Prabhat Sarkar and his social cycle

[pbrower2a]

(10-02-2018, 07:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

pbrower2a Wrote:Economic inequality is unusually high in America by world standards. This is with mass education even to college, without a legacy of groups being denied opportunities in education and work, without having a ruling family who controls the economy, despite the loosening of regional distinctions between 'poor' areas and 'rich' regions, despite a recovery from a serious meltdown of the economy, and despite free elections. Such is consistent with Acquisitors buying the political process as they did, with such front organizations for the economic elites as FreedomWorks!, Citizens United, Americans for Prosperity, the National Chamber of Commerce, and ALEC (all non-government organizations) doing much of the unofficial work of the Economic Right.

The intellectuals include business executives, corporate attorneys, 'trustworthy' academics at right-wing think-tanks, journalists at right-wing but influential news sources (FoX News, Breitbart, NewsMax), and corporate lobbyists. These are mostly dependent upon the Acquisitors. But intellectuals also include potential dissidents such as physicians, scientists, accountants, creative people, academics, and engineers. A software engineer who seems to be getting high pay is typically being gouged severely by a landlord who grabs a huge chunk of his disposable income for the privilege of living near his work. Class privilege is the cornerstone of American economic life.

The creative people are not in line with the ideology -- sure. The Acquisitors who own such entities as Disney, NewsCorp/Fox Television, Warner, Sony/Columbia, CBS/Paramount/Viacom, Disney, NBC/Comcast/Universal, and the many publishing houses recognize that people not so beholden to Corporate America are still a good market. Sacrificing sales volume for propaganda is unprofitable.

Donald Trump is an Acquisitor, and about as pure as one could be as an Acquisitor -- and he is nothing more than a landlord and a purveyor of schlock entertainment. As such he demonstrates the vulgarity of Acquisitors at their worst. Americans trust the Armed Forces, the FBI, and the CIA more than they trust this Presidency. Obama was in line with them and they found each other useful. America has never been more vulnerable to a military coup or at the least military interference in politics or decisions of foreign policy as during the Trump Presidency.

Note how Trump (acquisitor) was considered an anti-establishment candidate, while Clinton (intellectual) was an establishment candidate.

There are still acquisitors, and many people who idolize money and adhere to the ideology of the "yellow sector" of my political pentagon, and the power of money is still tremendous. But I don't see it lasting. Power of the intellectuals will probably rise, because the markets are more and more regulated, and the intellectuals are the ones behind the regulations. The question is: which intellectuals? Countercultural liberals (purple sector) or nationalists (blue sector). Outside of the Western World's greatest cities like London or New York, the nationalists are probably more influential. And the common people who support them are more prepared to fight. So, if the 4T ends in something brutal, the nationalists beat effete countercultural hipsters in no time and the future looks like Steve Bannon.

Donald Trump posed as an anti-Establishment type, but all he did was to turn a large part of the proletariat (including the people that he lauded for being 'low-information voters') against a well-educated middle class, especially minorities -- on behalf of the Acquisitor class. The class struggle is not always the Marxist stereotype of downtrodden workers against oppressive plutocrats. Donald Trump exudes bad taste of the sort that one would expect of those people (proles, surely) who buy the winning ticket from the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery. The educated middle class, which generally recognizes lottery tickets as a losing proposition (if you do the math you would never buy one, and I never have except at a charitable event)... well, doesn't buy them.

Trump won the votes that he got in part by adopting a combative and vulgar style. It worked in part by debasing politics and wearing down those who might have wanted to vote against him. Will it work in 2020? I doubt it.

I would not be certain that people more pugnacious in normal times are more likely to put up a good fight. The United States proved the worst enemy that the Axis Powers could face even if America had shown the least belligerence in public life during the 1930s. One can loathe war and wage it well; the American attitude in World War II seemed to be "fight hard, and get it over with".

Sarkar sees power passing from Acquisitors (think of the nobility and the capitalists in Russia) through the proletariat, and then to the military (the Soviet Commies created a very militarized system) as the proles show that they lack the stamina and courage of Warriors, the cleverness of the Intellectuals, or the canny risk-taking and organizational talent of Acquisitors. Some of the proles become warriors in some times -- but if they make rank, they are no longer proles. Some become creative people or skilled administrators - in which case they are no longer proles. Making shrewd investments in small businesses? If so, then they are no longer proles. Sarkar suggested that the reign of American Acquisitors was approaching an end, and I can see that in the vulgarity of display of Acquisitors, the economic elites imposing a class structure characteristic of an aristocratic society in a country with little aristocratic heritage, the consolidation of commerce and industry into fewer corporate unites, intensifying inequality, and the difficulty of forming small businesses in such areas as manufacturing, banking, and retail. When the capitalist order serves only capitalists and their retainers, the game is nearly up for Acquisitors.