ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-12-2017, 09:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have my neo-Marxist theory. We Americans have the original elite of big rural landowners, basically planters without the slaves; the financiers and industrialists that Marx saw as the arch-fiends of capitalism; the managerial elite that Milovan Djilas saw in his The New Class; big urban landlords (Donald Trump is the archetype), and organized crime.   A few people make the money, much of it as economic rent, and the rest of us are expected to put on theatrical smiles as we sweat.

With the possible exception of the mobsters, whose politics are murky, the other elites are reactiona4ry in their political and economic agendas. They want as productive system in which they exact every bit of profit possible. We have been collecting elites devoid of responsibility but demanding of us all. In no way are they in competition; they are in concert. But the concert isn't something like Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto and Brahms' Fourth Symphony. It is a cacophony of cruelty.

Some of Piketty's followers are calling this the second Gilded Age.  A focus on elites, division of wealth and a government that isn't really helping might make link up possible.  I won't argue too much against your basic view from the past.

The question is how to break up the alliance between the elites and the government that allows the division of wealth.

The focus is on the urban - rural divide.  If you get obsessed on that, the division of wealth issue gets lost. This doesn't mean some of the supposed culture war divides aren't real.    I'm guessing that you feel the gun policy question and women's rights shouldn't get shrugged off and forgotten.  However, while people get emotional on issues that would attempt to change cultures, the basic question of whose side are people on somehow gets lost.  Some people will get so enthralled with protecting their culture that they lose track of what is being asked for in exchange.

Then there is a false impression of where the wealth divide is.  There was a sense of many that they are on the wealthy side now, and should vote with the wealthy.  Still, who is getting richer, and who poorer?

Then there is the racist element, Nixon's Southern Strategy and Reagan's pregnant welfare queen.  Part of the notion that people should help each other was lost to the notion that it would be good to hurt people.  The notion that one should cut domestic spending had a strong influence from the Democrats desire for the black vote making certain low riding fruit available to the Republicans.  This quiet link in becoming more obvious now.

It is hard to spend big on the military and domestic services at the same time.  The parties have recently been each pushing their own favorite.  In the US at least, less is getting done for those at home.  We spend heavily abroad compared to most in a time where it is hard to get the obvious financial return on investment.  What are we trying to do?  Are we seeking to force financial reward, containing or opposing ways of thought, or attempting to make lives better?  Too much is said about how much each party wishes to do, not enough about what they wish to do.

A lot of this comes back to Eric's notion of defeating Republicans who are unspeakably evil.  Are the Democrats much better?  Are they any less elite and wealthy?  In the tax and spend period, there was a notion that one party favored Main Street while the other represented Wall Street and Easy Street.   Is that true enough today?  During the national malaise, both parties came to the conclusion that seeking campaign contributions from elites and serving them behind the scenes was more the key to victory than serving the people.  That has to be turned around big time, and it won't happen until the voters become much more aware and reactive about who is giving money to who.

You could wait for old Marx's supposedly inevitable revolution.  I'm not that patient.  While the see saw gives the delusion of major change every few years, the basics are seemingly not effected.  The system is rigged to favor those who can buy the best lawyers, lobbyists, media and politicians.  Both parties are buying, both selling.

Will using Marxist language help folks see the obvious?  If it did, I'd be thrilled to use Marxist language.  He did see some very real problems early, but his fixes prolonged the values of autocratic tyranny.  Given the unpopularity discrediting what fell from him, does using his words help?  This doesn't make part of what he said into lies, but winning ought to mean something.  Does it make a difference if one sets up against the capitalist owners of the means of production, the military industrial complex, or anybody over 30, if they are close to one and the same?  Lots of folks have had to reinvent Marx, to use a slightly different angle to establish plausible denial.

Anyway, I like the basic direction you are heading if not some of the details of how you are getting there.  At the moment, identifying the real enemy is important.  Focusing on the division of wealth seems a decent approach.