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.
