Populist Manifesto
By Gregory Wonderwheel and _________________
Contents:
PREFACE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, OWNERS AND THE OWNED, HAVES AND HAVE NOTS.
III. PRODUCTION WORKERS, FARMERS, SERVICE PROVIDERS AND POPULISTS
IV. CRITIQUES OF MISREPRESENTED POPULISM
V. POPULIST CRITICISM OF EXISTING PARTIES AND IDEOLOGIES
Preface by ______________
I. INTRODUCTION
A SPECTRE is haunting the capitalist world—the Spectre of Populism. All the Powers of national and transnational corporations and the plutocrats that own and profit from them have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this Spectre: Presidents and Prime Ministers; Kings and Queens; Dictators and Potentates; Popes and Hierarchs; corporate overlords the likes of Bezos, Gates, Arnault, Buffett, Ellison, Ortega, Zuckerberg, Ballmer, Waltons, Kochs, Page, Brin, Bloomberg, Huateng, Musk, Ma, et al.; the neoliberals of finance; and even the fascist pretenders to populism, all unanimously condemning populism.
Yes, these opening words are a paraphrasing homage to the Communist Manfesto, one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented, and hated documents in the canon of American education. While we recognize the massive importance of this 1848 work by Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, we do not worship it. We honor what they got right, both theoretically and factually, and we correct what they got wrong, both theoretically and factually. Therefore, this Populist Manifesto[1] is needed to clarify and articulate a renewed vision of a just society and the economic model that would support it. We show that the inspiration underlying the two centuries of socialist and communist movements was and is populism.
The presence of populism has been around since the beginning of political theorizing. Populism, popul-ism, derives its name from the Latin populus meaning “people” and the suffix “ism” indicating that the term refers to a distinctive doctrine, system, or theory about the role of “the people” in society. The Latin populus shares that same meaning as the Greek term demos meaning “people.” Thus, as an idea for organizing society, populism includes the meaning of democracy, that is, rule and government by the people. Whereas democracy focuses on the political forms of government, populism is the broader theoretical framework in which democracy finds its legitimacy and includes economic theory, both within and outside of formal governmental policies, as well as theories of democratic workplace organization, and generally, most people-centered activities and events. For example, that a golf course should be open to all people, and not just people defined in some elitist manner of race, nationality, gender, or income, is a populist idea. Populism makes the people, both collectively and individually, primary over any minority of elites. Populism is the state of mind that is “for the many, not just the few” with the important caveat that protecting the whole of the people includes protecting minorities from the potential mob tyranny of a majority.
The clearest and plainest definition of a populist government is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Any form of government that takes the people as sovereign with the goal that the government should represent and serve the people as a whole is by definition populist. This makes the formation of the United States of America a product of the populist imagination. The American US founders such as Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, were examples of early populists before the term was coined. The US Constitution begins with the unmistakable populist identification “We the People.” Abraham Lincoln with his iconic announcement that the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” should not perish revealed his strong populist grounding by reaffirming this as the founding principle of the nation.
Yet it has been shown and proven again and again that “We the People,” in fact, do not have such a government, and instead we have a plutocracy that is government of the wealthy, by the oligarchs, and for their corporations. The primary reason for this is that the elites, who sometimes give lip service to populism, democracy, and government of the people, actually prevent the realization of the ideal by limiting the definition and scope of what is meant by “people” to their own privileged group of elites. The US Constitution explicitly excluded the indigenous Americans and slaves from the definition of people. And the Constitution implied, through the state’s regulations and traditions of the franchise, that only the elite group of property-owning wealthy men of European ancestry could vote and participate in government, not actually the whole of the people. Over time, when the franchise expanded the definition of people eligible to vote, it was never in one step expanded to include all people, for example, women were not considered within the franchise as people and could not vote nationally until the Constitution itself was finally amended for the 19th time in 1920.
Where are the voices in opposition to the ruling parties that are not in some manner decried as populist? MAGA Trump supporters are called fascistic right-wing populists and left-wing populists are called authoritarian, if not communists, with the full antipathy for the label. In the past as it was Slave Masters and Feudal Lords of Nobility claiming divine right for rule over slaves, serfs, and peasants, today, the ruling parties of all the obscenely wealthy nations are capitalist employers claiming a kind of divine right for their economic ideology that subjugates the vast majority of people who comprise the class of working employees and those lower in economic conditions by the social trap of wage slavery. It is the ownership employers who are authoritarian and fascistic--in political orientation just as they are in economic orientation—demonstrated by virtually every business enterprise being operated as a petty dictatorship. Yet they deceptively say that it is the populists who advocate authoritarianism. They use such claims as their primary weapon against populists, i.e., those who advocate for democracy in the workplace as well as in government and society.
The authoritarians are the ones who falsely claim that “Populism advocates authoritarianism.” Our modern brand of authoritarian fascism that has replaced the previous model of feudalism is the system that now justifies its plutocratic rule by oligarchy by hiding behind its elaborate system for diversifying their dictatorship, not in the hands of a single strong-man dictator as in the first half of the 20th century, but now in the hands of the rotating committee of dictatorship known as the presidency supported by the innumerable petty dictators who own and manage every business enterprise and who collectively make up the owner-employer class.
Yet those in power, and the elites who represent them and who are the stenographers for their voice such as the elite journalists, will rail against populism with lies such as, “Populism, make no mistake, is not a traditional ‘ism’ of ideology. It’s not Marxism or Reaganism. It has no adherence to a set belief or policy.”[2] Here, “populism” is called out as a danger even greater than any radical or conservative “ism” because it is tantamount to anarchy. This is a perfect example of a media elitist journalist attacking populism because she and her elite ownership class are afraid that populism might actually take hold in the imagination of the unwashed masses of the people. So, they must rail against the media’s so-called "normalizing" of populism merely because some undisciplined corner of the media may from time to time allow a populist to participate in the public debate of ideas. The elites feel that they must completely cancel populism whenever the Spectre of Populism appears in the public consciousness, because they know that populism is the ideology they most truly fear. These fearful attacks on populism by the powerful of society merely acknowledge that populism is itself a power to be reckoned with.
It is for the purpose of clarifying the beliefs and policies of populism and why and how the democratic ideal of “We the People” that is fundamental to populism should be lived up to in all its capacities of the government, the workplace, the media, and society that this Populist Manifesto is presented for consideration.
II. THE EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, OWNERS AND THE OWNED, HAVES AND HAVE NOTS.
Ideology is the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible. There is no social system that is not ideological. If you hear someone say their group or party is not ideological, then you are hearing either the voice of ignorance or propaganda. Every social system, especially including capitalism and the political parties that represent it, is a set of beliefs used to order the “reality” of its adherents. The populist’s task is to show how the set of beliefs used by the current elites in power, i.e., the plutocrats, capitalists, and their petty dictators of the ownership-employer class, is a set of lies and deceptions putting the mental freedoms of the employee class into chains in order to “voluntarily” accept their wage enslavement.
The categories of critique used by socialists of the 19th century to designate the opposing interests vying for power in society were “bourgeois” and “proletarians.”[3] After 120 years of anti-communist propaganda in the US against these terms as being invalid for economic, government, and social analysis, we have chosen to focus on the more specific and common terminology of employer and employee.[4] The term “employer” as used in this Manifesto embraces the social class composed of owners, corporate board members, entrepreneurs, and employers, along with the managerial staff who are their agents who control production of goods and services. This is the collective group of the people who make the decisions and dictates of business and government. The term “employee” embraces the social class of wage workers, including the so-called independent contractors and gig workers who are employed for specific projects or services, as well as generally all people who contract to sell their labor for pay. This is the collective group of people who are subjected to the decisions and dictates of the employer class.
It cannot be reasonably denied that the history of civilization is grounded in the power struggles between a minority elite class of a powerful few who are able to oppress and take advantage of the majority of the people. Whether this elite minority is called the slave master, the feudal lord, the owner, the employer, etc., is merely the fashion of the day. The people they subjugate go by the concomitant names of slave, serf, peasant, employee, etc. It is the relationship of the elite minority class using their wealth to exercise their power over the majority of the people that is at the heart of the class divisions of civilization that populists expose.
In the first section of their manifesto, Marx and Engels accurately describe the transitions of society from feudal relationship to employer relationship. Societies are composed of complicated arrangements of relationships “into various orders” with “a manifold gradation of social rank.” It is by using these complications and gradations of rank--whereby one person who is controlled by a higher-up may control a person lower-down--that the fundamental structure of the class hierarchy is maintained by the elites even though they are an absolutely small minority, the so-called one-percent, by comparison.
What Marx and Engels failed to account for was the ingenuity of elites to prevent what they called the “splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other.” Today, most employees have no class consciousness and do not recognize who their class overlords actually are. The ingenuity of the employer class to create identity confusion between employer and employee, as well as between employee and employee, has created a professional managerial class that identifies with the ownership class while oppressing the employee class, when they themselves are employees of that ownership class. One of the indicators of this divide is the distinguishing of “salaried” employees verses the wage employees. In all periods of history, the powerful elite class, today the ownership employer class, maintains itself to the degree that they can maintain the manifold gradations of social rank and prevent the consolidation of the opposing forces into the recognition of “two great classes directly facing each other.” Thus, the elites, who are constantly and incessantly waging class warfare, whine and complain that whenever someone points out their class power and privilege that it is the critic, not them, who is engaging in class warfare. Their role as class oppressors must remain hidden and obscured so that their ruling class power is unseen and the people only see the disembodied ‘Great Oz’ that is modern society as if there are no actual persons pulling the strings and levers behind the curtain.
Marx and Engels also correctly ascertained that the creation of the modern State and its executive powers is but “a committee for managing the common affairs” of the employer class. This is what is behind the identity of common interest between apparently opposing parties such as Democrat and Republican, Tory and Labour, etc. in all the capitalist nations. The two-party system is a primary mechanism in which the common affairs of the ruling employer class are hidden behind the uncommon interests over social issues such as abortion, civil rights, religion, racism, etc. The disputes over what are called “the culture war” issues blind the people from seeing the actual management of the common affairs that the two ruling parties accomplish in their see-sawing of exchange of power in government. The political parties in control of the government may change, but they do so without any substantial or fundamental change in how the people of the employee class are being exploited.
From the feudal rule of nobles claiming their divine or “natural superiority” over the people, we now have the ideology of the “natural rights” of individuals to their private monopoly ownership of public wealth and the circular claim that their wealth itself is the basis for recognition of their superiority over the people who do not have wealth.
The redistribution of wealth from the public into the private hand of the employer class is masked by the claims that any attempt to redress this condition is the real “redistribution” that is inherently (i.e., divinely) invalid because it takes away the property of the wealthy as if the wealthy did not gain that property by exploitation.
Distinguish Populism from Fascism, Nationalism, Nativism, Chauvinism, Racism, etc.
"The owners of this country know the truth: it’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." ~ George Carlin
The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy: Peer-reviewed study concludes
“The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.” https://hornaffairs.com/2014/04/19/princeton-study-america-oligarchy-democracy/
Content gathered and compiled from online and offline media by Hornaffairs staff.
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Democracy in America
“Benjamin Page argues ordinary citizens are not being represented”
In their new book, Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It (University of Chicago Press, 2017), political scientist and IPR associate Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens of Princeton University present an indictment of today’s politics, pointing specifically to how the American public has little say in policy decisions.
After analyzing approximately 2,000 federal policy decisions over 20 years, Page and Gilens found that affluent Americans, corporations, and organized interest groups have been much more successful than ordinary Americans at getting their preferred policies passed.
“Ordinary citizens have little or no independent influence at all,” Page says.
III. PRODUCTION WORKERS, FARMERS, SERVICE PROVIDERS AND POPULISTS
IV. CRITIQUES OF POPULISM
As there was a steak called “reactionaly socialism” there is a mistaken claim of “reactionalry populism” or “right wing populism” wich due to its inherent biases restricting the definition of “the people” can never be real populism.
V. POPULIST CRITICISM OF EXISTING PARTIES AND IDEOLOGIES
[V. IF NEEDED]
<><><>
Notes and References.
Lincoln Quotes:
"Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 459.
"Labor is the true standard of value." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" (February 15, 1861), p. 212.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
"And I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at Hartford, Connecticut" (March 5, 1860), p. 7.
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion" (December 1, 1847), p. 412.
And to be fair, while Lincoln decried the theft of the fruits of labor, he was not “against getting rich” "I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 24.
<>
The issue today is what does it mean to have “an equal chance”? The ultra-rich today have taken away the equal opportunity of others by the very nature of the economic system that they use to protect their riches. For example, the super rich have gotten generous bail outs while the rest of us get meager handouts. This is not the type of “good government” Lincoln was pointing toward that protects the laborer from theiving redistribution of his or her fruits.
<>
<<>>
There is a direct line of common denominator in a "moral economy" running from James Madison to Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bernie Sanders.
James Madison fought Alexander Hamilton over the repayment of the Revolutionary War debt saying that the original people who were owed the debt should get their fair share of the repayment, but Hamilton said the speculators (many were Congressmen themselves) who had bought up the debt should get it all. Sadly Hamilton won the argument that "Business is the engine of government" and the speculators in Congress got rich paying themselves off, while the farmers, small businesses, and widows were cheated out of the money owed to them.
Abraham Lincoln said that "labor was superior to capital" and "To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Theodore Roosevelt broke up the big trusts of the Robber Barons and tried to get universal health care as a right.
FDR of course advocated for the "new Bill of Rights" with health care, employment, education, etc. as rights.
These are the American political roots of the democratic socialism and the moral economy that Bernie is advocating.
<>
Universal income is a long argued-for answer. I remember when it was part of the 1972 McGovern campaign. The idea that universal income is a dampener of work or ideas is just a phony idea. Universal income frees people to work on the projects that inspire them and to help the people who need help. The false idea that people need to be impoverished in order to be motivated to go to work is just the Capitalist's false propaganda so they can be in control of what work is done, which of course means what work is done so that they can steal the profits for themselves.
<>
Prof. Richard D. Wolff. "Capitalism is a system premised on what Marx called exploitation, which he defined very simply and very carefully. 'Exploitation exists if and when the people who do the work produce a surplus that other people get and distribute as they see fit.'"
<>
Assertions about “right-wing populists” are usually not about populists at all but are about fascists pretending to be populists.
<>
It’s not a question of neoliberalism vs. fascism, it’s a question of soft fascism vs. hard fascism. The soft fascists want you to be deceived and confused about this question, they point to Trump’s apparent desire for hard fascism as the only fascism to distract the public from the fact that this nation crossed the Rubicon into fascism in 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and has continued in the direction of soft fascism with every administration, both Republican and Democrat.
<>
Why Economists Never Agree on Anything?
https://youtu.be/o6UXRZ2XwgU
This video comes from within an Overton Window of orthodoxy and is thus capitalist propaganda. Note that there is no discussion of socialism as an economics, only three of the sects of capitalist economics.. Economics is a religion with ideological presumptions and assumptions, and that is why economists from the different economic religions won't ever agree. For example, there is no general foundation or formulation for economics because they don't even have a shared definition for "money," in the same way that religions don't have a shared definition of "God." As I see it, "Money is debt" is the plain and simple definition. Money is debt, but many economists pretend money is a thing, like a toaster or a piece of gold or a representation of such a thing, or that money is a "medium of exchange" as if money is the paper it is written on. Also, it is not true that all economists agree "that there are opportunity costs for every unit of production" because they don't agree what an "opportunity cost" is or includes. The usual definition is, "Opportunity Cost is the cost of a decision in terms of the best alternative given up to achieve it." But since the definition includes the philosophically subjective term "best alternative" there is no objectively shared meaning to what is or is not an opportunity cost. So saying all economists agree "that there are opportunity costs for every unit of production" is like saying all priests agree their religion will save people. The question of economics can't be addressed without questioning the assumptions of "property." The definition of property is a philosophical and moral question, and economists pretend that morality is not a part of economics because they read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" but never read his companion book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."
I feel like I am about to be very unpopular with 2/3rds of viewers all of a sudden.
Uhh yeah. When you make capitalist propaganda you should be unpopular. No branch of economics is a "science." The mathematics of economics is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. Math is the hocus pocus that the witch doctors of economics use like the magician's distraction techniques. Math formulas are inserted into economics theory to mask and hide the fact that the theory has noting to do with the real world other than the orthodox rationalization for the wealthy to make themselves richer at the expense of the people in general by thieving the fruits of labor from the workers and calling it "profit."
<>
Yanis Varoufakis: Is Capitalism Devouring Democracy?
Excellent summary of the transition from feudalism to capitalism where the ownership class transitioned from dictatorial lords to dictatorial employers, and the subservient class transitioned from powerless serfs to powerless employees. The only power employees have derives from the right to strike. Employer dictators maintain their power by directly restricting the right to strike, or by indirect restrictions such as restricting access to healthcare as one of the main tools the dictator employers use to restrict the ability to strike.
The point he makes about the democratization of political life separated from the dictatorial control of economic life is the essential issue of our time. This charade of democracy, while the economy and the economic engines of the corporations are dictatorial, is one of the essential characteristics of fascism.
<>
<><><>
links
AskProfWolff: Populism as a Political Movement
https://youtu.be/jHUpBMmzA94
<>
Public Thinker: Thomas Frank on How Populism Can Save America
https://www.publicbooks.org/public-thinker-thomas-frank-on-how-populism-can-save-america/
<>
In the 19th century, Henry George built upon and further developed the economic ideas of Thoma Paine in the 18th century. In many ways he is the economic godfather of populism. He wrote what is arguably the most popular American authored book ever written up to the 1880s, yet we are not taught about him in our basic civics classes. This is because he presented the most cogent case against capitalism and its framework of taxes extracted from workers and redistributed upward to the wealthy. He was all about fixing the wealth inequality inherent in capitalism, so our capitalist schools don't want you to know about him and his ideas.
From Wikipedia: "His most famous work Progress and Poverty (1879) sold millions of copies worldwide, probably more than any other American book before that time. The treatise investigates the paradox of increasing inequality and poverty amid economic and technological progress, the business cycle with its cyclic nature of industrialized economies, and the use of rent capture such as land value tax and other anti-monopoly reforms as a remedy for these and other social problems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism...
<>
Elite journalist Emily Maitlis blames populists for the media’s failures. She claims “Populism, make no mistake, is not a traditional ‘ism’ of ideology. It’s not Marxism or Reaganism. It has no adherence to a set belief or policy.”
My YouTube comment: Thumbs up for publishing this, thumbs down for Emily Maiitlis and her lies about populism. Ms. Maitis is an elite journalist working for the powerful who is claiming that "populism tries to gain power" as if Tories, Labour, and capitalists are not engaged 24/7 in their attempts to hold onto the power they already have. This is a perfect example of a media elitist attacking populism because she and her elite ownership class is afraid that populism might actually take hold in the imagination of the unwashed masses of the people. So she must rail against the media’s so-called "normalizing" of populism merely because themedia may from time to time allow populists to participate in the public debate of ideas. The elites must attempt to cancel populism whenever its spectre appears in public consciousness because they know that populism is the ideology that they truly fear..
<><>DEFINITIONS<><>
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/s/populism
populism
pop·u·lism
(pŏp′yə-lĭz′əm)
n.1.
a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
b. The movement organized around this philosophy.
2. Populism The philosophy of the Populist Party.
populism (ˈpɒpjʊˌlɪzəm)
n (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
Pop•u•lism
(ˈpɒp yəˌlɪz əm)
n.
1. the political philosophy of the Populist or People's Party.
2. (l.c.) an egalitarian political philosophy or movement that promotes the interests of the common people.
3. (l.c.) representation or celebration of the views, interests, etc., of the common people.
[1890–95, Amer.; < Latin popul(us) people + -ism]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
populism
1. the principles
and doctrines of any
political party asserting
that it represents the rank and file of the people.
2. (cap.) the principles and doctrines
of a late 19th-century American party, especially
its support of agrarian
interests and a silver
coinage. — populist, n., adj. — populistic, adj.
See also: Politics
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
Noun |
1. |
populism - the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite doctrine, ism, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought - a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school |
<>
populism, political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.
The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government. In its most democratic form, populism seeks to defend the interests and maximize the power of ordinary citizens, through reform rather than revolution.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
<>
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolution
revolution
(ˌrɛvəˈluːʃən)
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Marxist theory) the violent and historically necessary transition from one system of production in a society to the next, as from feudalism to capitalism
3. a far-reaching and drastic change, esp in ideas, methods, etc
4.
a. movement in or as if in a circle
b. one complete turn in such a circle: a turntable rotating at 33 revolutions per minute.
5. (Astronomy)
a. the orbital motion of one body, such as a planet or satellite, around another. Compare rotation5a
b. one complete turn in such motion
6. a cycle of successive events or changes
7. (Geological Science) geology obsolete a profound change in conditions over a large part of the earth's surface, esp one characterized by mountain building: an orogenic revolution.
[C14: via Old French from Late Latin revolūtiō, from Latin revolvere to revolve]
<>
<><><>
Greg Pelast, 02/23/2021
Texas Gets Lay’d: How the Bush Family turned off the Lights
“What happened was entirely predictable,” power distribution
expert attorney Beth Emory said of the blackouts. She told me this twenty years
ago, after the first blackouts in Texas and California, following the cruel
experiment called “deregulation” of the power industry.
Until 1992, the USA had just about the lowest electricity prices in the world
and the most reliable system.
For a century, power companies had been limited by law to recovering their
provable costs plus a “reasonable,” i.e. small, profit. But in 1992, George H.
W. Bush, in the last gasps of his failed presidency, began to deregulate the
industry.
The de-regulation mania’s principal promoters were my two
professors, Milton Friedman and George Stigler, who claimed that
the problem with regulated and publicly-owned systems was that they
were too reliable. Utilities, which could only charge what they spent,
were supposedly “gold plating” their systems – i.e. investing too
much into making sure lights stayed on. That "problem" has been
fixed.
<><>
Nothing is “wrong” with populism.. Why do you ask it that way? Are you prepping for a debate where you take the side of “wrong”, so that’s why you don’t ask an unbiased question?
The Spectre of Populism is haunting the capitalist world. All the Powers of transnational corporations and the plutocrats and oligarchs who own and profit from them have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this Spectre: Presidents and Prime Ministers; Kings and Queens; Dictators and Potentates; Popes and Hierarchs; corporate overlords the likes of Bezos, Gates, Arnault, Buffett, Ellison, Ortega, Zuckerberg, Ballmer, Waltons, Kochs, Page, Brin, Bloomberg, Huateng, Musk, Ma, et al.; neoliberals and even fascist pretenders to populism.
Abraham Lincoln voiced the core idea of populism: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Sadly the people who call themselves “the Party of Lincoln” are liars who have made their party exactly the opposite of what Lincoln advocated in favor of the laborer, not the wealthy who steal the fruits of labor.
Corporatism is the heart of fascism, and Populism is opposed to corporatism. So if you are in favor of the predatory nature of corporate capitalism then you will think that populism it totally wrong because populism says popular political will is the basis of democracy, not the will of the wealthy elites who can buy control of the legislative process to protect their wealth.
The capitalists in control of the media, educational institutions, and politicians have spent the previous 140 years focusing on anti-populist propaganda so that the people will not exercise their electoral suffrage to overthrow the system of corporatism and the predatory phase of political economy.
Populists say “tax the wealthy” not the worker. Populists say “end foreign interventions on behalf of the corporations, and spend the money spent on the war racket on better things that do good for the people.” Populists say that healthcare and housing are universal rights for all people.
The only thing wrong with populism is the fake populism that attempts to sell bigotry, racism, caste, and xenophobia as legitimate interests of populists when populism is against bigotry, racism, caste, and xenophobia..
<><>
Gregory Wonderwheel
Libertarians are not populists; they are corporatists. As populists we can and should work with anyone over specific issues, even libertarians. But we should never forget about the fundamental differences between populists and others like libertarians or Democrats.
Highlighted reply
chetkayeable
They are also sound on civil liberties issues as Hedges pointed out. Most of them are also anti-war.
1
Gregory Wonderwheel
@chetkayeable Yes, most libertarians are anti-intervention and anti-war unless we are directly attacked, which is a good position. They are good on civil liberties, EXCEPT when it comes to corporations. For example, libertarians often say only government action is a violation of civil liberties and it is okay when corporations violate free speech or other civil liberties because they are "private organizations." They have an illusion that corporations are simple collections of private individuals and not under the control of the 1% with so-called individuals only on the fringes of share holding. Populists know that corporations are merely private governments that use their economic power to suppress and repress the people in ways the public government is prevented from doing..
<><>
<><>
<><>
[1] A manifesto is a “public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature” and is synonymous with the term platform, “a formal declaration of the principles on which a group, such as a political party, makes its appeal to the public.” The term manifesto is still used in the United Kingdom for its parties’ platforms. In the USA, the political parties have “platforms” rather than “manifestos” due to the many years of anti-communist propaganda. Here, we prefer to use the term manifesto for its historical connection and to indicate it the manifesto of a movement, rather than a platform of a particular party.
[2] Elite journalist Emily Maitlis in her speech at the annual MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival titled “Boiling Frog: Why We Have To Stop Normalising The Absurd,” where she equates “populists” with “the absurd” and yet herself absurdly claims that the media is “normalising” populist ideas. This is a perfect example of a media elitist attacking populism based on the fear that it might actually take hold in the imagination of the unwashed masses of the people. https://youtu.be/e0dRBtSAvLM
[3] Engels note to the section title “Bourgeois and Proletarians”: “By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.”
[4] We give credit to Prof. Richard D. Wolff for highlighting the practicality and importance of this change in terminology.
No comments:
Post a Comment