There's a strong argument for why failure to embrace a term like Ironic Paradox as anything other than a logical witticism that sounds clever and contains a pun is why the current set of Liberal Democratic Elites will never risk being populists, they'll never change anything, they are stuck in the mud structuralists and all of them are mirror images of mummy and daddy's good little career minded boys and girls, look at me rocking my first bow tie, I'm going to the Prom.
Prime amongst the arguments bemoaning the wimpytude of the Democratic Party here in the USA is the assertion that without a growing economy social stability is unviable and reelection to power impossible. This assertion has been surgically implanted into several populations and is usually accompanied by a wealth of addendums that portray Classical Liberal Economics as the sole source of a growing economy. These sets of assertions soon become emblazoned on a simplistic to the point of gormless banner: "They dribble and give work to plastic surgeons so don't F with the Rich."
One of the consequences of "Don't F with the Rich" is the increasing absence of conflict in the million-billion-and-squillionaire Classes which if Classical Liberal Economic theory is to hold true is the wellspring of the Free Market Principles Adam Smith dreamed of in his 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' which warped into that concept of the "Invisible Hand" which he raised briefly and then ignored in his better known contribution to Classic Liberalism, 'The Wealth of Nations.'
This tension between 'Theory of Moral Sentiments,' which is Adam Smith's pity the poor fools who don't play fair, and his 'The Wealth of Nations,' which along with Protestantism and the supply and demand curve became the English Speaking Capitalist bible, can only be settled by letting the Invisible Hand do its grizzly work of pruning the monied through returning conflict to free market capitalism. Theoretically, because they don't play fair and don't willingly cull themselves that should be done through state edict.
But as everyone knows, the state isn't a Classic Liberal Economic Hegemony, it's a Political Liberal Hegemony bought and paid for by the ignoble non-harakari class of dribble down along with their toadies, fantasy islands, high end riffraff.... it's a long hegemonic list of maggots and non-contributing furry growths who currently define human success.
In 2025 a Liberal Socialism would be a Capitalism for everyone, it might look like a dull marriage of Adam Smith's 1759 bride, his Theory of Moral Sentiments, to his 1776 Wealth of Nations, a betrothal that became a vision for John Stuart Mill, the political economist and civil servant who died in 1873. In those slower days, Mill, still fresh from his dissection of Hobbes and the Social Contract, suggested that Capitalist Societies would experience a process of socialization. Mill's version of how this would happen was very much wedded to a traditional workplace, of a factory floor happily engaged in efficiently producing goods and, possibly a few services. It was a rendering on parchment of an old-fashioned comfort, subtitled 'good, safe jobs in manufacturing' bolstered by a paternalistic ruling class guiding and educating workers into a promised land that had an empire. A familiar tone to anyone who might have read about the 20th Century.
Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, would mean active popular participation in the business decisions of land, labor and Capital.
The role of Passion in the dialectics of Politics has too often been considered curable when tamed by logical discourse that reduces Passion to science instead of bonded to barricades, pitchforks and storming castles. If you see passion as the motivation to struggle, and then question the mechanics of struggle, you'll find in struggle, however painful and inglorious it might be, a purifying quality that bends and sharpens Will.
No comments:
Post a Comment