Modern Mythology

You will have to excuse what seems to be a rambling post:

  • Taxes and Marxism:Any time that taxes get discussed as a political talking point; it is either: Punishing the successful, class warfare, or exhibiting signs of “Marxism.” As described: each according to his ability, each according to his need. And either, it will be found in the letters columns, Spokesman-Review on-line forums, Fox News, etc. Once you lay aside all the excuses for opposing taxes… What is the real world revelation? Those who prefer to be tax cheats and make a political ideology out of being scofflaws. There is nothing surprising about that. What is surprising? Is just how many people buy into the sort of thinking that being a tax cheat is politically justified. So, let us force the “reduction in government,” (meaning less “socialism”) by reducing the amount of revenue that government takes in. Meanwhile, demand from government itself every possible earmark, subsidy, federal grant, special agenda, etc. that only government can provide. And yes, takes money to pay for it. Money which the tax cheat doesn’t wish to provide.

    So you can be sure that a major firestorm erupted when Warren Buffet went public with the exposure of the tax cheat and those who defend him through their elected offices. Oh yes, a man who became a multimillionaire through investments, what he did with businesses themselves as he bought and sold them… could suddenly be called a “socialist” for raising the specter that for once the tax cheats who were being coddled by government could for a change start paying their due. If this nation was to climb out of its dangerous level of debt, the super-rich and too successful needed to pay more. Buffet has a point. Given the fact that the (too successful) have to depend on the same public services they don’t want to spend tax money on. They want the government to act at their behest, but they don’t want to pay for it. So, if there is a “socialism” as described above (each according to his ability, each according to his need); then it is a projected argument by the apologia of the corporate interests onto people who disagree with what is happening in this nation today.

    As I was to assert to a commenter on a letter forum at the Spokesman-Review; that what Karl Marx was really after was the elimination of “the state” as he knew it at the time. The state that concentrated power in the hands of the few, and how oppressive that power could be. And a state church that after all helped to facilitate that oppression. His concept of “Communism” then was ultimate equality where an elitism could not develop, and where it did not develop, it could not become corrupt and oppressive. As it were, the ultimate or pure form of democracy. And interesting theory that would be in part based on biblical scripture (Yes, the book of Acts) and where he believed that power must be in the hands of the many (the workers) then it could not be concentrated (and therefore abused) by the few; would have been at first blush, rather similar to the thinking behind the 9th and 10th amendments. So, does that make the founding fathers socialist? Or did Marx believe that he could improve on their constitutional ideas? In actual fact, the “communist societies” that came about in the name of Mr. Marx simply continued to be corrupt, oppressive, and concentrating power in the hands of the few. Simply because they could not trust the many to have and use any of that power for themselves. Which only meant that Marx’s concept of true equality and “pure democracy” would immediately fail at its implementation. But it would not stop people some decades later who also had some idea of what Marx thought he wanted to understand a “democracy” to be too deep a shade of pink for their liking. Demos=people, mob, a country ruled by its people instead of a controlling “elite” (by way of federalism) was a scary proposition. After all, that is how Russia became the Soviet Union. At the same time, these same proponents of “Federalism” seemed to be particularly ignorant of what that meant in history as well as showing all sorts of hypocrisy about it today.

  • (The most frightening words to Ronald Reagan) “I am from the government and here to help you:” I expect that in the case of this ant-Communist former actor, the only people whom government should not help were those who could only vote, but not hand out millions of dollars in campaign and lobbying cash. Which certainly meant that when it came to business interests who had many complaints about foreign competition undercutting their own profits, Reagan had no problem with government being the solution and not the problem.

    The problem with the myth-making around Reagan was that he was never about limiting government nor essentially in support of reducing taxes. For anyone who actually paid attention, “supply-side economics” would have told them that Reagan was prepared to provide a government that only responded to a specific interest group. He might have targeted publicly the “welfare queen,” but was very busy creating them at the corporate level through the generosity of government. Just as he publicly flailed at the “limousine liberal,” but shall we put it bluntly, that he was the first among them. Government would not be the solution for the common man, farmer, worker, minority, etc. But it would be the solution for those specific interest groups with large wads of cash to spend to place their agendas before government. But “federalism?” the actual federalists back in the day would not have recognized this as such.

    Actual Federalism involved a sort of land-born aristocracy left over from the time that land was granted to certain colonists by the British Crown. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et al; were in fact among the colonial aristocrats. Thus, when the formation of the U.S. Constitution was taking place, the first consideration about those who had the right to vote, or otherwise participate in government had to be those who were landed and further, with a lot of wealth. That meant that most people including those who were part of the burgeoning capitalism system, didn’t have a place in this concept of federalism. Which is why ant-federalist societies would spring up and over time, with a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, would replace it with a more democratic nation. Literally, a nation ruled more by its people than by a ruling elite. So, when someone on the talk circuit starts discussing “federalism,” then do bear in mind, historically, a “Federalist government” was one that was run by a ruling elite.

  • Taking our country back: In this latest example of truly deplorable mythology, the idea of whom can be quantified or qualified as “Americans,” and who should not be. If you are opposed to a totalitarian system, don’t set about to act like you want to create one. There is nothing more totalitarian in thinking that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t “American enough.” With the birth of the “TEA Party,” that has been very much their way of thinking. Even mild forms of disagreement bring about a whining that “we” are somehow made victims of “vicious attacks.” Putting it very bluntly that the “TEA Party” is fully corporate owned and this is the only interest group they are actually prepared to cater to, and you can hear the screams begin from here to Hell. Wouldn’t “real Americans” face the fact that TARP, our lingering economic disaster carries a weight of history that far surpasses President Obama’s time in office? Of course. Wouldn’t “real Americans” show some consideration toward the unemployed? Of course. Toward people who no longer have homes? Of course.

    But that isn’t what you hear coming from the mouths of politicians as they cater to the latest fad in rabid radicalism. Considering one’s fellow Americans in their time of need can be set aside in favor of bashing President Obama, or making excuses for corporations that don’t want to spend precious [trillions of dollars] hiring too spendy American workers—Gene Sivertson 25 August 2011 Spokesman-Review. Or on the other hand, offering what amounts to a government bribe (Tom Campbell) to get these corporations to put Americans back to work. Haven’t they been catered to enough already with the tax cuts, subsidies, and etc.? — same date and paper. And what exactly did these corporations do with all that money besides lock it up for safe keeping? Hiring would spur recovery all right, when these businesses finally realize that the unemployed don’t make purchases.

As it stands, the “party faithful” apparently needs these myths in order to have a symbol to rally around, or a “thing” to reject. Even as the years pass and they become even more ignorant, it seems of the facts that would shine a spotlight on the myths and reveal them for what they are. It is this ignorance that introduces us to Rep. Michele Bachmann who deems that as President she can single-handedly bring down gas prices. Only if she wants to install an anti-capitalist dictatorship. When did she take Business 101, that the only way to reduce the price of a commodity, is to provide competition, an alternative that is cheaper, more efficient, and has a higher degree of availability? Given the fact that green energy could probably be a competitive product to the use of fossil fuel, is exactly why energy companies fully dependent on fossil fuel spend a whole lot of dough trying to defeat by any means possible “green” competition that would undercut their profits. That is the sole factor behind corporate bashing of “global warming.” They don’t want to lose $$$ to anyone building a better mousetrap and supplanting fossil fuel with a better alternative. But, you won’t hear about it from Bachmann, Gov. Perry, or the rest of that crowd. It just wouldn’t do to be honest.


One Response to “Modern Mythology”

  1. facebook123 Says:

    Online Article……

    […]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available […]……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: