Fake Socialists

Even if Jussie Smollett’s story had been completely true, it is a travesty to assign two dozen police officers to investigate a minor altercation that resulted in no bodily harm in a city with a ridiculous number of unsolved murders.

The idea that the murders of so many poor people deserve a lot less attention than a mugging of a rich guy is obscene. If we had people among our political leaders or presidential candidates who are even remotely aware of class issues, they’d be appalled with the situation from the start.

Once you learn to see things in terms of class, situations such as these – 24 police officers investigating a minor incident while gangs are wiping out dozens of innocent people – begin to look monstrous. A rich, famous guy is not the victim worth caring about in a city like Chicago, even if somebody had really used mean words to him and tried to take away his sandwich.

All of these Bernies, Kamalas, Alexandrias, and Co wouldn’t be able to develop class conscience to save their lives. They are so fake that even their socialism is fake. They are automatically on the side of the rich because it’s like a reflex. It’s either who they already are or who they want to be. Stories like these are real indicators of what these vapid poseurs are about.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Fake Socialists”

  1. I am so confused about what you mean by the word “socialism.” As I see it, public roads, as opposed to privately owned toll roads are an example of socialis. So is government run and supported Air Traffic Control. Other examples include government owned and operated electrical generation and distribution systems such as TVA and municipally owned utilities, public primary and secondary schools, state universities, and Social Security. (You have written at least once that public schools are not socialistic.)

    Which of these do you consider socialistic, and what is the underlying definition that enables a the distinction?

    Like

    1. The only existing definition of socialism is that it’s a system of government where the means of production are owned by the government. All means of production.

      This isn’t just theory. It’s precisely how every country that called itself socialist has ever operated.

      The welfare system, which you are talking about, is not socialism. It’s a way for a capitalist system to mitigate the inequality it invariably produces to prevent a transition to socialism. So it’s actually anti-socialist in nature.

      This is very basic Marxism that I’m retelling here. And then it became the basis of leninism. And then of maoism. And then of Castro’s socialism. And so on.

      Once you allow any private ownership over the means of production, said Marx, you end up with a capitalist system. And the example of China demonstrates that he was completely right.

      You can’t have socialist elements. It’s an oxymoron. The system is either socialist or capitalist. They can’t be married because they are the exact opposites in their very nature.

      Like

      1. The only existing definition of socialism is that it’s a system of government where the means of production are owned by the government. All means of production.

        As a mathematician, I do not argue about definitions. I just create a new term if needed. By this definition, socialism has never been tried, and even if it were, people could never be sure. One mother altering a dress to fit her daughter would thus make the whole system capitalistic. If the work has to be paid, altering a dress for a neighbor for pay would accomplish the same thing.

        I will contemplate what would be a better term for the things U. S. politicians now call socialism.

        Like

        1. What do you mean it’s never been tried? In the USSR, if you charged for altering a neighbor’s dress, you were a criminal and liable to be dragged off to jail.

          By the way, what you are describing doesn’t even involve means of production. It involves labor, which is a different concept.

          Like

  2. Sorry. I forgot that my personal ID information is no longer automatically populated, so I need to enter it anew each time now. The previous comment about your definition of socialism is from me.

    Like

  3. “You can’t have socialist elements. It’s an oxymoron. The system is either socialist or capitalist. They can’t be married because they are the exact opposites in their very nature.”

    Very true. India experimented with a ‘mixed’ economy for a few decades after independence. We had private enterprises in addition to big government enterprises. For example, power and railways were run by the government and still are.

    The results were, well, mixed. Some PSUs have/are doing well while others became hotbeds of corruption. Since 1991 neoliberal forces have taken over and the push is now to divest all these govt enterprises.

    Like

    1. Exactly. Capitalism is so powerful and seductive that it easily squeezes out any alternative. There is no way ahead without understanding why it’s so seductive and unbeatable.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.