic abuse of the term leaves us with no way to actually discuss this scenario, which is a shame, because it's not outside the realm of possibility.

I'm not much of a history student, but it seems to me that actual socialism is rarely (never?) the product of creeping liberalism. It has been, instead, a perfectly understandable reaction to runaway capitalism and the injustices it generates. At a certain point, the rich assume complete dominance over everyone else, the lives of the poor become completely intolerable, and the only reasonable response is to destroy the system that allowed that to happen. At such times, revolution becomes the only escape from an untenable and unsustainable situation. As a number of people have pointed out, "Marx was wrong about communism, but he was right about capitalism."

The candidate that would bring us closer this unhappy occasion is not Obama, it's Romney. If you care about the future of freedom in the US, the issue of inequality MUST be addressed. Because if its not resolved gracefully, it will be resolved violently, and it will be ugly.

Comments

[danthered.livejournal.com]

a lot of you don't care for Sullivan

There are very sound reasons for that.

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

So true. Places that have gone communist in the past were always places with extreme exploitation by the ruling class. Places that were capitalist (or whatever) but had some equity in the system and all or most of the people could benefit from it saw no need for an extreme solution.
Take Saskatchewan under the NDP for example. A capitalist province in a capitalist country but one that had a few socialist policies that were good. There was no need for class wars or revolutions. The system didn't serve only a few.
Also look at some European countries for more examples.

I think what the thing in the States is about is that people have been presented a scenario where they have to pick a side. They aren't allowed a middle ground as an option. For years Canada voted for the Liberal party which touted itself to be centrist.

Maybe the less right types in the Republican party and some of the less left ones in the Democratic party could leave and form an official centrist party.
(This is assuming that anyone could call the Democratic party "Leftist". To most of the world they'd be right wing. But I digress...)

[snousle.livejournal.com]

I am not very inclined to judge an essay by its author. If Hitler wrote an insightful article about cute, fuzzy kittens, I'd probably link to that, too.

[danthered.livejournal.com]

It doesn't rise for me to the level of judging the essay. I don't care to read it for the same reason I'm not interested in what Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Eugene Delgaudio or Orly Taitz or a whole bunch of other craven whores have to say.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

WRT the labelling of left right socialist etc etc - the actual issue is whether power is distributed, or concentrated in the hands of a few. Which ideology (brand name) you apply is somewhat random since they get redefined at every opportunity anyway.

I believe there are some social structures that permit/encourage the concentration of power, such as Chinese and Russian, and it doesn't matter what colour tie the oligarchs are wearing there is a tendency to allow the consolidation of power by individuals.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think there is some truth to that. The USSR in particular might have been more characteristically Russian than characteristically Communist. However, ideology arguably matters more in the US because it is not so inherently egalitarian OR oligarchic, but more malleable and influenced by the style of government than other countries. It certainly helps to be a relatively "new" country without so many entrenched habits to deal with.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Yeah. There isn't really any one culture you could point to as American.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Our culture of optimism is fairly distinctively our own and it's an important factor in our resistance to redistribution of wealth. We consistently assess our prospects as rosier than they really are. Every year since 1977 Gallup has asked Americans if they will be better off financially a year on and every time--regardless of the state of the economy--more people answer "yes" than "no". About a third of us believe we will get "rich" in our lifetimes (however we define that) and among young adults the percentage is over half. And this isn't a new thing. Europeans were remarking about American optimism and belief in self-reliance from before we became a nation.

[jawnbc]

Hiya Clark! :)

I would classify the battle with physicians to bring in medicare in SK as class warfare. It was a relatively short, brutal war, however. Although by the mid 19th century most of the US and Canada was significantly democratic, with indigenous peoples' lives being the major exception.

Liberal meritocracy is a utopia. Structural mechanisms are needed to check the human failings of those who would rule, be it in Parliament or on Bay Street.

[come-to-think.livejournal.com]

Bertrand Russell once said he thought it not unlikely that if Russia were capitalist & America communist, he would still favor America.

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

I remember Sullivan from decades ago when he wrote for more liberal rags. I like reading him then. When he turned right he came off as an ass. This article is fairly right on, although his veneration of Reagan is a bit much. I think your comments are right on as well.

Inequality is what drove much of Asia and Russia to communism and Western Europe to a socialism that is too controlling. I had always thought that the US was immune to those two and only feared the far right's fascism. While I have some concern about medicare and social security, the rising inequity in the US, if not addressed, could lead us to more violent demonstrations and responses from the government, creating a vicious cycle.