Greywolf
47 wolfpack Militia
————–
Maybe a little … too seriously. I’m only sayin’.

On the other hand, since the economic downturn, so many people are angry. The report released by the SPLC merely confirms that many americans feel alienated and have lost faith in their government. This lack of faith and the breakdown of infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc,) is troubling. The american society of civil engineers gave US infrastructure a D. While paranoia should be avoided, we as Americans can’t help but feel that something is seriously wrong with this country, even if we can’t put our finger on it.

I certainly hope there isn’t a power crisis within the US government in the near future, because radical groups like these would quickly and effectively fill the vacuum.

I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU!

we’re agreed on the basic materialist analysis for fundamental socio-political change, i.e. mass poverty. though this is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for such change, as Trotsky observed. “We have paid far too dearly for this conclusion — with regard to the role and importance of a party in a proletarian revolution — to renounce it so lightly or even to minimize its significance.” See his “Lessons of October.” (hence, my previous question to you on the subject; no need to belabor it further.)

while we agree on much, i would quibble with any loose usage of the word “socialism.” it’s a political mistake to invite abuse of this term by the American Right. those regulatory agencies you referred to ought properly to be called “regulatory agencies,” particularly since Congress has the authority, under Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. nor is there anything socialistic about commercial regulation; King Hammurabi of Babylon was regulating commerce in the 18th century B.C. in his legal code.

your comment re. the military-industrial complex reminds me of Senator Vandenburg’s comment to President Truman when he proposed a drastic increase in the budget of the air force in the late 1940′s, “you’ll have to scare the hell out of the American people.”

It could be argued that without the party the voice would have been unheard, but I tend to think that incorporating workers’ issues into the political debate would have occurred one way or the other.

Other interesting points you raise: newspapers and the “free press” were by and large partisan in their origins, and always have been. I do not believe in objective journalism, as a rule. Perspective can only be obtained through critical thinking about diverse views.

As for the military industrial complex, this is an extremely interesting subject. I look to WWI as the defining event for the rise of a rush on resources around the world (coal, oil, iron and steel), and at the same time the rise of political influence of the industrial complex, since it became apparent after WWI that industry profited from both sides of the war and that to win a war required massive industrialization and access to resources. So, what better way to ensure a military-industrial complex than to create a false enemy vis-a-vis “socialism”.

Though you are absolutely correct in the strict definition of socialism as nationalized means of production, when I refer to socialism it is in less confining terms. By having OSHA, FDA, FCC, etc, we created federal superstructures over the means of production, and I consider that socialism. Similarly, unions, while existing in the capitalist system, are inherently socialist as they seek to project the influence of workers even though this does not imply ownership of the means of production.

Socialism continues to evolve and our paranoia about the topic in the United States does not serve the best interests of our country. The more or less keynesian “third way” I think you are referring to is one such example, but I also see promise in the solidarity economy (cooperatives) as a viable socialist model that can be incorporated within the existing production structures.

Socialism does not presuppose destroying everything in order to rebuild.

your comments on propaganda strategies are well taken. it appears that propaganda is an integral part of mass politics. it’s definitely this way today, and probably has been for centuries since, let us say for the sake of convenience, the development of the Whig and Tory parties in England in the 1680′s. Consider, for example, the Federalist papers in this country, which were all published in newspapers as part of the a propaganda campaign to convince the public to support ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

i don’t mean to put words in your mouth here. is it your view that the development in this country of the Populist Party in the 1890′s followed by the Socialist Party under Eugene Debs then the Progressive Party, created a sort of pressure on the two-party system that shifted the national political debate leftward? Theodore Roosevelt’s domestic policies as a Republican president followed by a run for the presidency on the Progressive ticket in 1912, still astonishes, notwithstanding his imperialistic foreign policy.

i ask because, in light of the dictionary’s definition of the term “socialism,” the progressive legislation that characterized the late 19th century and early 20th century, beginning with, e.g., the Interstate Commerce Act of 1886, clearly does not qualify as socialism, i.e. the nationalization of the means of production. the same is true of the federal legislation that to some extent was inspired by that from this earlier period, such as the New Deal legislation and the Great Society legislation.

as for the military-industrial-congressional complex, it amounts to a military Keynesianism (i suppose the proper label is “state capitalism”) that both parties by and large support.

i’d be interested in any views you may entertain about the Democratic Socialist Party in this country.

Clearly socialism was perceived as enough of a threat to those in power for the past hundred years that it was felt a dedicated effort to persecute, jail, and execute socialists was in order.

My point is that Americans have been institutionally misinformed about socialism for the express intent of easing resistance to the heavy spending in the military-industrial complex via taxation. It is a point of curious historical fact that CIA in the early 1970s no longer considered the U.S.S.R much of a threat to the U.S., even though their assessment was kept from the American people for decades. Why?

Whereas the average American has a series of assumptions and value judgements about socialism that are decidedly negative, people raised pretty much anywhere else in the world do not have the same kneejerk reaction — whether or not they are socialists.

We’ve seen the same phenomenon over the past 30 years with a dedicated effort by those on the right wing to turn the word “liberal” into a sneer. The reason being is that it is difficult to put aside critical thinking when looking at facts and reason, but not when you are able to enshroud a group in a perjorative label that requires nothing more complex than hate to perpetuate itself.

In fact, Karl Marx was greatly influential around the world, and our own country began to embrace socialism at the same time as it became clear that capitalism would lead to the formation of oppressive monopolies that were themselves at cross purposes with democracy.

Were it not for socialism, we would still be working in the mines in fourteen hour shifts, paying for our tools, lamps, and blasting powder through deductions in our wages that would prevent any individual from gathering the means to quit their job, even though that “right” is sanctified and kept absolute in theory.

The progressive policies advanced under the New Deal have been repeatedly and aggressively beaten back and reduced, even though in virtually every other industrialized nation this has not been the case. Some institutions still survive, such as OSHA, the FCC, FDA, and EPA, as well as TANF and food stamps, medicare and medicaid, affirmative action, etc, but our federal support for these programs is comparatively less than our industrialized counterparts.

The most typical argument — or might I say, stereotypical — against socialism is that it is “impractical”. This is an easy stance to argue, because impracticality means very little of itself. Impractical to whom?

Obviously the boom and bust cycle of capitalism is inherently impractical as well.

Furthermore there is nothing inherent to socialism that would contradict personal property rights. The property in question — means of production — is held by the demographic few who benefit exponentially by the profits taken from the demographic majority through a system of wage labor that by its very nature seeks to pay the smallest possible wage to ensure the highest profit. The conflict inherent in this system arises when the wages are too small to support consumption, and industry retracts, leading to economic crisis.

the sociological explanation you offered for the militia movement makes sense. perhaps, it represents an identity movement of white men in response to both the civil rights movement and the feminst movement. it would be natural given the militaristic leaning in American culture for such a movement to adopt the martial spirit.

beholder,

another onfolding example of bipartisan corruption is the conviction of Bradley Birkenfeld, which promises to engage the attention of the press for some time to come. UBS, in the figure of Michael Wolf, has a connection into the presidency, and former Senator Phil Gramm sits on the UBS board of directors apparently. in addition, legislators of the U.S. government opened overseas accounts with UBS, according to Birkenfeld. so, naturally in our system of governance, the Department of Justice prosecuted him, probably for the purpose of discouraging other whistle blowers from reporting more details. the element of socio-economic class in the story provides obvious background.

now for the thorny question of change. as a practical matter, how realistic is it to expect fundamental change in the structure of the economic system in the U.S. without, at the very least, a strong socialist or social-democratic party? were such a party in power, it could affect such change constitutionally. at the very least, it would shift the debate substantially to the left; hence, the presidential campaigns of Eugene Debs early in the twentieth century.

even in his strongest showing Debs received no more than five percent of the popular vote. to build such a party in this country would take decades, assuming it’s possible. it seems we are stuck choosing the lesser of two evils for the moment.

Adam Smith’s perspective is that of a Scott before our independence and so therefore bares little or no legitmacy as a supposed observation of the US.

John Lloyd Scharf on April 16th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

That’s an interesting way to describe two peas in a pod. Tell me, do you often generalize?

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations

As long as the state represents only the interests of a handful of individuals who have property (large corporations), it can never truly be said that America is a land of freedom, and the servitude of the American citizen in a system of wage labor – performing the most work for the least wage – will continue.

If the people, who by definition in a capitalist society are in the demographic majority but economic minority, do not control the economy through their vote for their own interests – and not the interests of those who own the means of production — the supposed democratic structure of the “free market” system is revealed as an economic dictatorship.

If the profits cannot be yanked out of the wages of the worker directly in the “free market”, they will be yanked out of their wages through taxes that go to fund the corporations or at least protect their status as de facto plutocrats.

I have been well aware that we basically only get to vote for one representative of capatalist corporations or another. Those individuals who are taking up arms in the name of jesus, (Michigan christian militia et al) all seem to be frightened and confused as a result of what is happening in our country and around the world re: the sorry state of the econemy, terrorism and other changes that seem to be very upsetting to them. A womans right to choose and gay marriage just to mention a couple.

The militia folks as a result of their fear and confusion do not in my opinion know how to respond other than to take their hatred out on “the govment” that allows these terrible sins to happen. They would like very much to go back in time when life was much more simple.

Its very interesting that you say, “The essential structure of the exploitive system is never dismantled, because the influence of the corporations over politics is greater than the influence of the workers on their legislative representatives almost without exception”.Thirty minutes ago I just heard an MSNBC commentator state, Obama received almost a million dollars from Goldman Sachs. The beat goes on

Let’s talk about this idea of the supposed freedom we have to vote and determine our destiny.

The late Leo Huberman, one of the most prominent American socialist thinkers, pointed out that the American people have a choice of voting for Republican X or Democrat Y, but this is merely the freedom to choose between which representative of the capitalist class will make laws in Congress to serve the interests of the capitalist class.

It’s a valid point.

The proof of this is the approval by both Democrats and Republicans of the law allowing direct contributions by large corporations to political campaigns, over the overwhelming opposition of the American people to this law (both Democrats and Republicans), as demonstrated by public polls.

Another perfect example of this is how the Republican party – and presumably its constituents – continue to support the banks when nearly unanimously, these banks have lent their own support to the Obama administration. The banks will support whoever is in power, because they know that when they give support they will receive support, and this is essentially the problem of capitalism and the corruption of our political system.

Yet another example is the recent health care reform law whose primary beneficiaries will be the large insurance corporations, just as it was the large insurance corporations who were the predominate financial contributors to the campaign to remove the public option (a massively funded national advertising campaign aimed at scaring the people).

These reforms inevitably maintain the existing property structures and reinforce the status of the owners of the means of production in spite of whatever palliative is granted to the people. In other words, the owners of the means of production will give up only the smallest concession necessary to preserve the continuation of their predominance economically and politically in our country.

The essential structure of the exploitive system is never dismantled, because the influence of the corporations over politics is greater than the influence of the workers on their legislative representatives almost without exception. If a candidate does arise who will truly represent the worker, he will be marginalized and not receive the funding of the major corporations, and will inevitably be excluded from the cronyism that runs Washington.

the details are rather vague as usual for daily news. nevertheless, the article is worthy of a peek.

Isn’t Stormfront a Neo-Nazi umbrella organization?

JAY

Aren’t you a member of Stormfront? I’m pretty sure I’ve read about you before, and I think it was in a news article about Stormfronters. If you are indeed a member of Stormfront, you are in no position to be accusing anyone else of being “hate mongers”.

what i did say about the Republican party is that, with Goldwater’s presidential campaign of 1964, they began to exploit the Wallace supporters for political advantage. as we know, this crowd of southern Democrats opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act. candidate Goldwater saw an opportunity to turn southern Democrats, e.g Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, into supporters of his Republican campaign for the presidency. this appears to have resulted from a concern over political expediency.

Thurmond defected from the Democrats and joined the GOP that very year, because Goldwater promised that he would oppose federal promotion of civil rights for African-Americans. This was his famous southern strategy, which has been used by the GOP since then. 1964 was the first time in decades that the southern states cast their electoral votes for the Republican candidate for the presidency. More recently, in the administration of George W. Bush, another southern Republican, the civil rights division of the Department of Justice prosecuted remarkably fewer civil rights cases.

the presidential election of 1964 marked the beginning of a long term trend in the gradual transformation of the two major political parties in this country, a tranformation that is most conspicuous in the south, which had voted solidly Democratic and now votes solidly Republican.

several scholarly works have been written on the transformation of the Republican party since 1964 into one dominated by southerners, e.g. The Rise of the Southern Republicans by Earl Black; and The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter is particularly interesting because he was writing in the mid-1960′s. For more information on candidate Nixon’s southern strategy during his presidential run in 1968, in which southerners Strom Thurmond and Spiro Agnew played a significant role, i suggest the book Nixon Agonistes by Gary Wills from the late 1960′s.

jack: i’m afraid you’re attempting to put words in my mouth. i never insinuated that Kenneth Blackwell and his subordinates in Ohio beat African-American voters during the presidential election of 2004. making them wait hours in line to vote due to a shortage of voting machines, while white voters in suburban precincts were able to vote quickly and conveniently without such a wait, was Blackwell’s preferred method of vote suppression. Republicans these days are more sophisticated than were Bull Connor and the KKK.

Greywolf: religion is the opiate of the masses, but you’re right to insist that every criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. we’ll wait for a verdict.

More importantly for the purpose of this discussion, why do you and your colleagues insist on calling yourselves a militia when you have no formal association with the National Guard, the real militia created and funded by the federal government pursuant to Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution? Why do you feel the need to legitimize yourselves by usurping the title of a militia and exploiting the patriotism as well as the naivete of others, when few if any of you care enough even to join the National Guard? if you want to call yourselves, for example, the “redneck gun club,” that’s fine and dandy. but why the “militia”?

Greywolf
47 wolfpack militia