Friday, February 12, 2016

Will a Hillary Win Lead to a Revival of the American Socialist Party?

Hillary or Bernie?

The end result, whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, is going to be that many voters in the US come to realize they are actually Socialists. 

They will stop buying the capitalist propaganda that socialism is any further from the original spirit of our Constitution than any other current construct. 

The opposite may also be true. Libertarians, stand to gain a great deal from the turmoil of this election cycle. 

But, it is my opinion they don't seem to understand modern economics, the current state of globalization or understand the process of amendments. 

Libertarians could, however, gain an influx of newly disenfranchised voters. 

Things are shaking up. 

I need to make it clear that, philosophically I prefer Libertarians. My beliefs are to Libertarians as socialism is to many Democrats. Great idea but it won't work.

As they appear today, libertarian ideas are like heaven is to Christians, I think. Great idea but we can't get there until we die. But the concept is paramount to protecting individual freedom, individual rights and reducing dependence on the government.

We just DON'T have a system now that is conducive to those ideas, nor can we let go of the horns or the bull of our creation will rip us to shreds.

My views on socialism are also admittedly idealistic and hopeful. And I would imagine the manifestation of American socialism would be unique, hopefully in a functional and positive way, incorporating all of our concepts of individual liberty. (These are definitely not protected well enough currently by any party. It would hopefully manifest itself, as well, in a synthesis of several existing concepts and be balanced by others. )

Socialism, in practice, has never had to deal with, nor been able to thrive without, the influence of a heavily subsidized corporate environment. By this I mean American taxpayers supporting American corporate interests through military action and other investments. I'm not saying socialism can't survive without US backing. It just never has. The aftereffects of World War 2 and Vietnam have, until recently, maintained a dynamic, the outcome of which does not allow for adequate testing of the viability of our socialist allies or enemies. Perhaps because it has never been given the chance due the capitalist elements in the US manipulating the socialist elements of the US to get tax dollars to fund the manipulation of world markets and governments. 

It's neo liberalism, neo con, neo crap.

The US has shown what can be done with a powerful, empirical strategy and we've created a globalized monster. So, as Libertarians would have us do, putting our rifles on our backs and going out to hunt deer and just saying NO to corporations is quaint, but just quaint. We can't live it. We could push to return as much of that idea as possible into the world, and in pushing that ideal would gain support from the inherent freedom loving aspects of every culture and brain. But we can't just go back to a time of anarchy. 

Corporations are the wave of the future. The reason I use the word corporation is simply that this is the current large scale, complex model for various groupings of peoples coming together to accomplish lofty goals. The military and government are also groupings of this kind. But the bottom line is the world is complex, organized and BIG. We can't deconstruct its complexity.

Of course there are geniuses who disagree with me, and have opposed gradualism or synthesis for decades, fighting for fast, reckless revolution with bombs and books and a string of failures. Bernie's revolution is the kind we do with a voting booth. And the kind of which Thomas Jefferson spoke so fondly.

If we initiate any rapid or drastic moves in a direction other than that set forth by our previous and current soft imperialism we could face Russia or China, or India, or all of the above filling the gaps we leave. Though an argument for another time, that would be a bad idea. (Although, currently Hillary Clinton is the most popular candidate among those Progressives who would maintain the basic status quo of globalization, Bernie Sanders would, more likely than not, defer to the current strategies, with the exception of implementing tax codes in favor of American workers, if for no other reason than he must pick his battles.) 

So, within this spectrum of modern organization, socialism is about the same as what we currently call capitalism in that it is as far removed from the original intent of the Constitution, but still viable and potentially legal. The current form of capitalism is, in fact, less legal by constitutional standards. So regardless of the "system" one chooses, it comes down to control with the vote. And we don't even have that anymore. (Capitalism in its current form represents a shifting of the power base which circumvents many of our individual God given rights and freedoms and subsists on the influx of and good will of the American people through corporate welfare. Corporations in the form in which they currently exist are in opposition to the original intent of limited charters. This is not directed at small business/free trade which can be a part of socialism more easily than the current manifestation of uber rich, predictably top heavy capitalism. )

Bernie is attempting to push the agenda of campaign finance reform. That is my main concern. Has been. Will be.

If we get more control over the vote we control more of our country again. THAT, is why I am hinging my support of Hillary on the non use of Superdelegates to win her place. 

Although I imagine no political party will, as no party has yet to, fulfill all of my wants as to ideas and ideals and strategy, I do see more potential in a socialist agenda than in anything more or less extreme. Socialism, as it is currently practiced, is in fact so similar to what we have now that its benefits can be seen daily.

Unfortunately those benefits are seen in a pseudo capitalist environment where socialist ideas are used to prop up the long failed ideas of capitalism. The very concept that workers could own part of a plant, or receive dividends and a part of the profits of a corporation is a market response in attempt to mimic socialist ideas. There are so many elements of socialism surrounding our daily lives that there are too many to source for examples. Just think about anything the government, local or federal, does that we can't live without.  Think about the vast majority of securities offered to workers, and through monitoring business activity. Laws that protect one corporation from the predatory practices of another are also an example.

Even though Republicans push for privatization of this and that, their policy ideas are so intertwined with the benefits of socialism, in the manner that it props up their failures, that they no longer recognize the difference. They represent interests. The Democrats represent interests. Bernie Sanders represents interests. His interests, though seemingly less pragmatic, are also ideals. I know Hillary and some of the Republican candidates represent ideals. But within the current party system there is too much placating of the lobbyists and big money, from both sides.

The big question if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination is going to be, given that such a large number of voters from all demographics have jumped on board for Bernie, will the Democratic party adapt and somehow effectively court these people. Or, will there be business as usual leading to the potential exodus of most young people, and many older, to some new version of an American Socialist Party?

Better yet, if Bernie wins, how will the establishment react?


No comments:

Post a Comment