Barry Soetoro Obama is carrying out a socialist revolution. He has seized control of the state, and importantly its key intelligence agencies, that are in turn employed to blackmail key members of the judiciary, military, and congress. That is to say, they use a form of coercion to push through their legislative agenda.
We learned this not from Edward (or Eric) Snowden, but from former NSA intelligence analyst Russell Tice.
My beef with Mr. Obama’s socialist agenda is that socialist theory is all wet. It is a complete misreading of Marx, in particular one has to include the Grundrisse, the notes to Das Kapital. Notes that were hidden away in Moscow until the 1970s, and only belatedly published. There the bearded one, Uncle Karl, goes into the social basis of capitalism, the social relations of production.
It was indeed capitalist property relations, that tied producers to the market and prevented retreat into subsistence that set off sustained progress in income per capita. There was an elective affinity between the Protestant Ethic and capitalist property relations that forced producers to rationalize production.
Marx would no doubt intone that Marx is not a marxist. This current revolution is total Bolshevik malarkey with a dab of Trotsky for good measure.
To the extent production was rationalized, the higher the rent that the tenant could now pay to the gentry class. It was also in the interest of the gentry class to choose tenants that were more competent, even to the extent of helping the tenant to make improvements, like up and down husbandry and the use of the heavy plow, so that the latter could pay higher rents.
Tenants in turn were motivated to save surpluses that were reinvested in new techniques leading to tenants becoming owner operators or small farmers. That is by foreclosing retreat into subsistence, tenants were able to hold their social position only in and through market relations. Previously, the peasant might market surpluses in good years, but he was not compelled to do so. In fact, the market would have posed serious liabilities to the peasants reproduction, and the peasant was loathe to take such risks that might undermine the family. Consequently there was no drive to maximize output for the market.
By contrast, Barack Obama’s idea is to allow market failures an avenue outside of the market to hold their social position. Not even, Adam Smith was very clear on this point. What causes there to be ongoing growth in the standard of living was precisely capitalist relations of production, not bail-ins or bail-outs. And that of course these strategies of reproduction had an ideological basis in the Protestant Ethic. What created the rationality of markets, in the old days, was precisely the routinization of Protestant behavior and the homogeneity of its population, and all those assimilated to its cultural precept of finding one’s election in and through mundane everyday practices.
In short Mr. Obama is totally devoid of possessing the vision that leads to sustained ongoing increases in the standard of living of a population. Indeed like Adam Smith, and to a lesser extent Karl Marx himself, he assumes everything he needs to explain why people behaved in a rational pattern producing for the market. Why there was a drive to maximize output that did not exist under feudalism and the extraeconomic squeezing of direct producers. In fact it was the squeezing of peasants that killed any incentive to increase production. This often done to fund the lords in their interminable wars.
This socialist experiment will not produce a prosperous society, anymore than Catholicism has ever produced such a society notwithstanding France, or Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, or Judaism. But even in the case of France just across the border in Germany one finds a far more competitive cost structure. For that matter Scotland was a backwater until John Knox returned from Switzerland with the most extreme form of Protestantism—Calvinism. I might add, because of Protestant routinization planning was predictable, a process now completely destroyed by fiat money printing that in the end discourages investment. The money changers have finally succeeded in their perfidy.
But all tape worms destroy their host by sapping their nourishment—the scarce leavings of capitalism known as profits. I needn’t have to remind my readers that American’s standard of living reached its peak in terms of real wages in 1973, and has not exceeded that peak for 40 straight years. This was precisely because of wars of choice that eventually took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1971, and has now allowed unlimited credit creation sapping wages through inflation.
Today, if wages simply remained at the high of 1973, they would only purchase half of what they once did thanks to Federal Reserve money printing to fund the state’s primary function of war. In the final analysis the costs of such policy fall on the shoulders of the direct producers, no different from feudalism.