March 16, 2010

Social Fascists Part 2

Filed under: Corporatism — Tags: , , , , , — Russ @ 7:10 am


In an earlier post I discussed Obama and the liberals’ self-imposed mission to rehabilitate all Bush/Cheney policies and enshrine them as the business as usual baseline for this government and economy going forward.
This provokes the question of why they’d want to do such a thing. By that I don’t mean questioning the obvious fact that today’s Democrats and liberal leaders are just as much corporatists and warmongers as Cheney and his Republicans. I don’t mean questioning the fact of the infinite chasm between their public interest rhetoric and their gangster actions. These facts are incontrovertible. They are laws of nature, insofar as the currently existing polity is the existing state of nature.
But I do want to ask, who, really, are these people? Why are they history’s worst traitors? The term “social fascist” originated with the Comintern in the latter 1920s and received wide currency in the 30s. The premise was that social democracy, because it refused to support the full revolution as the only effective anti-fascist course of action, was therefore a tacit variant of fascism itself. This was exemplified in the recurrent pattern of nominally “leftist” governments making deals with the far right against the real left, most poignantly in the case of the new “socialist” Weimar Republic in 1919. To this day liberals whose preference is to lean right have the blood of Rosa Luxemburg on their hands.
Today things are, in a sense, worse. Today’s sellouts can’t make even a quasi-serious argument about the strength of the Right or the alleged destructiveness of the “hard” Left. Today any “right” with a capital R can accomplish nothing the Democrats don’t let them accomplish, while no revolutionary Left exists at all. Today when Obama and his liberal teabaggers behave as overt, aggressive Bailouters, neoliberals, corporatists, strikebreakers, warmongers, and police statists, there can be no doubt whatsoever that they’re following their bliss. This is their true vile nature.
(A recent proposed “deal” was Cass Sunstein’s proposal that the government and media should aggressively seek to counteract and even directly censor “conspiracy theories”. Although cloaked in politically ecumenical language, the system’s actions prove clearly enough that we can read, “dissent from the left”. We can be sure the target is blogs like this one, rather than right-wing talk radio. This is borne out in the disproportionate treatment, from governments, police, and the media, doled out to real protestors, as opposed to the teabaggers. The latter consistently get away with much more aggressive behavior while receiving far more respectful treatment. The MSM also consistently overcover teabagger events, and overstate their numbers, while ignoring or downplaying the events and turnouts for progressive protest. Can you imagine what would happen if a “socialist” brought a gun to an Obama event?)
Today we know that privatization, looting, and trickle-down is their characteristic economic policy, their truly cherished ideal. Obama truly is their Leader, as he represents the epitome of liberal Reaganism.
So why do they identify as Democrats and “liberals”? Why aren’t they Republicans? (To begin with, why do we still have the one-party dictatorship split up into two factions? Most of it must be leftover inertia from the old days when there were some actual differences in the parties’ socioeconomic visions. By now they must also figure that the pattern of inverted totalitarianism better fits a sham two-party pseudo-democracy than an overt one-party state like the old USSR.) There has to be lots of cynical calculating going on (for example, Wall Street’s streetwalker in the House Melissa Bean seems to have chosen being a Democrat over being a Republican out of sheer calculation). I bet a lot of it is also the result of temperament.
I’ve always figured that man for man Reps are more likely to be conscious criminals than Dems are. If Dems on the whole are both psychologically weaker and have more book smarts, both of these would lead to their wanting to find ways to square things with their flimsy conscience.
Their weakness also manifests in their incapacity for real anger where it comes to what should be questions of principle. If a prominent liberal claims to hold a principle, and then finds that principle under vicious assault, he’s more likely to compromise on the principle than fight hard on its behalf if the fight would require his real hatred for the enemy. (As I’ve personally experienced, liberals don’t even like calling an enemy “the enemy”.)
For example, in a recent piece Paul Krugman repeated his frequent sigh for “reasonable conservatives”. That’s for his psychological well-being. He needs to believe in them because to a social fascist like him the real Left is usually the real problem. So whenever things get tough, like for his beloved health racketeering plan, his preferred course of action is to make an alliance with the Right. His stance on health “reform” is a textbook example. He applauds the corrupt secret deals the administration made with all the rackets involved in order to produce this monstrosity. But I guess by nature he’s not cynical enough to do this easily. He really wants to feel like he’s a good guy, on the side of good public policy. So he’s personally just as much as politically invested in thinking there’s such a thing as “reasonable conservatives.” That would give him cover for his own corporate advocacy, that he’s not so obviously in the company of only the most vicious gangsters.  
Most liberal nabobs are also cowards. They’re scared of anything, like corporations, which has real power, or even of things which are powerless but can still make noise, like the Republicans in 2009. This cowardice manifests generally in a willingness to live under the thumb of gangsters. Very rarely does a “progressive” actually acknowledge that the beleaguered way of life, the imperiled value, is freedom in itself, prosperity in itself, and the problem is the rackets themselves, and that the great war must be fought out on this line, or lost.
One particular symptom of this kind of cowardice is the constant refrain that Obama “inherited” the Bailout and the Permanent War. A free human being would never accept such an “inheritance”. He’d disavow it. He’d fight as hard as he must to redeem the situation and place the full blame and cost on the heads of the criminals responsible. He’d make them pay, politically, financially, in the dock, and on the gallows, for everything they stole and all the pain they forced upon the innocent.
We know that Obama and his hacks are in fact consciously among the criminals. But this can’t be the case for the rank and file cultists. Only sheer cowardice and spiritual weakness in general can explain the abyss between the ideals they proclaim and the crimes they support. That’s what makes them liberal teabaggers.
(The definition of a teabagger is someone who, regardless of political affiliation, being non-rich lets himself be Astroturfed into fighting for the rich against his own people. So who’s worse?
Is it those who claim to want freedom and the Constitution but who support the fascist Sarah Palin, with her fascist wars and “Patriot” Act? Who call the neoliberal Obama a “socialist”?
Or is it the Obama hacks and cultists? Those who are either too dumb to understand that Obama has done nothing but continue every Bush/Cheney assault, or who openly demonstrate how they’re just Democrat party hacks who never had a problem with Bush policy but only with the fact that it was Bush doing it.
Either way, they’re empowering Wall Street and increasingly overt fascism.
So it’s two kinds of Astroturf hacks, while those on both sides who think Obama’s a “progressive” or a socialist, differing only in whether they applaud or attack this lie, are just the same idiot.)
And with the hacks we get to the worst of the lot, the sheer cynical traitors. These are Democratic politicians and operatives, as well as many, perhaps most, among the “activist” leadership and in the media. These are the neoliberal cadres who willfully support corporatism, who truly believe America should be a dictatorship of big business and big money, with sham elections for window dressing. Reagan, as channeled through Obama, is their perfect Leader. His sociopathy and perfidy, his supercilious elitism and technocratic wonkery, reflect perfectly those who call themselves the “creative class”. This is the real social fascism.
These are the purveyors of the Big Lie of “pragmatism”, which is their Orwellian term for the bloodless tyranny of clinical process. (I’ll have more on “the process” in the next post.) These are the whitewash brigade for all of Obama’s lies: That he never promised “change”, transparency, to purge corruption, to restore the rule of law, to redeem civil liberties, to demand a public option as part of health reform, to withdraw from Iraq (and they lie about the scope of the Afghanistan focus he spoke of, which didn’t remotely foreshadow the massive escalation upon which he’s embarked). They also propagate the pro-Bailout lie that bailing out the insolvent big banks was necessary to “save the economy”. Where this lie doesn’t spring from sheer ignorance, it really means, “without the big banks, there’s no predatory globalization” or “there’s no corporatist economy” or “the elites can’t effectively refeudalize and reduce the people to serfdom.” That’s always what Obama, Geithner, and their lackeys all the way down really mean by, “we had to save the banks.”  These are the Astroturfers who round up the liberal teabaggers for the Democratic party.
They epitomize the classic fascist mentality in another way. The most vile type of subhuman filth is the kiss up-kick down type, the type of the cowardly bully. In our corporatist system, this is the most common type, in politics, in big business, in the MSM, in academia. This is the default type among Republicans, and it has become the most common type among establishment Democrats as well. Thus it’s not surprising that the one “fight” Obama and his slimy little thug Emanuel are willing to engage, the one they downright enjoy, is where they get to beat up on the “retarded” progressives, knowing that these as well are cowardly, self-defined weaklings, just on an even lower level, and will cave in under assault even where in theory they have the strength to fight back.
That’s why under the slightest, most idiotic pressure from Glenn Beck, Obama threw a real activist like Van Jones overboard, and why Jones meekly slunk away. It’s the same Dem-side cowardice at different levels. And it’s why, on the contrary, no level of pressure from the public interest side could ever get Obama to willingly part with capital criminals like Geithner or Bernanke. Because to side against them would mean to side against entrenched power.
The hacks often propagate the lie that this is a “center-right country”. What this really means is that the Democrats, the liberal organizations, and the MSM are to the right of the people, but try to convince the people that each individual one of them is atomized and wrong. It’s demoralization propaganda.
Meanwhile, the system is so rigged by now against the people, against any attempt to really engage in democracy, that for now the hard-right status of government policy is a given, but these scum hacks represent that outcome as a natural, democratic one. They try to render the results of their crimes against democracy a self-fulfilling prophecy. They strip you of any meaningful vote, and then if you vote for a stooge candidate or skip voting altogether, they claim your action either validates the system, or in the case of non-voting that you voluntarily removed yourself from it.
So what are they really? In the end are they progressives or corporatists? If a corporate environmentalist had to choose between Bush or EarthFirst!, which would he choose? These health “reform” hacks, who apparently want a fully corporatized system but with a human face or some such notion: If they had to choose between Bush and fully socialized medicine, which would they choose? If the Civil War were to start today, with clearly demarcated battle lines, and 50-50 odds, and they had to choose the side for which they had to fight, and the armies were infused with the respective spirits of Cheney and Proudhon, who would they choose?
So it was this combination of personal weakness, cowardice, and cynicism, operating over decades of an increasingly corrupt system, which debased whatever public interest spirit that may once have existed among this leadership into social fascism. By now the liberal fascists are almost indistinguishable from the rightist variety.
Real citizens, real freedom fighters, those who truly want to save America, must reject the Democratic party and the liberal establishment, including those who masquerade as independent activists but whose actions prove them to be party hacks, corporate shills, Astroturfers.
As for them, it’s funny how truly angry these hack apparatchiks are becoming, now that the real people are refusing to listen to their criminal lies anymore. That real progressives will no longer accept being treated as the personal property of the vote-buyers, to vote as the purchase decrees. That freedom-loving Americans see through their corrupt, corporatist agenda. That, whatever comes with the future, one thing which has no future whatsoever is the Democratic hack sellout, as represented by Obama, Emanuel, Krugman, and the sellouts and liars all the way down.
Tell the hacks to have fun in 2010. Have fun in 2012.
After that history will never see the likes of them again, and good riddance.


  1. “One particular symptom of this kind of cowardice is the constant refrain that Obama “inherited” the Bailout and the Permanent War. A free human being would never accept such an “inheritance”.

    -That’s an excellent observation.


    “The definition of a teabagger is someone who, regardless of political affiliation, being non-rich lets himself be Astroturfed into fighting for the rich against his own people. So who’s worse?”

    -More than a handful of the “official tea baggers”, as opposed to the so dubbed “liberal tea baggers” to whom you refer, are affluent.

    “His (Obama’s) sociopathy and perfidy, his supercilious elitism and technocratic wonkery, reflect perfectly those who call themselves the “creative class”. This is the real social fascism.”

    -The more ruminate on Obama, the more he reminds me of a slightly more animated version of Adolph Eichmann elevated to a senior management position. The blandness, the ostensible wonkery, (I imagine Eichmann was what passed for a wonk in his twisted times) add up to a bland, technocratic killer. Speaking of which, what odds do we lay on a major expansion of the U.S. war machine before Barry O leaves office? I give 2 to 1.

    Comment by Edwardo — March 16, 2010 @ 8:22 am

  2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

    “It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. “But I like it,” she said, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

    Mere epithets do not begin to do Bela Pelosi justice.

    Comment by Edwardo — March 16, 2010 @ 10:06 am

  3. Do you mean the leadership of these various Tea Parties? I haven’t seen any yet who didn’t look like they were fronting for the Reps and/or the same old pro-rich agenda.

    You’re sure correct about Eichmann being an uber-wonk. When he was tasked with studying Nazi options with regard to the “Jewish question”, his research included visiting Palestine and studying Hebrew. He came to be known as the SS’s top expert on the issue. That’s why they eventually put him in charge of the whole works.

    His “banality of evil” as Arendt called it is often cited nowadays, and with good reason. That describes wonks and technocrats well. They’re prone to sociopathically serve any power structure they happen to find above them.

    Expanding the war machine. We know he’d like to do it, and I suppose he’ll try within the bounds of economic possibility. Gates recently assured weapons dealers that permanently rising Pentagon budgets, just as such, for their own sakes (i.e. for the contractors’ profiteering sakes), are a top priority for the administration.

    And I suppose you saw how they’re transporting bunker-busters to Diego Garcia. If so, they’ll be all set to start the next war at will.

    Comment by Russ — March 16, 2010 @ 11:28 am

  4. Over the last few months I’ve been struggling with the word “progressive” and if it is worth maintaining the distinction between that term and “liberal.”

    The best I could come up with, at least for now, is that an actual “progressive” is willing to draw the line with the current health care bill and say that it is worth killing if it doesn’t have at the absolute minimum a weak public option. A “liberal,” on the other hand, will vote aye on the bill because… well, I don’t really know why, but they will.

    By this measure there are hundreds of liberals in Congress but at most only a half dozen or so progressives. Which sounds about right.

    (Though I might just be engaging in the stupid self-deception that caused many to claim that W. Bush wasn’t a “real” conservative.)

    Comment by jimmy james — March 16, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

    • Yes, there’s not much point trying to distinguish those terms. The only reason liberals started calling themselves progressives was because they let the Republicans turn liberal into a dirty word.

      I’ve generally used them interchangeably. The measure of a real progressive vs. a phony “progressive” is in the actions.

      Like with this health racket sham. We know there are almost no real progressives in the Congress because almost all who call themselves that will nevertheless support this vile mess. (And that’s even after they promised with great fanfare to oppose such a thing, calling themselves the “Progressive Bloc”. So they’re liars as well as cowards/traitors.)

      That’s why we have to simply reject the existing “leadership” as a mass.

      If rank and file activists want real action, we have to do it ourselves.

      Comment by Russ — March 17, 2010 @ 4:06 am

      • Yeah, with Dennis Kucinich waving the white flag today–and for a grand total of zero concessions!–I really should’ve learned by now to take that old X-Files credo to heart: Trust No One.

        We have no allies.

        Comment by jimmy james — March 17, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

  5. If you read the NYRB piece on the Nashville Tea Party you will get the distinct impression that some number of the Tea Party rank and file are hardly hurting for money.

    Yes, I saw the business about Diego Garcia. I’m not sure what to make of that. There are a number of angles on it. However, here is one “theory.”

    Just today, a mere day after the Diego Garcia story broke, General Petraeus announced that the military was on course to pare US forces in Iraq down by half from 90,000 to 45,000.

    My view is the military and those in The Executive
    run the following con. It’s an oldie, but a goodie, as they say. Here ’tis:

    The military discussed force reductions in promising terms, but somehow, someway, “something arises” that militates ( pun intended) against them enacting force reductions. I remember when Clinton was in office, the military lowballed their annual requests, thereby allowing the Administration to generously bestow more in the annual budgets.

    It worked for everyone involved for obvious reasons.

    I’m sure you get the picture. Long story short, beware a scenario that involves “The Guns of August”

    Comment by Edwardo — March 16, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

  6. the military discusses….

    Comment by Edwardo — March 16, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

  7. We’ll see.

    Comment by Russ — March 17, 2010 @ 4:08 am

  8. […] […]

    Pingback by Birthday « Volatility — March 20, 2010 @ 4:50 am

  9. […] yes. But Democrats and “progressives” are just as ardent. Out of either criminality (as social fascists) or their cowardly escapism of the process mentality, they’re just as much a band […]

    Pingback by Trickle-Down and Globalization, Levels of the Lie « Volatility — June 6, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: