Socialism

It is a clear and obvious fact that all people desire power, and that those in power will desire to remain there. It was the driving force behind every empire ever created, every ruler ever to hold the throne, and every dollar ever made in a capitalist system because money is power. Pure and simple. It therefore follows that wealthy people will have more power than their less-well-off counterparts, and not just in a plutocratic system.

Is this injustice? Do wealthy people deserve to have their wants and needs fulfilled more than those who perhaps own less currency and possessions? Even when the wealthy elite are comprised of a much smaller amount of the population than the proletariat? Mind you, we no longer live in a society wherein a person's wealth is a reflection of his contribution to the general public. Not with all the scheming and dirty dealing that Wall Street has been engaged in since well before the bailouts or even Enron. I am personally of the opinion that a single elementary school teacher has more value to society than all of Goldman Sachs' employees put together.

If you're of the opinion that wealth automatically reflects value to society than you're even further right-wing than one who believes in meritocracy, and my writings will only further anger you.

Unfortunately this seems to be the case in most capitalist western countries. Those with the most political clout are the wealthy individuals and corporations, especially since the historically infamous Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Politicians in the United States have even stopped concealing their pandering to the interests of the wealthy elite. Karl Rove's organization American Crossroads' sole purpose in the 2010 midterm election was to accept donation money from corporations and distribute it to republican candidates who Rove decided would represent their interests in congress. Say what you want about Karl Rove but the plan worked beautifully. Along with a revival of the politically-illiterate-but-still-active (tea party), American Crossroads allowed the furthest right wing fringes of American politics to be the majority party in the lower house of congress.

And what was the result? A major push back against some of the most beneficial legislation that this country has ever seen. The EPA, NPR, and Planned Parenthood all were threatened with the chopping block since the 2010 midterm election. All were public social programs put in place to benefit the average middle class American. Yet their existence hindered the amount of profit that Wall Street speculators would get away with. One cannot invest in a public institution.

Not to mention the doings of various republican governors, namely those of Wisconsin, Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida, who have actively pursued an agenda of lowering the standards of living for all unionized workers in their states in favor of giving state tax breaks to companies and millionaires in hopes of receiving a favorable jobs report for their term, as well as for ideological purposes.

So this is where were are left. Only those with an annual income of several million dollars and above can have their opinions heard in politics. This is the group of people that make up 2% of the United States population, yet have more wealth than almost 50% of the poorest members of that same population. So if you're like me, you'd like to hear a way to have that poor half of the population have their opinions represented in the government as well. And there is an answer.

Socialism.

I don't mean the watered-down, pansy definition that basically refers to anyone who steps a toe out of line with the corporate fascists. I mean real, actual, redistribution of the wealth, public control of the means of production, Socialism. It is the only conceivable means, in my opinion, of assuring that every single human being in the country receives a modicum of power.

Now this wouldn't be communism. There would be no forced equality beyond assured equality of opportunity. There would be no proletariat base rules by an authoritarian elite just as oppressive as the bourgeoisie.

If anyone has any criticisms of what I've written, I'd simply love to hear them.

P.S. If you're among those who use the terms Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and/or Liberalism interchangeably, just don't even bother with this blog since you are politically illiterate to the point where I'm surprised you remember how to breathe.

On Wiunion

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-wisconsin-explained

For days, demonstrators have been pouring into the streets of Madison, Wisconsin—and the halls of the state's Capitol building—to protest rookie Republican Governor Scott Walker's anti-union proposals. Big national unions, both major political parties, the tea party and Andrew Breitbart, are already involved. Democratic state senators have fled the state to prevent the legislature from voting on Walker's proposals. And the protests could soon spread to other states, including Ohio.

What's actually being proposed?

Walker says his legislation, which would strip most state employees of any meaningful collective bargaining rights, is necessary to close the state's $137 million budget gap. There are a number of problems with that argument, though. The unions are not to blame for the deficit, and

stripping unionized workers of their collective bargaining rights won't in and of itself save any money. Walker says he needs to strip the unions of their rights to close the gap. But public safety officers' unions, which have members who are more likely to support Republicans and who also tend to have the highest salaries and benefits, are exempted from the new rules. Meanwhile, a series of tax breaks and other goodies that Walker and the Republican legislature passed just after his inauguration dramatically increased the deficit that Walker now says he's trying to close. And Wisconsin has closed a much larger budget gap in the past without scrapping worker organizing rights.

What's really going on, as Kevin Drum has explained, is pure partisan warfare: Walker is trying to de-fund the unions that form the backbone of the Democratic party. The unions and the Democrats are, of course, fighting back. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein drops some knowledge [emphasis added]:

The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the sta

te's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources

to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.

You may think Walker's proposal is a good idea or a bad idea. But that's what it does. And it's telling that he's exempting the unions that supported him and is trying to obscure his plan's specifics behind misleading language about what unions can still bargain for and misleading rhetoric about the state's budget.

Walker's proposals do have important fiscal elements: they roughly double health care premiums for many state employees. But the heart of the proposals, and the controversy, are the provisions that will effectively destroy public-sector unions in the Badger State. As Matt Yglesias notes, this won't destroy the Democratic party. But it will force the party to seek funding from sources other than unions, and that usually means the same rich businessmen who are the main financial backers for the Republican party. Speaking of which....

Who is Scott Walker?

Walker was elected governor in the GOP landslide of 2010, when Republicans also gained control of the Wisconsin state senate and house of representatives. His political career has been bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the very rich, very conservative, and very anti-union oil-and-gas magnates. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long taken a very antagonistic view toward public-sector unions. They've used their vast fortunes to fight key Obama initiatives on health care and the environment, while writing fat checks to Republican candidates across the country. Walker's take for the 2010 election: $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC, his second highest intake from any one donor. But that's not all!:

The Koch's PAC also helped Walker via a familiar and much-used political maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. The PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker. The RGA also spent a whopping $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker's opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Walker ended up beating Barrett by 5 points. The Koch money, no doubt, helped greatly.

What are the Democrats and the unions doing to respond?

Well, they're protesting, obviously—filling the halls of the Capitol and the streets of Madison with bodies and signs. They're calling their representatives and talking about recalling Walker (who cannot be recalled until next January) or any of eight GOP state senators who are eligible for recall right now. Meanwhile, all of the Democratic state senators have left the state in an attempt to deny Republicans the quorum they need to vote on Walker's proposals, but if just one of them returns (or is hauled back by state troopers), the GOP will have the quorum they need. (Interestingly, the head of the state patrol in the father of the Republican heads of the state senate and house of representatives, who are brothers.) Finally, Wisconsin public school teachers have been calling in sick, forcing schools to close while teachers in over a dozen other school

districts picket the capitol, plan vigils, and set up phone banks to try to block Walker's effort.

How could this spread?

Other Republican-governed states are trying to mimic Walker's assault on public employee unions. The GOP won a resounding series of state-level victories in high-union-density states in November. Now they can use their newly-won power to crack down on one of the Democrats' biggest sources of funds, volunteers, and political power. Plans are already under consideration in places like Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.

How are conservatives working to support Walker?:

It was only a matter of time till the Tea Party got in on the action. Stephanie Mencimer reports that activists are bussing into Madison, and are "promising a massive counter-demonstration." The push is being led by American Majority, a conservative activist group that trains impressionable young foot soldiers to become state-level candidates (check out their ""I Stand With Scott Walker Rally" Facebook page). Founded by Republican operatives, the well-funded group (which, according to tax fillings, had a budget of nearly $2 million in 2009) gets much of its money from a group with ties to those adorable Koch brothers. Conservative media baron Andrew Breitbart will be leading the rally, and will be joined by presidential candidate Herman Cain and maybe—if we're lucky—Joe "The Plumber" Wurtzelbacher. Expect fireworks.

• The words above were not written by me but by the great people at http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-wisconsin-explained
• Unfortunately for the Tea Baggers, less than 2,000 supporters of the governor actually showed up, resulting in a majority of pro-union supporters at a ratio of at least 35-1.
• A huge protest is being planned for pro-unionists on Monday, with over 100,000 expected to show up.
• I was having a lovely discussion with a misinformed right-winger last night. It turns out the protests are over "collective bargaining rights" or, basically, the right for the union to exist. This is not a drain on the state at all.
• The right wing hate machine will do their darndest to lie, cheat, and spin in order to make it seem like the unionist protesters are the bad guys, but in reality they are simply peaceful teachers, firefighters, and police looking to keep their right to organize. These people did not cause the deficit and they certainly are not looking for handouts. They just want to keep their current jobs.

Political Wallpapers

Some of these aren't strictly political, but I'm sure you see the relevance regardless.

I'll be on vacation for the next week, so I won't be posting as much. But don't forget to check back for updates!

Left and Right

Left:

• Urban
• Peaceful
• Equality for everybody > individual freedoms
• Focus on laborers rather than employers
• Less emphasis on organized religion, more on Scientific progress
• Homeless and Criminals are downtrodden victims of society
• Multicultural

Right:

• Theistic, Organized Religion important for everyday life
• Homeless and Criminals have no work ethic, chose their path
• Equality
• Generally more popular in Rural areas
• An Employer is more important ultimately than an Employee
• Multiculturalism is betrayal of the homeland
• Emphasis on the Necessity of war

Note that these may focus on American Left/Right wing politics, but they also apply worldwide.

I'm personally mostly on the left side of the spectrum, but almost nobody fully agrees with everything their side stands for. I certainly don't.

More Political Spectrum

I say we all just pack up and move to Amsterdam.

I was a little surprised at the placement of Germany. I think it has something to do with the EU. If anyone has any more requests I'll upload them here.

And for your time, here's an amusing alternative political stance:

This Deserves its own Blog Post

Jon Stewart's Speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity

Progressiveness leads to Fascism?

Many Glen-Beck-for-brains tea baggers recently have been asserting that progressivism over time leads to fascism. Aside from the fact that the two philosophies are on perpendicular sides of the political spectrum (one can be a fascist while being a progressive or a conservative), and the fact that the extrapolation is entirely bass ackwards, what does conservative libertarianism lead to?

Considering the fact that libertarians stand in favor of limited government, one can extrapolate that libertarianism leads to anarchy. Having a libertarian President or majority in congress would radically change the country in ways that would make our founding fathers cry. All market regulations would be nonexistent, including child labor laws. We would all be forced to labor for too many hours per week at the minimum wage of $1 per day in the manufacturing plants that would dominate the landscape. Pollution would be viewed favorably, and we would all become sickly from contamination in our food and water supply very quickly. Anti-government sentiment fueled by ignorance would lead to a total dissolving of the federal governments, and state governments would be solely responsible for police and defense. Taxation would be too low to support either group, and anarchist post-apocalyptic gangs would run rampant stealing and raping until either China or Russia decided to bomb us and invade.

But at least American business would be on top.