|
(a long rant, sorry)
Karl Marx is best known for his revolutionary social ideals. Said ideals are no longer of much weight in today’s polity – however amongst historians he is known for a much more pertinent contribution. He was amongst the first to contemplate social and economic influences on historical development.
Today an historian would find it next to impossible to interpret history without contemplating the social and economic environment and development of any given time or civilization. Before Marx, however, history was interpreted from the perspective of the interpretation of contemporary historians and thus influenced by the point of view of the “victors”. History was the story of the most talented or most manipulative hagiographer and critical thinking was limited to events as opposed to causes. "Cause and effect" was a shallow and hollow affair.
The Enlightenment and particularly the Revolutions of France and the US cannot be understood without contemplating social and economical factors – yet before Marx they were interpreted without such considerations. Conservative historians to this day obviate Marx’s point of view and thus exists a school of historical thought based on memes that exalts nationalism and rejects facts that tend to diminish national pride.
Marx was wrong in denying the force of nationalism but was right in identifying what is virtually an underlying class struggle that has prevailed through the ages. What Marx failed to identify was the propensity of cabals willing and able to take advantage of superficial movements that precluded or included class struggles – ranging from nationalsim to fundamentalism and from ideology to cultism.
The history of the US is most commonly interpreted from a classical nationalistic POV. Few nations – Nazi Germany included – have exalted nationalism as much as the US. Only for a brief period was the national conscious of the US atune with social and economic realities, corresponding to the eventful period between the Wars. For a few decades the various “-isms” had a place in the American polity, movements such as the trade unions and radical left-wing political parties actually influenced the status quo in Washington. The left looked towards Socialism while the right looked towards Fascism as potential utopias – and only WWII and billions spent on indoctrination turned a transient political awareness into the political acquiescence that has existed in the US for the last 40-odd years.
It could be argued that one of the reasons why the “-isms” were popular between the wars was the obvious failure of the previous status quo. The “lost generation” of WWI and the children of the Depression could hardly look at the shallow “issue-driven” politics with any confidence. They demanded a solution and a long-term goal – they’d seen the wolf’s teeth and wanted a definitive answer to such a threat.
At this point it should be noted that American politics had always been “issue-driven” and, por ente, based on short-term concepts. No American political party until FDR’s Democratic Party had ever envisioned long-term goals and a strategy to achieve them. And since FDR, no party except (and only superficially and mendaciously) Gingrich’s GOP has offered such a long-term POV.
In other words American demagoguic politics has been berift of ideology for the lion’s share of its history and have only experienced change and development when ideologies have come to the forefront.
FDR’s New Deal was unique in American history. For the first time since Jackson (or perhaps Hamilton or Sherman), the Constitution was measured from the perspective of the Declaration of Independence. The role of government has always been an issue amongst Americans – but rarely has said role been considered from an ideological or long-term POV. The "common weal" has been exalted yet ignored.
America was an early participant in the Industrial Revolution but late in learning the negative lessons of laissez faire. In the rest of the developed world, trade unionism took a political path and was much more successful in defending the rights of workers vs. the capitalistic aristocracy (although the Wobblies and Eugene Debbs had a brief notoriety and influence). Sacco & Vanzetti, the Haymarket Massacre, endless cases of authority siding with special interests – all contributed to open the eyes of many Americans for a decade or two. Briefly and perhaps insensibly a generation of Americans returned to their revolutionary roots and achieved the greatest gains for the common weal of perhaps any generation in mankind’s history.
Yet while these gains, ranging from the elimination of child labour to the 40 hour week to sick-day allowances to paid vacation to overtime... were being achieved, a reactionary force was at work. Said force was based on the Hamiltonian aristocracy of means, an oligarchy that had identified itself with fascism before WWII and with anti-unionism forever. During the New Deal and throughout WWII they conspired and wildly spent fortunes in dismissing and perverting the ideals revolving from the common weal. And to this day they continue to pervert, through indoctrination, America’s body politic.
American politics today are back to the bad-old-days of the ante-Depression era. Our current potus looks back at the days of Harding and Coolidge with nostalgia while doing its best to demean democracy through manipulation, fear tactics, appeals to nationalism and greed, and taking advantage of the emotionally-charged petty issues du jour (abortion, stem cell, school prayer and the litany of talkingpoint issues that pass today as the litmus test of liberal vs. conservative). Even the purported "opposition" (at least the part lead by the DLC) support plutocratic special interests while only superficially supporting progressive ideals. This is taking place while the palpable gains of our forefathers are being eroded – with nary a grunt from the purported “opposition” to today’s administration. This - to the point of the DLC supporting traditional rw values such as privatization and the minimization of governemntal checks and balances.
In a very real and dangerous sense we are now confronted with a greater danger than ever confronted Germany’s Weimar. The Germans at least had the benefit of a certain political sophistication – while today’s American electorate is offered a tiny political spectrum ranging from bad to worse. To date we have acquiesced in the erosion of our rights, in bypassing international law, in waging illegal wars of aggression, in occluding governmental transparency that is the cornerstone of democracy, plus a long list of such trespasses against the common weal.
In the past I have called for a debate on ideology. The reason why I did so is because I reject the idea of a democracy being governed by shallow short-term issues and because I am rational enough to desire a plan for government that goes beyond a 2-4-8 year cycle.
I want to identify and try to achieve real GOALS. I want to identify and apply STRATEGIES and TACTICS which are measurable and accountable. These are concepts that any stockholder would demand of a company that he/she has invested in (they’re the basis of any business plan), so why should our very government be any different?
I am sick to death of shallow politics that lead to the bait-and-switch. By experience we SHOULD know that government can make a difference – yet our current political discourse is based on a minimalist governmental POV and on if guns should be easier or more difficult to obtain. Meanwhile a clique is profitting off our unhappiness, outsourcing jobs, hiding in fiscal paradise’, funding rw parties and generally abusing the hell out of us.
If Marx were alive today he’d be laughing his bloody head off.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
