The recent Democratic debate gave a hint of Clinton’s pro-Wall Street ingrained posture, frightening because at its foundation is the fusion of militarism and capitalism, both at a heightened stage of development. The harpy of Cold War intervention and regime change, Clinton has used American foreign policy to maximize a US-defined and sponsored pattern of globalization, based on the encirclement, containment, and isolation of both Russia and China, in order to shape a hierarchical domestic structure of retrograde social and economic policies favoring elite financial and industrial groups now popularized as the 1% but in reality a far more complex system because of its militaristic/expansionist underpinnings. When and if fascism comes to America, if it has not already, it will be deceptively clothed: not hardened far right Republicanism, but respectable, seemingly reasonable Liberalism personified by the Clintons with Obama cultivating the intermediate ground.
Who needs Rubio, Cruz, Bush, etc. etc., when Clinton already possesses, better than they, the articulated paradigm of Wall Street, Pentagon, think tank planning and connections which has propelled America’s counterrevolutionary role in global affairs, all internalized and ready for execution. I say “matriarchal,” then, not to indicate gender per se, but in her concrete case, an overseeing, overarching figure, ready to take command of the full apparatus of power, the new head of the family, using the subterfuge of motherly caring for the disadvantaged and the poor to firm up and tighten a ruling class seeking political-ideological dominance at home and abroad while pursuing traditional imperialist goals of market penetration, a sustained supply of raw materials, the advantages of outsourcing through reliance on a global labor market, and the consequent retardation of Third World modernization and autonomy. Bill Clinton is chimp change compared with what Mrs. Clinton can effectuate under the handle of counterterrorism and neoliberalism: a world open to American spoliation and rapine (including the acceleration of climate change).
Fascism?…Really?
Yes, in any meaningful sense, beginning with continuing the Obama policies of mass surveillance, indictment of whistleblowers, the use of federal regulatory agencies to protect the interests ostensibly to be regulated, then moving to the principal structural criterion of fascism borne out by Germany, Italy, and Japan (see Barrington Moore’s chapter, “Asian Fascism,” in his monumental Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy): the interpenetration of business and government, an integration of political structure which, even in the absence of the military component, fosters unimpeded capitalist development under the auspices of the State. This winning combination ensures the quelling of dissent over industrial and financial practices and power, habituates the populace to consumerism and patriotism, and employs State worship to cover over capitalistic excesses including the degradation of the environment. Add to the foregoing the undoubted place of the military as a synthesizing force in the political economy and carrying out its objectives, and, indeed, fascism is not a species of name-calling but an accurate description of impending reality.…Counterpunch
Matriarchal Fascism: Clinton, Embodiment of US Power
Norman Pollock
13 comments:
Typical windbag Counterpunch ranting and railing without much substantive content or concrete detail.
"Harpy"? "Matriarch"? The author seems to have some unresolved misogyny issues.
What do you expect her to do Dan?
To understand the Clintons, you have to understand how the Democrat/Progressive model of exclusion operates in society to create an elite class and an underclass, this fantastic blog post describes functionally how they achieve it by regulating housing to restrict supply without actually having to force the poor and non-whites out by force, they are able to create a more pleasing and socially acceptable remainder that is more homogenous and affluent. Similar restrictions, regulation and selection processes exist in Universities, and other Democrat dominated social constructs that nearly always result in these perverse outcomes. Imperative to understand the process of how the elite operate and how to defeat their games. A Critical, Must Read.
@Ryan,
In the Soviet Union they would ration the most fashionable items by queuing. Ladies would would queue for hours to purchase their preferred style (brown or black), returning home disappointed if they missed out. There was no shortage of shoes in plain black and everyone could afford to buy whatever shoes were available.
In the West the most fashionable items are rationed by price. Most Ladies stay at home knowing they can't buy the latest Jimmy Choo, the shops and magazines are full of beautiful shoes, waiting for a dainty foot. The ladies excitedly discuss the shoes, some Ladies even go to take a look...........but they can't buy.
Just an observation.
Water, education, jobs, housing, air... or shoes, the Dems claim not only that there is a shortage, but that a shortage is necessary, responsible. To not have a shortage, would destroy the world! You must keep a shortage at all times and deny yourself what you need to protect the environment! It is pure Ayn Rand stuff at the core, which is unbelievable for a "liberal" party that espouses to represent the poor and non-white/asians. Not that Republican/conservative lack of money arguments are any better, they are worse. But lefties don't even know their ideology is depraved, they think they are enlightened. Being out of money, is actually less harmful in practice to society than believing you are out of necessities.
Right that's why if MMT is ever going to get anywhere it is going to have to come from the right...
Even if the left came to realize we are not "out of money!", they STILL wouldnt be able to do anything with that knowledge because they think we are out of real things too... or it would increase the global warming, etc...
I think it will have to come from the right too, Matt. The left is ideological and can not back away from the resource constraint positions. Except for a few tea-party types, the right is very pragmatic in their view on resources, and even idealistic on their ideals over public spending to boost economic growth and inclusive opportunities for everyone. The left is only willing to spend on "public investments" which is left code for things that help manage resource constraints by imposing more resource constraints. The two party system offers a choice between bad alternatives, but given the false dilemma of the two, the Repubs are less elitist and help the masses live better quality lives.
Well, if they claim that that's not a winning strategy, people obviously does not want to hear that. Proof? The fact is that consumption of resources and environmental degradation hasn't stopped and whatever scare tactics by part of the political establishment or scientific community are falling on deaf ears. Look at what they do, not what they say. The level of hypocrisy from the mainstream left though is over the roof, in this Ryan is right, as it has evolved to a theory of social control which is equal to the scary right who will never doubt to throw people under the bus if necessary. There is enough evidence in almost every country, despite big red scare tactics and 'Black books of communism' that when endangered and moving full to the right they will starve people as needed just to keep the status quo (good examples, and recent even in Europe in Greece for example just 3 decades ago). But yes, at least the full social Darwinist nature of the right since the enlightenment is not hidden if you care to scratch a little bit under the surface, we were almost better with the old Middle-Age catholic monarchies.
The reality is in most of the "democratic" nations we have single-party systems based on neoliberalism, the economics are not disputable bare a few details, if you do you will be excluded from the circle of the VSP and the cronies and what is left to discuss is "circus and breed" identity politics and the petty details which can be summarized over who are you going to sell-off to, or who is going to benefit the most from your policies. At this point one starts to despise the system both from the left and the right, depending on personal context, libertarian paradise or socialist takeover is just a matter of context for the person in case.
Back to the point, I must remind too that 'socialism' and any derivative of Marxism are industrial theories based on increasing throughput and consumption (one of the origins of the word 'progressism', progress, to go forward or advance). In this era anything going against this ethos won't get any substantial support from the population, so no worries Ryan, we are not going towards any ecosocialist nightmare. By the means of the "left" or the "right" though, if we end up getting worse (for whatever the reason), we will end up closer to something closer to those dictatorships I've mentioned above, which will throw the under-class under the bus to starve if necessary (just as it happened during the great depression and is happening again to a lesser extend, in a scarier way, one which gets normalized and rationalized, while economists beat their chests about the last "strong economic data" or how strong the stock market is in the Orwellian mass media).
What I miss though is the lack of serious technocratic policies and discussion, we cannot talk seriously about these issues while 50% of the produced food is wasted and there is people starving, or when we are heavily subsidizing carbon to stay competitive with other technologies who have decreased costs by 98% in the last two years. Is obvious to anyone with an engineering mindset there is ample margin to reduce inefficiencies there (if you see this from a global human perspective instead of one of earning the most money, that is). You cannot come to me with a straight face and tell me "we" need more, who is "we", according to what, compared to whom. The lack of detail, delimitation of the parameters and definition of the problem just lends itself to a politicized discussion that gets no where (exactly what the mainstream wants btw) dominated by Homo Ignoramus.
George W. Bush's final presidential approval rating: 29 percent. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_bush_job_approval-904.html
"50% of the produced food is wasted and there is people starving,"
This is like the US anecdote about the mother at the dinner table trying to coerce her child to eat vegetables by saying "there are people starving in Africa!" then the child cracks back "well send them over to Africa!"....
Left is the mother and the right is the child...
We are forced to watch this farce without being able to influence either side...
Its going to take correct knowledge of how our numismatic system can operate within TPTB if we are ever going to correct this type of economic/material system mis-management...
Even if the left came to realize we are not "out of money!", they STILL wouldn't be able to do anything with that knowledge because they think we are out of real things too
This is completely wrong, Matt. The left is traditionally the side that believes in big, activist government. The democratic socialist parts of the left are the only people calling for a major increase in the government role in the economy and big boosts in government investment.
Carlos, Hillary tilts neocon. She's bad news. But Counterpunch is mainly a bunch of hyperventilating table pounders who think hysterical rhetoric and rage are a substitute for coherent plans of action. It's like Limbaugh for the left. They're stupid people.
"Limbaugh for the left. "
Good analogy....
Post a Comment