Socialism or Neo-Fascism? Which Way Is America Going?

 

It seems that the Right is perpetually speaking about Democrats leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. When Donald Trump was in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "The Donald"  with Hitler and Republicans with the Nazis. It seems that neither side is familiar with history.

 First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist", Communist or anything else that requires them to surrender their wealth or power to the State. Secondly, the two party system is a farce. Wall Street owns both parties. 

The only real difference between the two parties is the two competing corporate cliques. Citizens United has ensured corporate control of the political system. It has put political reform all but out of reach of the average American. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, leaving voters with the illusion of choice. 

National Socialism (or "Nazism") was a fascist partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business with the latter assuming a junior role,  and we all know Wall Street would never go for that today.   By the way, the "socialism" part of National Socialism didn't mean what most people today assumes it meant.  For the Nazis, it meant a community of like-minded people or "Volk".

Actual  socialism, which remains an abstract idea, means that the people essentially  own everything.  Power and the control of wealth is in their hands. Businesses and corporations would be typically employee owned and run while others, particularly essential businesses, would be run by the State.

Nevertheless,  I don't see Wall Street or their K Street lobbyists allowing anything like that to happen do you?  Certainly not after  the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheon's" decisions by the Supreme Court gave them carte blanche to the halls of power and the public trough.

What passes for "socialism" today is an admixture of capitalism, democracy, and a welfare state comprised of social programs  under the heading of "Democratic Socialism", which is common in Scandinavia and places like Germany and Netherlands. Think of it as "capitalism with a friendly face".  

 Nevertheless, despite high taxes (especially on the wealthy and corporations), the democratic socialist form of government have proven to be quite popular with the masses, with practically everything being subsidized. However, it requires everyone to pitch in and contribute back into the system. But when you have a mass of people who draw on the system without contributing to it, it fails, which is what seems to be happening in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.   

Under Communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, especially corporations. The State owns everything. Everyone works for the State. The State is everything. Do you see corporations and the rich---people like Zuckerman, Musk, Bezos, or Buffett  surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is America is morphing into? The answer is a Corporatocracy, which is a de facto form of neo-fascism.

Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, was more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said this "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically, it borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the conservative Right, including militarism. It grafts various national traditions and values to its cause as needed and jettisons what is no longer of use.  Corporatism is, if nothing else, adaptable. It's objective, however, is always corporate control plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the lesser partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and masses. It's objective is to serve the rich. 

Under a Corporatocracy, there is little to no strong middle class; certainly not in the way we're used to. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts?  Under socialism, they'd have to; the same under Communism.

Consider this too, while Unions exist in a Corporatocracy, they are weak and fairly ineffective. A far cry from the unions of old. Their prime purpose to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses.  They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions,  and hours.  

Under Communism, the State serves as the union and if you work, you automatically belong to it. But again, no strikes and no complaining, and a set wage. Under socialism, there are wage differences based on the job, but no broad income disparity, at least not like we have today where the top 10% own 52% of all wealth.

So in reality, we are morphing into a neo-fascist corporate State.  Corporations, using the government, previously pushed us to the Right and now is pushing us toward the Left, but the ultimate goal is to diminish the power of the individual while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite.

 In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as the overseer and corporations as the owners of us all. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation. That means creating and using  global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects.

Under corporatocracy we can expect national governments, like Washington, become ever more pervasive in the role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker and more dependent on the federal government.  This role also enables corporations an ever growing access to taxpayer money to acquire resources domestically and globally while at the same time shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government.  

They can also use the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar.  In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.”. In short, war and the threat of war is good for business.

Il Duce is also talking about is the concept (novel for his time) of the implied foreign policy we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be they natural resources or national resources for the sake of the bottom line. It artificially stimulates the economy, masks actual unemployment numbers, and allows for near unlimited deficit spending.  Sound familiar?

As an aside, what did Mussolini think of socialism? After all, his father, Alessandro,  was a prominent Italian socialist and Benito started off his political career as a socialist. This was his opinion, "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail".

So, when someone starts complaining about America becoming "socialist" or "Communist", remember that famous line from movie "The Princess Bride" as utter by the swordsman Inigo Montoya (played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".  

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Whyinequality is growing in the US and around the world

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

The Rich 1% Own Almost Half the World's Wealth & 9 Other Mind Blowing Facts About Wealth Inequality

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wealth-inequality-oxfam-billionaires-elon-musk/ 

Reaping the Whirlwind: Ending Illegal Immigration

Once again, we're being force to turn our attention to our southern border. At present, there's over 200,000 immigrants gathered along the Mexican border looking to cross into America. Reports indicate that there another 60,000 or more working their way up from South and Central America in hopes of crossing too. 

Meanwhile, 1.1 million illegal immigrants have been caught this fiscal year. Many (perhaps a majority) are unvaccinated, be it Covid, TB, measles, mumps, chickenpox or whatever. What motivates these individuals to make a thousand mile (or more) trek to come to the United States?

The majority of these individuals are coming to seek a better life, which is pretty much the motive millions of others have made to come this once "Land of Plenty".  Many of the countries they are fleeing are rife with  governmental corruption, from the local cop on the street on up the line to the president. Nevertheless, "economic asylum" is not consider a bonafide reason for acceptance according to the United Nations and U.S. immigration law (even Amnesty International agrees).

Their economic opportunities are limited, primarily due to a poor social infrastructure, poorer education, and history of suppression dating back centuries in which wealthy and powerful land owners, in conjunction with the Catholic Church, conspired to keep the much poorer "peon" class of workers just that---poor and largely uneducated.  As a result, a large viable middle class never firmly took root.

Attempts to form unions or adopt a more "liberal" interpretation of the Christianity through doctrines like Liberation Theology which promoted breaking up large estates, better pay, and improved education, were crushed, often violently. In the case of Liberation Theology, everyone from bishops and priests down to parishioners were threatened with excommunication from the Vatican itself.  Union organizers, community activists, doctors, and teachers, were often beaten, jailed, and on numerous occasions, found to have "gone missing".

Meanwhile,  governments elected by popular vote (often democratic socialists) typically found themselves overthrown in violent coups (under the ubiquitous term of "regime changes"), such in as in Argentina, Paraguay, Columbia, Bolivia, and elsewhere, thanks to backing by the CIA and other agencies.  Key officials were assassinated, especially if these governments or their policies ran afoul of certain special interests in the U.S.. 

For instance, under CIA backed Chilean General Augusto Pinochet's government, an estimated 40,000 individuals suffered human rights violations (some were formally arrested. Many weren't). Some 10,000 were tortured. 1,312 were exiled, and at least 2,279 simply "disappeared", while dozens of opposition leaders and members of unions, political associations, and opposition media were assassinated.

With these ousters, right wing military juntas typically stepped in, with the blessing of the U.S State Department and the virtual guarantee of American economic and military aide (in exchange, of course, for strategic concessions of natural resources, support of U.S. regional policies, or perhaps the use of local facilities for military or intelligence purposes ("enhanced interrogation" anyone?).   

The end result, was the creation of a society which had a underlining theme of distrust of the government (including the police and military), which were often corrupt, an economy with a small and powerless middle class with limited opportunities; both of which being highly dependent on the U.S. corporations for jobs and foreign aid to keep their government afloat---$314 million just for fiscal year 2021 went to Latin America alone. 

What happens without American corporate investment or foreign aid? Take a look at Cuba or Venezuela. The U.S. imposed its embargo in 1963 (which was loosened in 2002 for Humanitarian purposes). Nevertheless, Cuba's economic development is decades behind most countries, despite past assistance from the former USSR and other countries which ignored the embargo, such as Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Spain, Brazil, and the Netherlands.

It's worth nothing that in the 1950's, almost two-thirds of Cuba's imports came from the United States, not to mention billions in U.S. tourism which viewed Cuba as another Las Vegas or Reno but cheaper and with better weather and beaches! 

Beginning around 2004, Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, created the "ALBA", or the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America, which was designed to circumvent U.S. political and economic dominance of the region and the America led Free Trade Area of the Americas. 

 Thanks to Venezuela's booming oil soaked economy, ALBA also created a central bank of its own---the Unified System of Regional Compensation, which sought to provide financial support of regional countries, as well as help develop infrastructure, create a unified military for ALBA members similar to NATO, a trade arbitration court, collectively  improve education and medical care independent of the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) while simultaneously reducing the use of the U.S. Dollar as the default currency.  Needless to say, the U.S. was not pleased with ALBA or Hugo Chavez.

The collapse of the Venezuelan economy is viewed by many economists, political scientists, sociologists, and historians as one of the worse since the end of World War II, outstripping the fall of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, Zimbabwe under dictator Robert Mugabe, post-war Europe and Japan, Cuba post-embargo, much of Africa, and perhaps even Haiti which has face numerous natural disasters amid an corrupt and incompetent government. 

The causes of Venezuela's collapse are as disputed as they are varied. Some claim that the collapse was over extension of Hugo Chavez's "socialist" or "populist" economic policies which focused on social welfare. Others point out that the economy was doing well until Chavez's death in 2013 of a massive heart attack and ongoing complications from stomach cancer. It should be noted that his supporters claimed and still maintain that because of his "independent" and "democratic socialist" polices, he was assassinated by the CIA; a charge the U.S. has steadfastly denied.

Before going further, we need to briefly examine Chavez's policies and political ideology. Chavez regarded himself as a populist first and foremost. He was an avid supporter of economic communes and co-ops, land reform, extending public education, ending income inequality (which took Venezuela from near the top of the worse in 1998 to one of the best, just behind Canada by 2011), improved healthcare ( particularly improved infant mortality rates), and greatly reduced poverty levels.

Chavez was never "anti-American". He considered himself a supporter of the American People. It was, however, the American government that he both disliked and distrusted. He was a strong opponent of what he regarded as "colonial imperialism", especially when it came to foreign corporate dominance of local economies, as well as "welfare economies" which were dependent on U.S. foreign aid.

In terms of ideology, Chavez was hesitant in referring to himself as a "Communist". He did acknowledge being a "Trotskyite" in that he believed in a "permanent revolution" for social justice. He was a "democratic socialist" which blended the best of capitalism with the best of socialism and democracy. Overall, he saw himself as a Marxist (which differs from the Stalinist version of Communism we're all so familiar with).

Chavez's chief failure was his economy's near total dependence on oil and gas to run the economy. He failed to develop an adequate supporting economic infrastructure such as manufacturing which could pick up the slack should oil and gas prices take a sustained drop in price (which it did). With this, his second major failure was his direct challenge to the IMF, World Bank, along with United States and its potential corporate investments which could have brought in jobs and tax revenues.

After Chavez's death in 2013, Nicolas Maduro was elected president based on his promises to continue with Chavez's policies. However, amid claims of corruption, incompetence, increased authoritarianism, inadequate trade partners, and economic sanctions by the U.S., the European Union, the Lima Group, and others, plus the lack of economic investments, the economy began to falter.

 Once U.S. sanctions were extended to include oil and gas, along with the suppression of oil and gas prices globally, the Venezuelan economy went into a freefall. Venezuela suffered mass unemployment, widespread power outages, massive shortages of food, fresh water and other necessities, plus a huge uptick in crime, especially gang violence backed by narco-crime cartels. The IMF has predicted that Venezuela's inflation rate by the end of 2021 will be 5,500%.  As an aside, in October 1923, the inflation rate in Germany's Weimar Republic was 29,500%. Prices doubled ever three and a half days.

Meanwhile, supporters of President Maduro blamed the U.S. for instigating a de facto economic coup to overthrow Chavez's polices to build a viable democratic socialist country by merging aspects of capitalism, democracy and socialism, bypassing the "predatory capitalism" of U.S. regional policies, the World Bank and the IMF. Maduro's supporters call it a undeclared "economic war" on Venezuela.

Nevertheless, the implosion of Venezuela's economy affected the entire region, including Honduras, Panama, and Columbia. Even larger economies such as Brazil and Mexico have been affected. The result is the mass exodus to "el Norte" and ultimately to what they hope will be a new start. Most don't want to become citizens. They have no interest in learning our laws, traditions, or values. They don't want to learn anymore English than necessary to get and hold a job. 

Many have been told by the drug cartel "coyotes" who led them on their thousand mile journey that America and "Tio Sam" will welcome them, along with their fellow Latinos in America (many "coyotes" make up to $10,000 per head illegally smuggling people into the U.S.). The "anti-illegal immigration" rhetoric they've heard is just that---rhetoric. It's "BS" by the corporate media to discourage the rest of the world from coming to America. If they can just reach and cross the border, all their problems will be over. They will receive free housing and healthcare, good paying jobs, and catered education for their children in Spanish...if they can just reach and cross the border.

Unfortunately, America's off again/on again immigration policy has created just enough doubt to make the stories of the coyotes believable. Build a wall. Tear down a wall. More border patrol. Less border patrol with reduced ability to apprehend. Meanwhile, we have defacto criminals in the U.S. willing to defy immigration laws to help people illegally cross the border. Most are churches and religious organizations who believe the Church is above any laws. They've built complex networks to help whisk individuals away from the border and on to a new life forever on the run. 

These naive "do-gooders" will pass them on to individuals who will teach them how to circumvent law enforcement and play the system to get free (and unquestioned) healthcare, housing, jobs, and how to get their children into schools (and often taught in their native language) as well as "free" legal assistance should they need it... all on the taxpayer's dollar of course.

Of course, all are subject to deportation the instant they're caught. But even that's not so bad. Anyone caught, either at the border or someplace else, is subject to a taxpayer paid medical checkup for one and all (along with any needed medication), three meals until they're put on a taxpayer paid bus or airplane and returned home where they're free to try it again.

We are seeing the thousands upon thousands trying to illegally cross our borders on a regular basis. Most are doing so as a result of our foreign policy, which is directed by powerful corporate players. Until we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, we will continue to face the specter of illegal immigration which will increasingly stain our near broken social safety net and overwhelm us.

This doesn't mean withdrawing into ourselves and cocooning away from the world as we tried in the first half of the 20th Century. It does, however, mean that we stop interfering with other nation's elections regardless of whether we like who they chose or not. It also means that we should work within their economic and social policies to create a fair and just outcome. Until we do, we will continue to reap the whirlwind we've sown. Want to know more? Check out the sites below.

 

CRS: U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and theCaribbean: FY2021 Appropriations

Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America

Venezuela's Collapse Is the Worse Outside of War on Decades, Economists Say

 

How one migrant family got caught between smugglers, the cartel, and Trump's zero-tolerance policy

Migrant encounters at Us-Mexico border are at a 21 year high

U.S.-Mexico border apprehensions for the fiscal year surpass1 million this June

The Lima Group

Is America "Turning Socialist" or Could It Something Else?

In today's world of information overload, we are constantly receiving conflicting talking points, be it dealing with some product (which tastes better, gets your clothes whiter, or makes you lose weight and look buff without really trying). It's probably worse when it come to politics or the economy, which are so interlaced that they're really one in the same, that we don't know what or who to believe.

Some want you to believe that America is headed down the path to socialism (or Marxism or Communism), while others will tell you we're falling under the influence of fascism or some modern construct of it just as the media will try to convince you that racism is rampant and everywhere; lurking just around the next corner.

Who to believe? Of course, it all depends on what agenda these groups are pushing, but whatever they claim the problem is, you can bet that someone else is to blame and they have a solution that requires nothing more complicated than your credit card number.

The ones who tell you we're headed down the road to some form of socialist dystopia are typically on the political Right, and the further to the Right they are the worse they make it seem. Meanwhile, those on the Left will tell you just the opposite. They'll say that America is shifting to the Right and pretty soon we'll see hobnail jackbooted goons goose stepping down the street.  Of course, both sides will point their finger at the other and yell "Nazi!" since they're the catch-all for everything vile and evil.

So, what's the truth? In fact, is there a single "truth" anymore or has everything become so distorted that reality has merged into a murky illusion? Our national heroes have proven to be all too mortal and flawed.  Third rate piss ant dictators and sexually repressed religious fanatics routinely threaten us without fear. We no longer know what we stand for. Captain America's shield has turned to rust and Wonder Woman is turning tricks on the corner to buy her next fix. How the mighty has fallen.

They say that truth does a soul good, so let's be truthful with each other. Is America really becoming socialist like some claim or are turning fascist as others say? Well, first off, they aren't the same. Socialism (including democratic socialism), along with Marxism, and Communism, are on the Left side of the political spectrum. Fascism and its first cousin, Nazism, are on the Right.

Under Communism, there is no private ownership of capital. That means no corporations. No "mom and pop" stores. No private property. No private ownership of almost anything. Everyone works for the state because the state owns everything. You exist solely to serve it. Everyone is educated by the state. The state strictly controls the economy and money supply, which functions on a five or ten year plan.

There is a single "official" political party, though in theory, both the state and the party are to gradually fade away over time. In a few cases, small political parties might be allowed to exist, but they have no impact. They control the media and everything that's comes out of it, at least as it pertains to the government, the economy, and the party. Any active opposition is strictly forbidden.

In "democratic socialist" countries like Scandinavia, there is a limited form of socialism. Private ownership of businesses and property are encouraged, however, they are highly taxed, as are wages. The average personal tax rate is 48.75% (Sweden and Norway have a flat tax). The much of the revenue goes to public services like subsidized housing, healthcare, education or to infrastructure support. While their corporate tax rate is lower than America's, they have a mandatory minimal rate that all corporations pay. We don't. Here, many large corporations, like FedEx or Nike, pay little or nothing.

These countries are typically ranked at the top when it comes to general health (which emphasizes preventive care), longevity, happiness, quality of education. They have mandatory "mental health" leave in addition to liberal vacation time. They encourage physical fitness, have generous paid maternity leave for mothers and fathers and provide for child and elder care. Part time work is encouraged.

Their education systems are top notch, especially in math and science. In addition, they tend to have strong unions with excellent benefits, a large number of employee owned co-ops. They also tend to have very liberal laws when it comes to certain recreational drugs (especially  marijuana).

Politically, they have proportional or parliamentary style governments, so all parties are represented. The average voter turnout is 82.5%.  In the United States it's averages 60%; often lower, 40% during midterm elections. In terms of freedom of the press, the Scandinavian countries all rank at or near the top while the U.S. has dropped from a high of 20th in 2010 to 47th in 2016.

Here in America, we need to remember that the 40 hour work week, OSHA laws, Social Security, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, antiTrust laws, child labor laws, union organizing, the various environmental laws, Title VII (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, ethnic group, religion, or sexual orientation), wage protection, and voter laws (starting in the 1920's which prohibited "poll tax" through the 1965 Voting Rights Bill) were all viewed as "socialist" or simply "Un-American" at the time; every single one of them!

Yet, can we imagine not having them? Sadly, it seems that any changes which affect the interest of the wealthy Status Quo (or their bottom line) is always viewed as somehow "Un-American" and whatever other tag we care to add to it. We tend to get caught up in the perception of something rather than its intent.  That brings us to the second part of this article, fascism.

Fascism, in its many variants, has existed throughout history.  Many see it as a type of militaristic oriented government such as ancient Rome under the Caesars or the Vatican during the Middle Ages, and there's some truth to that. They did create a very authoritarian and orderly society, often with a strong military. Society itself tended to have strong special interest groups too, such as merchant, shipping, or banking guilds, often comprised of wealthy elites like the Medici.  

Modern fascism owes its origins to the industrial state and the rise of powerful and wealthy businessmen who were able to buy the influence of whoever they wanted, be it governors, senators, representatives, or even presidents. The Robber Barons of the 19th and early 20th century or the modern corporate raiders of the 1980's are prime examples.

In the early 1920s, following WWI, a socialist turned conservative nationalist newspaper writer, Benito Mussolini, created the Fascist Party of Italy (the "PNF") by merging elements of the political Left and Right, with the interests of wealthy corporate class. The government was run by a council of business and political elites who elected Mussolini as its "President". Competition was suppressed or eliminated, both politically and in business. The media flourished, provided it wasn't critical of the government.

Education was subsidized so that everyone went to school and teachers were well paid, provided a state approved curriculum was taught. Workers were well paid, hours fixed, and benefits provided, but no strikes or walkouts. Thus, fascism borrows from the both sides of the political spectrum and merges the government into a symbiotic relationship with big business. Sound familiar?

What about Nazism? Isn't it "socialist" since it's their name? The short answer is "no". It comes from both a misunderstanding (often deliberate) of Hitler's use of the term and our lack of political knowledge (and history), not to mention that it's a great scare tactic!

Nazi stands for "National Socialist German Workers Party"---NSDAP in German (prior to Hitler, it was originally the "German Workers Party" or DAP). Hitler was a huge fan of Mussolini and his Fascist Party. In the 1920's Hitler decided to model his NSDAP on the Fascist ideal, however, instead of governing council, it would be a governed by a political party and Hitler would be the head of it. As the saying went, "Germany is the party. The party is Hitler. Hitler is Germany".  

Hitler's use of  "socialism" meant community, which included many social programs popular at the time such as unemployment insurance, health benefits, housing for homeless, public supported schools, plus they promoted public hygiene and no smoking laws. He also merged all unions into a single state union.

No one in the 1920's, 30's, 40's or decades afterwards ever considered the Nazis to be anything other than a Right Wing party. As an aside, when they came to power in 1933, it was as part of a coalition of conservatives parties which included the DNVP (German National People's Party), and the Centre Party (the conservative Catholic party).

The Nazis were also part of the Patriot Movement, which consisted of numerous smaller political and special interest groups opposed the Versailles Treaty, as well as the Racist/Volkisch Movement which saw the German speaking peoples as the dominate people of Europe. They were also anti-Semitic.

Given that the Left leaning Democrat Socialists, whose leadership was mostly Jewish, signed the despised Versailles Treaty and reparation payments, along with hyperinflation which had hit Germany hard in 1922/23 (their average inflation rate was 322% per month. A loaf of bread in early 1922 cost 160 Marks. By late 1923, it was 200,000,000,000), followed by the severe economic depression starting in 1930.  It's little wonder the Nazis and their partners obtained power or were able to blame Jews so easily.

Many groups falsely claim that the Nazis took everyone's guns. No so! Gun control was implemented by the Democratic Socialist in the 1920's as a way to reduce the likelihood of an armed revolt against the government  just as the Provincial Government in Russia had done in 1917 following the February Revolution. The Nazis actually restored private ownership of guns to most ordinary Germans (except to those who opposed the government, habitual criminals, and, naturally to Jews and Gypsies).

They also didn't burn the Bible as many on the Left and Right also claim. They burnt books written by Jewish authors, pacifists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, liberals, as well as the Talmud, books about democracy, and even the works of exiled German authors or those who promoted homosexuality...but, alas, no Bibles.

In fact, they didn't oppose the Catholic church or most Protestant denominations. Some Nazi supporters practiced a distorted version of Christianity called "Positive Christianity" which deleted any Jewish references and denied Jesus' Jewishness. Prayer in school was encouraged. Even the belt buckles worn by German soldiers read "Gott mit Uns"---God is with us.

Today, the media seeks to confuse and divide us. Why? Because 96%+ of total media is controlled by just six mega corporations. They are part of the ruling Oligarchy behind the Corporatocracy which has replaced our Republic. They hide behind party. They have an agenda. To make that agenda work, we have to be divided and at each other's throats. United, we're powerful because we can't be controlled, and we're looking at them. 

An Oligarchy is, by definition, a interlocking partnership between government and big business. It's not "socialist", "Marxist", or "Communist", which seeks to destroy corporate power by increasing government control over them. Do you see that happening? Do you think Wall Street will throw in the towel and hand the keys over to Congress? No stocks? No bonds? No lobbyists?  What about the government ending private ownership of property? Hardly.

However, they will do their best to scare you with the word "socialism".  They will condition you to equate "socialism" with the horrors of Nazism on the Right or Stalinism on the Left. They want a divided America, be it Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative, or black vs. white vs. brown and whatever else you've got. They don't want us to see that we have more in common than not. They don't want communities organizing and working together, or know how badly both parties are hemorrhaging voters and becoming Independent or joining third parties.

There will always be "useful idiots", be it the Klan, Antifa, or BLM, that unwittingly follow hate filled agendas, just like there will always be those who try to suppress "think for yourself"  blogs like this one. That's the last thing they want. America isn't going down a socialist path, and even if it were, history has shown that not all socialist policies are bad just as not all conservative ideologies are good.

We need to accept that our Republic is gone. In its place stands a Corporatocracy. The government is managed by an Oligarchy made up of Democrats and Republican, though party means nothing. Oligarchies are, by their very nature, Fascist or Neo-fascist. They are all about acquiring power and consolidating control, be it of assets, resources, or people. Our job is to stop them and restore our Republic.

 

Insights into the Tax Systems of Scandinavian Countries

 

National Fascist Party

55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes in 2020 Profits

FairVote: Voter Turnout

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism: The (Current) Ogre of The Right

As of this writing, Bernie Sanders is the current leader among the contenders for the Democratic Party's nominee for President and the one to face President Donald Trump in the fall. The last time Sanders ran for president, back in 2016, he was literally cheated out the opportunity to become his party's nominee by the "Queen-in-waiting", Hillary Clinton, along with a little help from her friends like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the (then) head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Of course, Wasserman was later forced to resign as a result of helping to rig the nomination process against Sanders. Sanders was also denied a role in putting together the party's agenda for the upcoming election. Such was the deep seated fear of the Establishment Democrats of Sanders.

Now, with no Hillary Clinton to contend with, Bernie Sanders appears to be on a roll. So much so that the Establishment Right is already rolling out their "Oh God, he's a Pinko Commie Bastard" message. The truth of the matter is this. Bernie calls himself a "socialist democrat" and he's making all the usual promises designed to get attention and, hopefully, votes; especially from those who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of politics as usual.

The Right is doing its best to equate Bernie with every bogeyman imaginable. They are claiming that he's a full blown a rat-bastard Communist and neo-Stalinist. They've even tried to link his claim of democratic socialism with Fascism and Nazis (which actually fall on the far Right of the political spectrum, not the Left), but let's not confuse facts with some good old fashion mudslinging! Besides, this is politics. What does "Truth" have to do with it anyway? Some have even had the audacity to compare Bernie Sanders with that other lowdown Commie, President Franklin D Roosevelt (gasp!).

Yes, it's often alleged by the Right that President Franklin D Roosevelt was a closet Commie bastards too. Well, he was certainly called a "traitor to his class" by all well heeled society folks of the time, especially those on Wall Street. After all, he was tied to the Great Depression thanks to the actions (or inactions) of his predecessors, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. It's true that he took steps to make Wall Street and the banks more accountable not just to the government, but to the public.

It's also true that he helped implement some dastardly "socialist" government programs like Social Security, funded pensions, enacted child labor laws, legalized unionization, backed the 40 hour work week, established wage hour laws and supported health benefits programs, unemployment insurance, and safe working conditions. He also created "make work" programs (the so-called "Alphabet Agencies" to employ many of the vast unemployed men and women. Oh the humanity of it all! Did this man not have a conscience? He was indeed a traitor to his class.

It's said that FDR was nearly as bad as his cousin (who was called a "mad man"), President Theodore Roosevelt, who broke up the monopolies of the Robber Barons (Antitrust Policy), his conservation efforts, and the Meat Inspection Act along with the Food and Drug Act of 1906; both of which sought to make clean up those industries so that people would get a healthy and consistent product. By today's standards, ole "Teddy" as he was called would also be called a RINO.

But much has changed since then. For example, we had numerous programs aimed at improving life for ordinary Americans. Many were called "socialist" at the time too but we wouldn't dream being without them. I'm talking about Truman's Fair Deal of 1949 which included the Housing Act which rid communities of slums and implemented urban renewal. He expanded Social Security. He desegregated the military (yes, that was actually called "socialist" in 1949). Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1960 while Kennedy expanded it in 1962.

President Johnson declared war on poverty, which included work-study programs for students, expanded healthcare and education programs such as Headstart into areas hit the hardest by poverty (particularly in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky and West Virginia). There was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, in part, barred discrimination against in employment, sales, and housing. In 1964, Medicare and Medicaid were created. The Water Quality Act was passed in 1965.

Nixon backed the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 to create safety standards and ban products deemed unsafe for consumer use, and the list goes on. The point is that each of these programs were, in their day, each called "socialism" by the opposition, but can you imagine being without any of them--no unemployment, no Social Security; no laws protecting you from overtime abuse or your paycheck; living with unsafe working conditions, or legalized discrimination?

Yeah, there have been oversteps; programs which didn't work or work as originally intended such as Welfare which has devolved into a virtual "career" choice for some, or federal overreach into public schools (another notion which was considered "socialist" when first introduced), and especially forced busing which denied choice. More recently there have been attempts to limit gun and ammo sales or curtail free speech. None of these does society much good.

As for Bernie Sanders, he is a Democrat no matter what he calls himself. He must still operate within the confines of the rules established by his party. Secondly, the Democrats and Republican establishment work in unison to control the political process in this country. There are things they will and will not allow to happen. In turn, the two party duopoly and their politicians are controlled by a ruling Oligarchy of very wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals. They establish the political tone and direction in this country by controlling Washington's overall political agenda.

The Oligarchy is not in any shape form or fashion socialist or tolerant of socialism. They will not allow themselves to ever be dictated to by the government. Never. At present they exist in a partnership with government which is financially beneficial to each. They, through their hired guns---the lobbyists---help write legislation and then lobby (bribe) to ensure its passage. The bickering is mainly over whose agenda makes it through and who gets the largest share of crumbs (aka "pork"). Financially they underwrite the politicians and their campaigns. They control 90+% of the media and, therefore, control the message.

Politically speaking, most are pretty conservative fiscally, preferring a hands off approach from government with as little regulation as possible, while their opinions on social issues vary. Anyone elected to office must comply with the demands of the Oligarchy and, in turn, the very powerful party bosses, who act as gatekeepers, and committee chairmen and women. That includes Sanders should he get elected president. Any attempt to buck the Status Quo will be shut down.

If someone gets too far out of hand, the Establishment will force them back in line. That can be anything from denying you a seat on a particular committee or no "crumbs" to take home to the voters to destroying your political career or character assassination to working against you in your reelection (yes, a party will turn on their own if they buck the system too much). In a few cases, they've been known to take more serious steps to eliminate a problem.

Who is backing Sanders? He can't get elected on the dimes and dollars ordinary voters give. The Status Quo has been it virtually impossible for the average person to run for office and get elected. So, obviously Sanders has to have some big money behind him. Well, in his 2016 race his biggest financial supporters were the University of California, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Amazon, Kaiser Permanente (a healthcare consortium), National Nurses United, Boeing, Intel, AT&T, as well as political action groups and wealthy members representing the Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs, U.S. Dept of Defense, and federal government employees.

However, his biggest financial donor was a company I had never heard of. It's named Alphabet, Inc. It turns out that Alphabet, Inc is a conglomerate of multinational corporations which comprise businesses like Google, a semi-secret R&D company named X Development, another R&D company which focuses on genetics and disease named Calico, Nest which markets smart home products, Makani Technologies which manufactures wind turbines, a private equity company, CapitalG, which concentrates on investing on emerging growth technology businesses. Not exactly what I'd expect to find donating in large dollar amounts to a "democratic socialist".

As expected, there were also a host of Left leaning organizations such as MoveOn and ad hoc groups like Progressive Voters of America. This go around, it looks like his big donors are the same groups as above in addition to UPS, Walmart, City University of New York, Starbucks, and Target. He's also getting money from the American Postal Workers Union, the Communication Workers of America, the National Education Association, Unite Here, Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Operating Engineers Union.

Again, not what I would expect for someone whose political campaign is based on doing away with free enterprise or government takeover of all existing businesses including Wall Street. I should also point out that several of these groups are covering their bases by donating to multiple candidates, but it appears that at this point anyway Bernie is getting the majority of their money.

Speaking of which, Wall Street Democrats and other Establishment Democrats loath Sanders. Not that they actually expect he'd be able to pull off some sort of socialist coup once elected, but that he might be able to at least implement some form of restrictions on capital or push through some type of new social program. The big dollar Democratic candidate is multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg (because being a billionaire creates such a close connect with the working class I suppose). He's followed by another multibillionaire, Tom Steyer, then come Bernie, who is a mere millionaire.

Next is Joe Biden with a net worth of around nine million dollars. Rounding out the top five is Pete Buttigieg. It's worth noting that Buttigieg is not a millionaire, but he's not exactly poor either. He's basically upper middle class with a net worth of approximately $100,000. He earns just over $112,000 as mayor of South Bend Indiana. His husband, a middle school teacher, earns $152,000.

So, there you have it. Bernie, the millionaire. Hardly the stereotype of a democratic socialist, and making promises he knows damn well he can't deliver on. Meanwhile front groups on the Right are on the verge of a hysterical meltdown as they try to whip conservatives into thinking that Sanders represents Stalin incarnate (the likely goal is to help get a Establishment Democrat win the nomination). They've even gone as far as to claim that Sanders and his ilk equate to Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and that all of them are offshoots of Marxism!

Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of just how absurd that sounds, but then again, thanks to our "dumbed down" education system there are a lot of people who don't know history and will be believe just about anything. Want to know more? Check out my links below. As regular readers of A/O know, I always include source links with my articles.



Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2016

Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2020

The Money: Who's Winning---and losing---the great 2020 money chase

What is Pete Buttigieg's Net Worth?

Political Corruption: Taking Out The Trash

Over the past several weeks we've taken a look at political corruption, from the cozy relationship with the big donors ( and no, George Soros and the Koch Brothers aren't even close to being at the top of that list) to military contractors, local lobbyists, and the always entertaining, "dirty tricks" which happen at the local level. Political corruption isn't unusual or even new. It's been a part of society since the very beginning (the same with religious corruption, which started out as being one and the same as the political, and in many countries today it's essentially the flip side of the same coin).

The real problem is when a society goes from the occasional individual form of graft to institutionalized corruption; where it actually becomes part of the political system itself, which is where we are today. In the past, once a society reaches that level of corruption, society begins to break down, some form of totalitarianism arises and eventually the people rebel. I think that's what we're starting to see today, except that the rebellion is being carefully controlled or manipulated; channeled if you will.

America is governed by an Oligarchy. That's an accepted fact by all but the most naive. An Oligarchy is when a relatively small elite control the government for their own benefit. In this case, it's a plutocracy, which is rule by the wealthy. As I've previously written, they control---literally own---the financial institutions, defense industry (war is a very profitable business), oil and gas, as well as the energy industry, the auto industry, the media (90+% of all forms of media), and many more. This is the stuff that urban myths about the Trilateral Commission, Bildenbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations are based, and to a degree, are true in that they all belong to small interlocking clique of committees and boards that you and I will never belong to.

What is their goal or objective you ask? Well, actually it's quite simple. It's all about having control. They already have more money they any of us could possibly imagine. However, money begets power, and power equates with control. Their aim is to control or influence every aspect of society. For them, control is order and stability. It takes order and stability for business to operate and, hopefully, generate profits. This also means controlling the demand for jobs, wages, and benefits, which also means controlling or destroying labor unions and worker associations. That's why it's important for them to be able to ship high wage/benefit jobs overseas where they pay virtually nothing (and because of the abject poverty and overpopulation, people are glad to take it) and then ship it back over here where marketing creates the demand for it (not to mention intentionally built-in obsolescence).

It means controlling demand...and supply...of not just products but of the availability of jobs. This is the reason many of these large companies push for open borders and/or are willing to employ illegal immigrants. The more demand there is for the limited number of opening, the lower the employer can force the wages as well as any benefits. This is a flaw with labor unions too. They work to recruit illegal workers, especially in the low skill sectors since they are unlikely to rock the boats and ask a lot of questions about how things are run, but more importantly their dues fill near empty union bank accounts.

Another serious factor is controlling ordinary people. The information they routinely gather is used to ascertain our shopping habits---where we go, what we purchase, how often, what we watch, and so forth. It's also used to determine our financial and physical health; our "worth" to the economy if you will. It is used to gather information on our political leanings, which is helpful for them to determine what are key issues or "buttons" are, as well as seeing just how far we can pushed.

If, for instance, I know what are the hot buttons are for various issues, I know I can push you on other topics without much push back. If I know the hot topics for a specific population segment, I know how to manipulate and motivate them to act (like the best way to get you to send money, or maybe call or email some legislator). I also know how to spin issues to make one side look better (or worse, demanding on my intent). That's what the media is for. It's to decided what is and isn't newsworthy, how to present it (spin), and manipulate the outcome.

Now if you happen to be one of those individuals who think it's all the Democrat's fault or the Republicans, then I hate to break it to you, but it's not one side or the other, it's actually both. These Oligarchs literally own both parties and the politicians who are actually more selected than elected. Think about it. If the Democrats were right and the GOP were all a bunch of greedy and selfless bastards, and the Democrats did all they said they would do, there wouldn't be a single Republican elected to office anywhere in this country. On the other hand, if the Republicans were right and the Democrats were a group of manipulative SOBs determined to tax the middle class into oblivion, and they actually did all they promised, you couldn't find a Democrat in office anywhere you looked.

However, we know---we instinctively know---both sides are lying to us. Whenever a single party has controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency nothing changes does it? We still have the same ole BS. Even when a single party had controlled the governor's office and state legislature it's still the same game. The reason is because neither party is actually serious about doing anything. While you and I talk about the system being broken, for them the system works just fine because the ones who line their pockets and campaign war chests are doing just fine. A politician's biggest concern is getting reelected because, frankly, they love the power (which is addictive and gives them a sense of self importance) and they love the perks and lifestyle that power brings them. But getting and keeping that power mean getting access to big money, and the only ones capable of providing that kind of money are the big corporations or their errand boys (and girls) who work for them, the lobbyists.

In fact, these lobbyists are paid really big money on behalf of their masters to make sure those they helped to put in office do as they're told. In some cases, they even help to write legislation and provide summaries for bills or issues along with their "recommendations". All this has effectively made it near impossible for the average American to even consider running for office; it's far outside the financial reach of most of us. That's why Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club", because it actually is. It doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. It matters who your financial benefactors are. The political infighting is both a matter of which special interest group wins out on a particular issue, and in keeping us divided; to make us believe it's the other side's fault (like "taking guns away" or "destroying" some freedom).

The truth of the matter is that the Oligarchy wants--- actually needs--- for us to be divided. It has to keep us at each other's throats in as many ways as possible. "Why" you ask? Again, the answer is pretty simple. As long as we're fighting and arguing with each other, no one is watching the "candy store". That is, we're not focused on the corruption which is taking place almost openly (and in some cases, in broad daylight). Secondly, with us fighting each other, it's so much easier to manipulate one side and then other. That allows them to expand their control. This type of mentality happens not just at the local or community level, but at the state as well as the national and even international levels.

How often have you heard where some country, often one few have even heard of, is suddenly in the news amid claims of "terrorism" or some other "international crime"? Fairly often I would bet. Invariably the US is "asked" by various parties to intervene to help restore democracy or some other noble sounding cause. The odds are pretty good that the sole reason has to do with either access to resources or a market. And as often as not, it's because attempts to gain access to these resources or markets by regular means have failed. Attempts at bribing have failed. Threats have failed, and finally once that has happened, public opinion is stirred up and the next thing we know, we're bombing the daylights out of some nothing of a county or group.

Former Nazi Air Marshall Hermann Goering once said "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” The only real difference today is that the decision is made between corporate and government officials, who work hand-in-hand (in the majority of cases, the revolving door between the corporate world and the government one, be it as an elected official or an appointed one, is a blur) rather a cabal of politicians. In fact, it might as well be stated that the goals of most politicians, senior staff members, bureaucratic department heads, or appointed offices is to become one of these very generously paid lobbyists.

Another feature of a divided people besides being easier to manipulate, is that they almost always look to the government to "fix" the problem, which it is always happy to do since that affords them the opportunity to seize more control over your life. Recently that control has been in terms of surveillance and the increased militarization of the police. Together, they can quite easily devolve into a police state...all for our own protection naturally. There's another interesting feature used in these situations which we're seeing a lot of lately. The use of name calling, or more specifically, of demonizing an individual, group, or term.

Since kindergarten we've all known the value of name calling, rumors, and innuendos. Politics is no different. I've known a certain politician who purposefully would call his female nemesis a vulgar but rhyming term similar to her name. Of course, calling opponents by various derogatory but humorous names has been common since the ancient Greek forums. The late Huey P. Long of Louisiana made it art form! So did President Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin, FDR. It's a staple of politics. What's different today, at least in US politics, has been the misuse of terms like "Nazism", "Socialism", "Communism" as well as "racism" and others. The intent seems to be to confuse people by trying to convince them that the term means something that it doesn't. For instance, claiming that the Democratic Party is "Socialism" or "Communist" while the GOP is "Nazis" (this can just as easily be applied to a specific individual from either party as well).

The fact is that neither the Democrats or Republicans are as the other side claim. Both represent corporate special interest groups; each has its own agenda. While socialism and Communism imply doing away with capitalism and Nazism implies business interests becoming subservient to the state, which are all opposite to what the Oligarchy wants. In addition, the overuse and misuse of the terms distorts and dilutes their meanings to the point no one understands their significance. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose for it to mean---neither more or less". Has politics now become the "Looking Glass"? This misapplication of terms also distort the fact that ideologies such as democratic socialism had worked quite well in Europe until recently when the system was overloaded with "migrants" who, lacking skills, education and a similar work ethic, refuse to participate in the economic system which is required for its success.

However, when it did work properly, the citizenry benefited very handsomely. Yes, they paid much higher taxes (which they voted to approve), but they were willing to do so in exchange for more public benefits. But it also meant the corporations were also more heavily regulated and there was more mandatory transparency. It also meant that unions and employee associations had a much more active voice in government and work affairs. That's something the Oligarchy obviously doesn't want. So, terms like "democratic socialism" become linked to "Communism" or even "Nazism", which already have negative connotations, as if they were one in the same.

So, what kind of government does the Oligarchy and plutocracy want? Their ideal form of government is Fascism, which as its founder, Benito Mussolini once said, would be better called as "Corporatism" since it's a partnership between government and the major businesses (in his view, government would be the senior partner while today it's the opposite). The plutocracy, as the name implies, would like to see to that the rich (and by that I mean really rich) elites are in charge. Thus, the special interest groups behind the Democratic Party and its politicians are pushing for Left oriented form of Fascism while those behind the Republican Party are trying to implant a Right leaning form of Fascism. Either way, it's Fascism.

For it to succeed, we must be ignorant of or willing to ignore the many forms of corruption and manipulation which are taking place at all levels of government (the so-called "Nanny State" which wants to control what you eat, wear, the education of you and your children, your workplace, use of private land, living "off the grid", and so forth while learning everything there is about you). It's also necessary that we not be united. That's one reason we see such groups like Antifa and BLM with their paid organizers and agitators (surprisingly, the Right has been unexpectedly quite when it comes to social violence). However, to be sure when it has come to police shootings, there has been several instances where the police reacted improperly and weren't either punished or adequately punished. But too has been the tendency of the certain groups to think they don't have to follow a cop's instructions or to act physically or verbally aggressively (either intentionally or not). You just don't make a intense situation worse by doing that. It's really stupid and a recipe for tragedy.

There are things we can do, at least for now, to help offset this assault on our individual freedoms and to restore our Constitutional Republics, which for now appears lost. One, don't share personal information (especially financial or political) with groups you don't know. This is especially true of surveys by phone or online (such as the seemly innocent looking quizzes online which offer to tell you what's your "totem animal" or "power color" or whatever). If you must, then lie about the responses. Seriously. Don't give any real data about your viewing, shopping, dining habits no matter how innocent they seem. It all goes to build a profile of you and others with similar responses.

Another thing you can do is to assume that the media, just like politicians or other political groups, have an agenda they're pushing. Try to get as many diverse news sources as possible. Read Left leaning articles as well as Right leaning on the same topic if possible in order to seek out the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle (no one said this was going to be easy). Read different blogs and pass them on to your friends and ask that they do the same (like this one for instance!). Go outside the US for news stories. You'll be surprised at the different takes they have on events in the US as well as the stories they find important that we never hear about.

We also need to support candidates based on their stances on issues, not political registration (and especially not based on newspaper or other endorsements which, again, are pushing their agendas not yours). Pay specific attention to third party and Independent candidates (remember, Indies are the largest voting bloc in America by far). Partisan politics are about pushing someone else's agenda who has a lot more money than you do or ever will. Get involved in issues which are non-partisan such as real campaign finance reform which makes it possible for anyone to afford to run for office; ending gerrymandering for political parties. This creates artificial and biased boundaries designed to keep the incumbent or their party in power. Push for a non-partisan group like a university to do it using simple population data not based on political registration.

Get involved with efforts to create a balanced playing field for Independents and third parties to file and run for office, as well as participate in debates. There are still backward states which require non-partisan candidates to have hundreds or even thousands more signatures to get on a ballot than a Republican or Democrat. Also, both corporate owned parties actively seek to keep third party and Independent candidates out of debates; they make it appear that you have "choices" while limiting those choices to two! As an aside, the news media also try to ignore third party and Indie candidates; treating like a sideshow if they acknowledge them at all. Voters also need to be the ones with the final say on tax or rates increases, as well as increases in public sector salaries or perks. Allowing citizen initiated ballot referendums must be given.

Volunteer or financially support Indies or a third party candidate if you can, even if it's just telling others. Demand term limits be imposed in order to at least limit the amount of corruption going on. Personally, I support a twelve year cap. Focus on individual issues, and be sure to keep an open mind (doing a little research of your own won't hurt either). Heck, don't vote for incumbents for a change of pace and fresh ideas! Lastly, find ways to bring diverse groups together to target specific problems. If we can do this, we can fight back against the obvious attempt to hijack our country, its values, and its traditions. We need to restore our Constitutional Republic, and by coming together we can do that. But if we wait any longer that opportunity, like our nation, will be gone forever. Let's kick to the curb those who seek to overthrow our nation like yesterday's garbage.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Two New Polls and Name Calling

"Democrats Want Socialism!" Agh!! Run for the hills everyone! Well, perhaps not so much. While, that was the headline of the first story I saw this morning, I think it was more about shock value and provoking people to respond without exploring further. Yes, there has been a recent interest in socialism here in the US, most among Millennials thanks in large part to failed presidential candidate and self-proclaimed social democrat, Bernie Sanders.

Vermont Senator Sanders, an Independent who switched to Democrat, ran an unsuccessful campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016 for the Democrat Party Nomination. Hillary Clinton and the key players in the DNC, were concerned enough to rig the Primary elections against and then worked to silence Sanders supporters at the Democrat Convention. Ultimately, Hillary won the nomination as planned while DNC Chairwomen Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was fired for her role in rigging the Primary (she was hired the next day by Hillary's campaign to be a "coordinator"), As a aside, the DNC later acknowledged the Primary had been fixed and simply blew it off.

Meanwhile, Hillary was never able to win over many of Bernie's supporters, and eventually lost to Donald Trump. Interestingly, many of those who bought into Bernie's message of democratic socialism never went away. Instead, they've been spreading the message among other Millennials. So is there any danger that the Millennials will eventually turn America into a "Socialist Paradise"? The short answer is "no". While the Millennials are the largest voting demographic, they aren't the sole demographic and their political clout, while powerful, is likely to be temporary. So, let's take a look at the numbers.

According to the CBS Poll, 57% of Democrats and those who lean Democrat have a favorable opinion of democratic socialism. Two years ago, in 2016, it was 58% and in 2010 and 2012 it was 53%, so obviously Trump obviously can't be blamed! However, when we break those numbers down, we find that 51% of those with a positive opinion of democratic socialism were between 18 and 29 years of age (ie: the Millennials). Only 28% of those 65 and older had a favorable opinion (60's era Babyboomers).

On the other side, those who identified a Republicans or leaned Conservative only 16% favored democratic socialism (I question why anyone who was Republican or leaned Conservative would favor socialism but it's not my poll). 71% favored Capitalism (or apparently some form of it). In 2016, it was 68%. Oddly, in 2012 while 72% of those who leaned Right supported Capitalism, 23% didn't. In 2010, the favorable percentage was the same while those who supported democratic socialism was 17%, which makes me wonder if Capitalism may have a "soft underbelly". I wouldn't expect those favoring democratic socialism from the Right to be that high, but so it is.

Before we go any further, I need to point out that "Socialism" is not the same as "democratic socialism", and neither are the same or even kissing cousins to Communism. While differences between socialism and democratic socialism are subtle, they are different. First off, "Socialism" remains a theory. Despite claims by various leaders and governments to be "socialist", the fact is that socialism have never actually been successfully applied. Socialism is rule by the people; committees or unions. Businesses are independent and run by employees. Each employee has an equal voice in how things are run (employees are the managers/owners). The employees elected someone as "management". They also elected a representative to work with other employee elected representatives on larger projects such as the state, which is committee based. However, everything works off of ad hoc committee.

On the other hand, democratic socialism has been tired, and rather successfully too. The governments of Scandinavia have been using it for decades. Historically, these nations are consistently ranked highest in terms of quality of education, happiness and quality of life, lowest in crime, healthcare (which is primarily preventative rather than reactive care). The biggest criticisms comes from Capitalist nations like the US over the high taxes, which are indeed high. However, it is the citizens who approve taxes (or not) based on what they get for their money. In America, representatives make that decision for the citizens. Even countries which haven't adopted democratic socialism, like the UK, France, and Germany, they still have aspects of it in place.

The biggest flaw with democratic socialism is that it requires everyone to participate equally in order for everyone to benefit equally. Recently these nations have been accepting immigrants from third world countries who lack the education , work skills, and most importantly, the work ethic which are essential for democratic socialism to properly work. They tend to simply set back and draw on the system without contributing anything to it. In addition, their moral values have proven to be entirely different, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime like rapes, murders, and robbery. They also lack the same respect for the environment that the Scandinavians and other Europeans have. The results is trash everywhere and public defecation and urination. Lastly, they have failed to integrate into the society's where they've settled; in many cases creating "no go zones" for the locals and police.

As for countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and others who've claimed to be "Socialist", they obviously aren't. What they are is the same ole economic central planning Communist states which have failed worldwide under the veneer of a new and more popular name (by the way, while Venezuela's so-called "socialism" has failed, neighboring Brazil's is a rousing success, but you won't hear about that!). They differ only slightly from the Communism of Stalin and Mao. In no way can they be compared to countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, or Norway by any measure. Now that we've gotten that cleared up, let's move on to another poll which I found to be equally worrisome.

According to a poll conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, 58% of Millennials favored Socialism (the democratic kind), Communism, or Fascism over Capitalism. Yikes! In terms of percentage, 44% favored democratic socialism, while 7% each like Communism and Fascism which represent the Left/Right extremes. Democratic socialism is one thing, but Communism or Fascism are something quite different, but more of a possibility than they think (more on that in shortly). What perhaps is more disconcerting is that excluding Millennials, only 59% of the others polled favored Capitalism compared to 34% who preferred democratic socialism, with 4% wanting Fascism and 3% backing Communism.

With America being the bastion of Capitalism in the world, does this indicate a possible trend away from a Capitalist economic system? I have to wonder if these responses are the result of our failure to adequately teach history (without any political slant one way or the other). It could also be indicative of our failure to incorporate Civics, sociology, and political science in the school curriculum (a lack of resources is often cited as the reason, but there always seems to be enough resources available for non-essential activities likes sports). The same argument could apply to higher education, which offer all sorts of completely useless classes which, if anything, reinforces the political bubble they've become so comfortable with rather than to think critically and explore other Truths.

Proof of this, as revealed by the poll, was that only 33% of Millennials surveyed were able to correctly define democratic socialism, which sadly was about average with the rest of those surveyed. Millennials also had the least "unfavorable" opinion of Communism at just 36%. Meanwhile, only 51% could correctly define Capitalism, which was the lowest demographic surveyed (the average was 67%). Could this be the result of their honest preference for other systems like Communism, or is it the result of ignorance and their "bubble" mentality? Millennials define our present economic system as a "burden" on them (the only group to say so) and added that they felt the Capitalist system "worked against them" (again, the only group to make that claim).

In looking at other groups, 56% of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of Communism, and of those, 63% said they would be "insulted" if anyone associated them with Communism (only 44% of Millennials were). Generation Z, the group coming up behind the Millennials, had a different attitude. 43% of them were able to correctly define democratic socialism and 66% of Generation Z felt that the Capitalist system worked for them, although many were, as of yet, too young to be in the workforce full time.

As an aside (and I can't resist), there's an interesting comparison to be made here. The opinions of the Millennials seems to be a reflection of their grandparents, the Babyboomers. However, there are two distinct cohorts of Babyboomers which most people aren't aware of. The first cohort were born from 1946 to 1955. These were the "Flower Children" of the 1960's. They tended to be very liberal, experimental (like communes and drugs), individualistic, and supported social causes. They were also viewed as "anti-establishment" and supported Far Left politics.

The second cohort (the one I belong to) was born between 1956 and 1964. This group was pessimistic, distrustful of the government, individualistic, and more rebellious. These were the anti-war and Watergate protestors; those who lost faith in the political system. The former group remained Democratic leaning and liberal while the latter leaned Republican, conservative and nowadays, more Independent. It seems we have a parallel between the Millennials and Generation Z based on the influence of their grandparents the way the grandparents of the Boomers, products of the 1920's and 1930's, influenced them.

Amusingly, the poll also revealed that Millennials looked up to individuals like Karl Marx with 32%, Che Guevara getting 31%, Vladimir Lenin at 23%, and 19% for Mao Zedong. "Uncle Joe" Stalin received just 6%. Not so different from their Babyboomer grandparents! Ironically, none of those mentioned were fascist, although 7% favored Fascism as stated earlier. I also mentioned that I would discuss this later. Well, it's later. So let's delve in shall we?

As readers of Another Opinion know, I often write about the ruling Oligarchy; the plutocracy which now controls the government (I won't use the word "our" because the government is clearly not the American People's any longer). First, we need to remind ourselves what Fascism is. Modern Fascism, as created by Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, is the merger or partnership of big business and government for the mutual benefit of both. He said that Fascism would have been more aptly named "Corporatism" since that's how it's organized and functions (it's really feudalism brought current).

Unlike Communism, the state didn't own all the businesses and there was no capitalism. Everyone worked for the state, regardless of where they were actually employed. Under Fascism, capitalism was alive and very well. Unlike democratic socialism, the employees and workers had little or no say much of anything---union or not. Under Nazism, a form of Fascism, the state was the senior partner and everyone was answerable to the party, which answered to a supreme leader while capitalism still flourished. Fascism operates more like a corporate board of directors. The leader can be hired and fired like anyone else and the state wasn't always or necessarily the "senior" partner.

The Oligarchy, if it operates similar to any political or economic system, comes the closest to operating like a fascist or even neo-feudal like system. Big business and the government operate hand in glove. It controls the press, business, the military, the police, and national security apparatus. You can't argue that there isn't a revolving door between Big business and the government, or that lobbyists, working on behalf of the corporate elite, influence (to be polite) government, up to and including writing legislation.

Corporations finance campaigns and the politicians themselves. Or that we have a two tier legal system; one set of laws for the elites and another set for the rest of us. You can't argue that the media isn't solely controlled by a small clique (six to be exact) which dictates what we see, hear, how we're entertained, and what we're suppose to think about any given issue. We're also told what to like, what to buy, and even when. We live and die economically by our credit rating. It essentially determines our value to the system. It's our digital leach.

It dictates wars and conflicts. Anytime a country rejects its overtures, be a refusal to adopt the petrodollar, access to resources, assets, or potential consumers, the government and media mount to a saber rattling campaign to whip up the public and manufacture some justification for a bombing campaign or even an invasion. Usually the unfortunate target backs downs and suddenly we're all best buddies again. Then too, sometimes it manufactures enemies. Why? Conflict is good for business. It stimulates the economy, reduces unemployment, and best of all, it's highly profitable.

Fascism is Big Business and Big Government run amuck. Historically, Fascism borrows from the Left and the Right. It tends to advance slowly but not always. It's opportunistic if nothing else. It uses the history and traditions of its host country as its cover like the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Which is why the Fascism of Italy differed from that of Hungary or Spain, which was different from that of Romania, Bulgaria, or Germany. It's adaptive, but like any beast, it's always hungry and if it's to survive, it must forever be devouring.

So, whether they know it or not, the Millennials, and perhaps even Generation Z, may be getting what they want without understanding it. However, it won't be the Constitutional Republic which we were bequeath by our Founding Fathers and so foolishly lost. In addition to what I've already mentioned, we've witnessed the increased militarization of the police, an ever growing surveillance system with the equally growing cooperation of Big Business, increased censorship, increased restrictions on various rights, and a nefarious attempt to divide us in as many ways as possible, like the article I mentioned at the beginning; the Left calling the Right "Nazis" or "Fascist" and the Right calling the Left "socialist" and "Communist" as well as pits races or other groups against each other on the basis of nothing.

As long as we fight each other, we can't focus our attention and efforts on the real enemy---the Oligarchy itself. Sadly, the public as a whole has the attention span of a two year old. Collectively, we seem to be society with ADHD! The Oligarchy know this and they use it. We have to snap out of it. We have to find ways to come together; to prevent ourselves from being divided. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It isn't a white or black or Native American, Hispanic, or Asian issue. It's not gay or straight, nor is it Atheist, pagan, Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religious group matter.

It's a American problem, and it's about whether we want our country back or not. The choice is yours. I should point out that while we're facing a consolidation of power by the Oligarchs, it's not limited to the US. Their reach is everywhere, Asia, Africa, Europe, and it's attempting to expand into Russia. That's why Putin is often portrayed as the villain and there's a lot of effort being made to rekindle the Cold War with Russia. So, in truth, it's a Humanity thing. The only question is what are we going to do about it?



Millennials would rather live in a socialist, communist, fascist nation than under capitalism


Millennials aren't satisfied with capitalism--might prefer a socialist country study finds


Millennials prefer socialism to capitalism


What is the difference between Communism and Socialism?