The downfall of Detroit. Detroit's former Lee Plaza Hotel, closed in the 90s. (photo: Yves Marchand and Romaine Meffre/TIME)
22 September 15
“This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.” – The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that costs and risks are socialized to the extent possible, while profit is privatized.” – Noam Chomsky
ou
are going to be hearing a lot about “Bernie Sanders, the Radical
Socialist” in the coming months. So before that bandwagon rolls off down
the great American highway let’s pin a little truth to its tail.
Socialism is nothing new in American politics or
economics. Of course it’s not called “Socialism,” that would screw up
the corporate 1% media’s branding. They call it good economic policy or
bailouts or quantitative easing or free trade – but it’s Socialism.
You will also hear a great deal about “wealth
redistribution.” You will be encouraged to fear that. You should. Yes,
wealth redistribution is a reality and an American tradition, but it
never goes from the top to the bottom, it goes from the bottom to the
top. At this point the pace is rapacious. When Donald Trump talks about
making America great again, he’s talking about the traditional
bottom-to-top form of wealth redistribution. Yes that would make America
great – for him, and those precious few who share his tax bracket.
Recent painful examples of the nation’s wealth being
redistributed from working class Americans to the wealthiest include the
Iraq war and the so-called housing bubble collapse.
The Iraq War transferred, by all accounts, trillions
of US taxpayer dollars into the coffers of arms manufacturers and
contractors. It was in all likelihood the largest and most rapid such
transference in history.
The housing boom-to-bust “Recession of 2008,” arguably
continuing today, turned American homes into Wall Street commodities.
The result was that millions of Americans lost their homes. Wall Street
investors got rich betting on the bust, and those who lost money
recovered it from investment insurers, who were then bailed out by the
American taxpayer. Wealth redistributed – big time.
The conflict isn’t over Socialism, it’s over who
should be allowed to enjoy its benefits. The nation’s wealthiest 1% of
individuals and corporations do. Everyone else does not, but certainly
should.
What makes Sanders’ ideas radical is that he wants all
Americans to enjoy the benefits of Socialism, not just the top 1%. So
he will be labeled a “radical,” and the average American who would
benefit most from his policies will be pressed to fear him. The most
fertile breeding ground for that fear will be ignorance, ignorance of
course being the anvil of oppression.
Wall Street cares nothing for “the economy.” Wall
street is absolutely, categorically dedicated to profit, 1% profit
foremost. Whoever gets hurt, gets hurt. In case you haven’t noticed,
Wall Street is running the country. Sanders’ radical policies are very unpopular there.
So while your television or other corporate media
outlet congers up visions of Joseph Stalin when describing Sanders’
“Socialist agenda,” remember, America has always had Socialism, working
people have always paid for it, and the wealthiest Americans have always
enjoyed it.
Socialism for working people, maybe not so radical.
Want to really make America great again? Do it the way FDR did it in the
1930s. That is where Sanders is leading the 99%.
Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Comments
+111
#
2015-09-22 09:39
.
Very nice article. I sure hope someone asks Bernie about "income redistribution" and he gives your answer.
One thought:
"Sanders' radical policies"... ?
But they aren't radical at all. They are oh so reasonable! They aren't even new. They're old time, sensible and fair. The public has just been trained by the corporate media to fear them.
Very nice article. I sure hope someone asks Bernie about "income redistribution" and he gives your answer.
One thought:
"Sanders' radical policies"... ?
But they aren't radical at all. They are oh so reasonable! They aren't even new. They're old time, sensible and fair. The public has just been trained by the corporate media to fear them.
+50
#
2015-09-22 10:13
To be "radical" does
not mean unreasonable, but means advocating root (Radix) changes to a
system. Today we have radicals on both left and right arguing for
fundamental changes to our political and economic systems.
+15
#
2015-09-22 18:33
WOW! I'm impressed. You may be the second person with whom I've conversed who knew what "radical" really means.
+1
#
2015-09-24 17:44
Do you remember Newt
using the term "radical conservative" to describe his political
philosophy? I thought my head would explode.
