Podbean audio introduction to Episode 59
vimeo video introduction
Episode 59. October 19, 2020
CLP topic category: Democrat Police State Socialism
Title: The American Left’s Emerging Social Class Consciousness of Envy In Collusion With the Existing American Ruling Class Consciousness of Greed.
Our podcast today is titled The American Left’s Emerging Social Class Consciousness of Envy In Collusion With the Existing American Ruling Class Consciousness of Greed. This is the Citizens Liberty News Network podcast for October 19, 2020.
Our podcast topic begins in the aftermath of the 2016 election with the entry of the term “resistance” by Democrats into the American political lexicon of social justice.
Resistance is a new term in American political discourse, and our podcast explores how the idea of the left’s resistance to the election of Donald Trump explains a new class consciousness emerging among Democrat voters.
We contrast the left’s resistance to Trump with Angelo Codevilla’s insight that the resistance could also mean the resistance of Trump voter’s to the power of the American ruling class. (Codevilla Angelo, Revolution 2020.The American Mind, September 23, 2020. https://bit.ly/3jvV83k).
Codevilla creates a hypothetical dynamic in class consciousness between BLM Democrats and middle class Trump voters, using the concept of resistance.
“The party of the ruling class—that this party, having lost the 2016 elections, would refuse to accept popular rejection and launch a full-court “Resistance” against the voters who had rejected them. But that is what happened. In fact, the election’s outcome had resulted from the general population’s resistance to the ruling class further solidifying its oligarchy. Hence the self-described “Resistance” was but a continuation of its longstanding oligarchic revolution.”
In an earlier article, we explained that the American ruling class, which we call crony corporate capitalist globalism, has a well defined and established class consciousness of greed. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Unintended Consequence of the BLM Marxist Allegation of “White Supremacy.” CLP News Network. September 28, 2020 https://bit.ly/3lgOmip).
We explain that the left is in the early stages of developing a class consciousness of envy.
In contrast to the left’s emerging class consciousness, we argue that the American middle class has not yet begun to develop a class consciousness.
The dimly perceived resistance to the ruling class of Trump voters that Codevilla sees is a latent middle class consciousness that has the potential to develop.
We explain that the left’s emerging class consciousness is facilitated by its alliance with crony corporate capitalism. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, BLM Marxism and the Emerging Alliance With Global Corporate Crony Capitalism. CLP News Network. July 26, 2020).
We predict that the collusion between BLM Democrats and the ruling class will cause the American middle class to develop a class consciousness consistent with the predictions of Nash equilibrium theory.
We place the start of left’s emerging class consciousness of envy around 1985, with a new development in the globalist corporate behavior that shifted the traditional allegiance of large corporations from national sovereignty, to an allegiance of a one-world global government.
Applying Nash equilibrium theory, the shift in tactics by the crony capitalist class caused a change in the status quo arrangement of power, which caused the left to change its behavior.
Prior to 1985, the essence of the two party arrangement between Democrats and Republicans was special financial group interest negotiations over the distributing the spoils of plunder.
All of the political party special interest elites, what Codevilla calls the ruling class, shared a common cultural value that the end goal of the American political system was to grow the economic pie bigger in order to allow them to plunder the system by distributing the spoils to their voters, after an election.
Prior to 1985, the BLM Democrats did not make changes to the two party status quo power arrangement because no other group in society was making changes to the political status quo.
After 1985, that national elite interest in growing the domestic economy changed, and the national special interest two party consensus about plunder, that held the political system together, eroded.
In response to the change in global capitalism, the Democrats shifted their ideology from being a political party whose mission was to extract plunder for the working class to a political movement of global socialism, in collusion with global crony capitalists.
The left’s growing class consciousness of envy is in the process of replacing the former allegiance of the Democrats from the party of the working class, to the party of the oppressed, within the existing two party framework of American politics.
In other words, in the absence of changes to the status quo, prior to 1985, the two party American political system had settled into a Nash equilibrium.
As a result of the changes that BLM Democrats are making to the new global power arrangement, we predict that the middle class will adapt to the changes by becoming more aware of their own vulnerability, and begin the process of protecting their own class interests.
In the existing two party system, neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, represent the interests of the middle class. Consequently, the middle class will be forced to create a new political party.
The great predictive value of Marxist class conflict theory is the insight that the capitalist class always co-opts its opposition by undermining the ideology of its enemies.
The crony corporations are currently in the process of undermining the emerging leftist class consciousness of envy by buying off the leaders of BLM and elite Democrats in order to convert the movement into a political force that supports global crony capitalism.
It is likely that as the middle class begins to develop its own class consciousness, that the ruling class will attempt to subvert its new enemy.
The crony capitalist class sets the terms and limits for the left’s social justice movement, and nothing about the left’s goal of cultural social justice disrupts the elite’s power or threatens their unequal wealth distribution.
As Emily Jashinsky writes in her Federalist article, How Capitalists Enrich Themselves By Co-Opting Social Justice Movements, BLM Democrats are attacking cultural values, not global capitalist hegemony.
“Corporations are partially motivated by a sincere interest in helping the black community by announcing donations and flooding social media with their statements of solidarity. But they also fear losing business for staying silent, and they are increasingly convinced shifts in consumer preferences make their overtures good for business too.”
The elements of both grievance and entitlement of the new class consciousness of envy explains leftist social class behavior. We argue that the social class behavior of American leftists is based on the collective social psychology, not the individual leftist’s psychology, of envy.
The envy of leftists is based upon the concept of group relative deprivation perceived by the entire social class as undeserved, unfair, collective disadvantage.
We agree with Walker and Smith that social group deprivation reliably predicts political protest and active attempts to change the social system. (Walker, Iain, Smith, Heather, Feeling Relative Deprivation: The Rocky Road From Comparisons to Actions, Cambridge University Press, 2002).
As a social class, leftists envy the unfairly obtained wealth of the ruling class. In their world-view, the wealth of the rich eluded the entire class of non-wealthy, not because of the absence of merit, but because an unfair capitalist economic system deprived the entire BLM under-class of obtaining a fair distribution of wealth.
The social class envy creates a feeling of resentment and grievance in the Democrat socialist voting constituency.
The sense of grievance causes a sense of entitlement to the wealth because, in the BLM perspective, the rich did not justly earn their wealth. Someone else built that wealth.
Rather than attack the ruling class, we argue that the left uses the allegation of middle class white supremacy as a way of projecting a false race-based class consciousness onto all White people.
The BLM Democrats imagine a hypothetical existence of a white race-based consciousness that allows all White people to be seen by BLM Democrats as a social class, similar to their own leftist class consciousness, based upon envy.
In contrast to Codevilla’s use of resistance of Trump voters to the ruling class, the term “resistance” by Democrats translates to opposition to tolerating any more of the unfair, middle class white supremacist system of capitalism, in spite of the election results in 2016.
The left’s emerging class consciousness of envy is based on the historical animosity of class envy between people who have succeeded financially in America, and people who have not.
The historical class animosity, from 1787 onwards, was often called “sectional animosity,” between the commercial North and the agrarian South. In the earlier period, the wealthy in the North competed for power with the wealthy in the South.
In the contemporary setting sectional animosity is converted to a race-based animosity between citizens in metro regions, and citizens in the interior of the United States.
The left packages the ideology of grievance into the theoretical Marxist class conflict between workers and the capitalist elite.
The packaging and placement of race-based grievance does not fit into the Marxist class conflict because the grievance of the left is based upon the notion of “white supremacy” not economic class exploitation.
Race-based envy does, however, fit neatly into America’s two party hegemony.
William Domhoff explained the utility and permanence of the two party system in Who rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2006,
“The two-party system provided yet another demonstration of just how the two-parties really compete with each other, only as rivals in their unblinking servitude to money and power. The two-party system learned to translate insurgent concerns into a “public opinion” that permitted an ongoing renewal of the legitimacy of the existing power structure. The two parties did not take opposite positions on the permanent wartime economy and offer voters a choice between them.”
After 1985, both the BLM Democrats and the Republican crony capitalists favor globalism, but for different reasons.
The socialist Democrats embrace globalism because they sense an opportunity to gain unelected power to extract profits from the seamless global corporate economy, in a global socialist administrative state.
The left’s ideology of racial envy is best seen as a modification of the ruling class hegemony of exploitation, not as a revolutionary overthrow of America’s ruling class.
Reparations for slavery to overcome the current unfair wealth distribution is an emulation of the ruling class ability to rip-off the political system.
In this case the intent of the BLM Democrats is to gain their fair share of plunder by ripping off the middle class, in collusion with the ruling class, within the existing institutional structure of the two party system.
As Domhoff explains,
“This (BLM) dogma asserts that it is more damaging to progressive interest to challenge the two-party system than to accept the need to stay within it. The more the evidence demonstrates that their own dogmatism has produced only bleak disasters, the more they ascribe those disasters to those who rejected their groundless faith-based strategy of “working within the Democratic Party.”
As Codevilla explains,
“The black-clad burners and looters were the very opposite of a proletariat and that, Marxist rhetoric aside, they never attacked the wealthy or the powerful—not Wall Street, nor major corporations, certainly not any government, never mind Google, Facebook, or Twitter, America’s most powerful monopolies, or corporate officials. Instead, they received financial contributions from these sources.”
Promoting the class envy of White people heightens the sense of oppression and grievance of the BLM Democrat constituencies, and eventually leads to a one-party dictatorship that does not require voting to maintain power.
That anti-democratic authority system would not disrupt the ruling class’ ability to use the agencies of government to direct the flow of global financial benefits to themselves.
The new tyranny would only require that the ruling class share profits with its new junior partner, eliminating the need for any further BLM political resistance to Trump voters.
This podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network. The podcast is the introduction of a much longer article.
The other sections of the podcast include:
Section 1. The Consciousness of Greed of the American Ruling Class. Section 2. The BLM Democrat Politics of Envy.
Section 3. The Emerging BLM Democrat Concept of Social Class Consciousness.
Conclusion: The Radical Egalitarianism of the Democratic Republic of America.
The full text and audio of the most recent podcast is available for free at clpnewsnetwork.com. The entire text and audio archive of all the CLP News Network podcasts are available for an annual subscription of $30.
Section 1. The Consciousness of Greed of the American Ruling Class.
The ruling class’ foundational proposition is that elites know better than common citizens what is best for society. Not only that the elites know best, but that they are the only force in society that should ever make collective decisions.
That type of moral arrogance could not function unless the elite possessed a well-defined and well-financed class consciousness to manage the political system, from the top.
Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, accurately described the American ruling class as an “oligarchy.” The class consciousness that Schumpeter described was based upon a shared set of cultural and social values, or as Schumpeter stated, “sharing the right socio-political opinions.”
Membership in the ruling class is tightly controlled by self-enforced social rules. Citizens from the middle class and underclass are rarely, if ever, admitted into the ruling oligarchy.
In his book, Who rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2006, William Domhoff describes his research in documenting the elements of the American ruling class.
Domhoff states that his research shows,
“First, it shows there is a nationwide social upper class in the United States that has its own exclusive social institutions and is based in the ownership of great wealth. Second, it demonstrates that this upper class is closely intertwined with the corporate community. Third, it argues that the social cohesion that develops among members’ of the upper class is another basis for the creation of policy agreements within the policy-formation network. The demonstration of an upper class that is tightly interconnected with the corporate community is relevant because it contradicts the idea that there has been a separation between corporate ownership and control in the United States.”
Domhoff cites the importance of social class awareness among members of the ruling class in maintaining social and political control. His term for their power is “class dominance.”
“Involvement in these institutions usually instills a class consciousness that includes feelings of superiority, pride, and justified privilege. Deep down, most members of the upper class think they are better than other people and therefore fully deserving of their station in life—an attitude that is very useful in managing employees, even though it is sometimes psychologically debilitating. This class consciousness is ultimately based in the society-wide categories of owners and nonowners, but it is reinforced by the shared social identities and interpersonal ties created by participation in social institutions of the upper class.”
Domhoff cites the linkage between political power and corporate power in the ruling class.
“Without a doubt, then, the .5 to 1 percent of the population that makes up the upper class is also the .5 to 1 percent who owned 45.6 percent of the financial wealth in 1992. In terms of the “Who benefits?” indicator of power, the upper class is far and away the most powerful group in society.”
Our term to describe this linkage between political and corporate power is crony corporate global capitalism.
In BLM Marxism and the Emerging Alliance With Global Corporate Crony Capitalism, we write,
“The American crony corporate global capitalist system can best be understood as a rent-seeking economy where elites use the power of government to obtain unearned profits from non-elites. The three main components of both the American global crony national economic structure and the Chinese communist economic structure are:
1. The global firms in the military-industrial complex.
2. The global manufacturing industrial firms with a financial interest in obtaining foreign trade benefits, especially with China.
3. The global banking and investment firms who coordinate global financial transactions in conjunction with global central banks.
The common characteristics of global cronyism, in both the American and Chinese economies, and in all three of the national economic structures, is a preference for collectivist globalism, as opposed to promotion of a sovereign national economic interest.” (Vass, Laurie Thomas, BLM Marxism and the Emerging Alliance With Global Corporate Crony Capitalism. (July 25, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3660493).
Codevilla asks in his article, Revolution 2020, “to what end does the American ruling class govern?”
We answer that the end goal of the ruling class is greed. The common social and cultural value of greed binds the American ruling class together, in a defined social class consciousness.
We argue that the development of the well-defined social class consciousness of the American ruling class is explained by Robert Michels’ theory of the “iron law of oligarchy.” Michels predicted that all political systems eventually end up serving the selfish interests of the ruling class.
We argue that the ruling class social class consciousness acts as a reference point for BLM Democrats in the development of their own emerging class consciousness.
In his article, The Two Sides of Envy, Boris Gershman explains that the BLM Democrats compare their own wealth to the wealth of the ruling class.
In his conception of class envy, the BLM Democrats could choose one of two paths to overcome their sense of social class deprivation.
On one path, the BLM Democrats could choose constructive envy by emulating the traits and characteristics of the members of the ruling class.
On the other path, the BLM Democrats could attempt to take wealth away from the ruling class, called destructive envy, by Gershman.
We argue neither path will be chosen by BLM Democrats. We predict that the left will use envy as a tool to form class consciousness among Democrat voters, not to emulate the traits of the wealthy, but to emulate their political power to rip off the middle and working classes, in collaboration with the ruling class.
The collaboration between the ruling class and BLM Democrats was explained by Barack Obama as a new type of ideologically-free system of global governance.
In his last days in office, Obama explained to a crowd in Latin America,
“No system is perfect; so we must craft an economic system that uses market forces to produce results that are inclusive and socially, morally, and ethically correct…You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory, you should just decide what works.”
What works, for Obama and BLM Democrats, is an alliance with America’s ruling class, where the ruling class makes the decisions about the global economy, and the BLM Democrats control the distribution of income that fits their concept of social justice that is inclusive, socially moral, ethically correct, and profoundly anti-democratic.
Section 2. The BLM Democrat Politics of Envy.
Grimm’s German dictionary defines envy as,
“The vindictive and inwardly tormenting frame of mind that is a pleasure with which one perceives the prosperity and advantages of others but grudges them these things and in addition, wishes one were able to destroy or to possess them oneself.”
In his recent article, Common Sense Now A Theater of Envy, Wayne Boatwright places the concept of envy into the current American political context. Boatwright states,
“The envious believe that their path to happiness is tied to the fate of those they envy. Paradoxically, they believe that somehow their happiness will be increased if they can pull others down. Envy requires them to blame someone or something in order to defuse conflict through the scapegoat mechanism. Unable to assume responsibility or engage in self-reflection to recognize their own part in the conflict, humans individually and cross-tribally unite. .. .Envy permits the creation of a common unifying mythological underlay.”
James Lindgren, in his article, What Drives Views on Government Redistribution and Anti-capitalism: Envy or a Desire for Social Dominance? begins by noting that Marx, “thought that the world owed someone of his extraordinary rhetorical talents a living, ruthlessly exploiting those around him to get it.”
Lindgren explains that Ludwig von Mises thought that all of Marxist theory was based upon class envy. He writes,
“Ludwig von Mises argued that socialism was based on resentment, envy, and a desire for revenge: Marx’s originality and historical significance lie entirely in the field of political technique. Marx recognized the immense social power that can be achieved by welding out of the great masses of workers, herded together in workshops, a political factor; and he seeks and finds the slogans to unite these masses into a coherent movement. He preaches a doctrine of anti- capitalism.”
The BLM Democrats have taken up the Marxist doctrine of anti-capitalism, based upon their notion of class envy. In their modification of Marxism to fit into the white supremacist paradigm, the BLM Democrats combine anti-capitalism with white racism.
“The Von Mises thesis posits that redistributionists (BLM Marxists) are driven by envy for the property of others and a frustration with one‘s lot in a capitalist system… (The BLM Marxists) base their work on the assumption that pro-capitalism or anti- redistribution tends to reflect racism and a desire for dominance.”
Larry Elder, in his article, The Grievance Party, quotes Bernie Sanders on his deployment of grievance as a political weapon,
“Bernie Sanders peddles another grievance: If some get paid a lot, why can’t others get paid more? If we are a nation that can provide contracts to baseball players for hundreds of millions of dollars, don’t tell me we cannot pay teachers in this country the kind of wages and salaries they deserve.”
John Cassidy, in his article in the New Yorker, Why Socialism Is Back, quoted Bernie’s sense of envy,
“In his speech last week, Bernie warned of a “growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country…When disappointing economic outcomes are combined with a widespread perception that these outcomes were prearranged to favor a tiny élite, candidates who offer an alternative gain in popularity. That is what is happening now.”
The 2014 Atlantic article, “The Limitations of Democrats’ Politics of Grievance,” explains that the BLM politics of envy is based upon,
“Ensuring “a fair shot for everyone,” directly aimed at disaffected voters who believe they’re on the short end. And it may help explain why Pelosi and Israel were so comfortable asserting that parts of the Democratic base are victims of racism.”
The BLM Democrat propaganda of a fair shot for everyone is used by BLM Marxists as justification for looting and reparations.
In her Federalist article, Where Black Lives Matter Rioters Learned To Call Looting ‘Reparations’ Joy Pullmann cites BLM Marxist Ta-Nehisi Coates in his logical justification for looting and reparations.
She quotes Coates,
“The case I make for reparations is, virtually every institution with some degree of history in America, be it public, be it private, has a history of extracting wealth and resources out of the African- American community. I think what has often been missing this is what I was trying to make the point of in 2014 that behind all of that oppression was actually theft. In other words, this is not just mean. This is not just maltreatment. This is the theft of resources out of that community.”
In the BLM logic of envy, the prior theft of Black wealth by White people justifies looting.
Pullman quotes a BLM Democrat judge Everett Mitchell in the Dane County Wisconsin Circuit Court, who stated,
“Prosecutors should go easy on shoplifters at ‘big box’ stores. I just don’t think that they should be prosecuting cases … for people who steal from Wal-Mart. I don’t think Target or all them [sic] other places, the big boxes that have insurance, that they should be using … the fact that people steal from there, justification to start engaging in aggressive police practices.”
Pullman cites BLM founder Aislinn Pulley, who made the logical connection between looting and reparations for slavery.
“Pulley also implied that rampant property crimes decimating Democrat-run cities like Chicago during ongoing summer protests are not the fault of those committing them, but the fault of voters and elected officials who don’t do what she wants: “The refusal to enact any meaningful change will mean that we will have continued instances like this…We will continue to have unrest, intercommunal violence and these things until the root causes are resolved.”
The BLM politics of envy ends in an authoritarian, one party, communism, that looks like the society of China. In that society, the ruling class elites command the resources of the Communist Party in a totalitarian, unified power structure, where there is no envy, because there is no dissent or opposition.
Section 3. The Emerging BLM Democrat Concept of Social Class Consciousness.
There are two concepts at play in explaining the emerging BLM social class consciousness. The first is a sociological term, social class, applied by social scientists to identifiable groups of people who share demographic characteristics.
Social class is a scientifically empirically verifiable concept because it can be tested as a hypothesis.
For example, the term “economic class” refers to how one ranks relative to others in terms of income and wealth. The terms lower class, working class, middle class and ruling class can be investigated with the use of statistical methods to rank and sort citizens into collective groups, based upon the metrics of income.
Marx defined the working class, or proletariat, in terms of the source of their income based upon their relationship to the means of production.
BLM Democrats define their own social class in terms of racism, not the Marxian definition of the source of income. In the BLM concept, there are only two classes, White people, and Black people.
As is the case for ruling class consciousness defined by a commonly shared set of values, BLM class consciousness refers to a commonly-shared set of values related to oppression of Black people by White people.
Marxist theory explains that working class consciousness is an awareness by all workers that they are exploited by the capitalist class. He predicted that when all workers became aware of their common source of oppression, that the workers would rise up in revolt against the capitalist class and replace capitalism with communism.
BLM class consciousness is a type of awakening to its deep envy and hatred for the White people who oppress them, similar to the Marxian concept that the capitalist class exploits the working class.
In contrast to the ruling class consciousness, and the emerging BLM class consciousness, White people in America do not identify themselves by collectivist group identity characteristics.
Applying Marxian theory, all White people have “false consciousness” because White people do not see themselves as a racial class that is conspiring to oppress Black people.
The logical flaw in the emerging BLM social class consciousness is that their reference group for their oppression does not exist. The reference group, White people, does not see itself as a group.
The BLM social class consciousness of oppression by all White people is a figment of their fetid imagination.
As Codevilla writes in his article, The Original Fascists,
“According to Marx, consciousness is epiphenomenal to class reality. Hence, what people think subjectively does not affect what they are objectively. Truth that is class-objective and hence politically correct, is whatever the party judges useful to itself. That is why Communists believe they may apply the term “fascist,” or any other, to people who do not think themselves so. But this reasoning, so clearly expressed, is adequate only among Communist apparatchiks.”
In other words, the emerging BLM Democrat consciousness allows them to apply the term “racist” to all White people, who do not see themselves as oppressors.
The term racist, as oppressors, only has meaning and significance within the group identity politics of BLM Marxists.
The BLM social class consciousness is not based upon the concept of group oppression, as would be the case if the BLM Marxists had stuck with the original Marxian class conflict theory.
The emerging class consciousness of BLM Marxists is based upon social class envy. A more authentic version of Marxism would have been to target the ruling class as enemies, and build BLM consciousness around that perceived enemy.
In the Marxian concept of the sources of income, income could be empirically investigated by first defining income from:
(1) inherited wealth,
(2) earned wealth,
(3) profits and fees,
(6) private relief,
(7) public relief.
The logical flaw of the BLM concept of consciousness is that both Black people, and White people earn income from all sources. Consequently, following BLM logic, both White people and Black people oppress all Black people.
And, consequently, in the issue of reparations of the BLM Democrat’s consciousness, all Black people and all White people owe reparations to all Black people, whereas the more authentic Marxian analysis would extract wealth exclusively from the ruling class.
In contrast to a false class consciousness of all White people, the income of the ruling class is easily identified by empirical investigation.
The emerging BLM social class consciousness is not race-based, it is class envy based.
A better analysis of the emerging BLM class consciousness is provided by applying the term “social justice” in place of white supremacy.
Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, in his book, Egalitarian Envy, explains the emerging socialist class consciousness in terms of envy. He writes,
“A contemporary disguise of collective envy is what is called “social justice.” How does this ideological…argumentation run? A fundamental postulate is established that the more just a society is, the more equal its members are in opportunities, position, and wealth; and immediately it is established that the party will fight without rest to achieve such “justice.”
In other words, the term “social justice” as a goal allows the BLM Marxists to evade targeting the ruling class as enemies by shifting the focus to the issue of “justice.”
William Voegeli, in his American Mind The Bigotry of Social Justice, quotes BLM Marxists on how the shift in emphasis allws the BLM Marxists to create a class consciousness without targeting the ruling class. He writes,
“In Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter, political scientists Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Candis Watts Smith contend that “Jim Crow, lynchings, police with dogs, the N-word, and other overt behaviors and attitudes” are manifestations of racism, but of just one type of racism. Structural racism, “covert and enduring” because it is “embedded in our everyday affairs,” refers to “the fact that political, economic, social, and even psychological benefits are disproportionately provided to some racial groups while disadvantages are doled out to other racial groups in a systematic way.”
The logic of the allegation of “systemic racism” is that the entire current system of national sovereignty capitalism must be torn down, and replaced with a more fair global system of crony capitalism, or as Obama states, “a system that works.”
The connection between white supremacy and social justice is totalitarian and irrefutable in the logic of the left’s class consciousness. There can only be one interpretation of the truth, and that truth is that the sum total of all Black deprivation is caused by all White people oppressing Black people.
“The social justice project’s whole point is to make white people feel responsible for blacks’ disadvantages, and thereby committed to eliminating them. There is no logical contradiction between this mission and reaching the conclusion that blacks’ disadvantages are explained, to some significant degree, by factors other than white racism.”
Robin DiAngelo, a BLM Marxist, summarizes the totalitarian elements of the BLM class consciousness,
For those who “seek justice and emancipation, such analytical standards as “validity, soundness, [and] conceptual clarity” are not merely unnecessary but harmful. Accordingly, it is imperative to assess arguments made “in response to social-justice issues not as propositions to be assessed for their truth value, but as expressions of power that function to re-inscribe and perpetuate social inequalities.”
There is nothing inherent in the BLM logic of not assessing the truth content of their proposition of white supremacy that would in any way contradict the power of the crony capitalists because that totalitarian outcome is exactly the same goal that their ruling class consciousness is based upon.
Conclusion: The Radical Egalitarianism of the Democratic Republic of America.
In Angelo Codevilla’s review of the book, The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, by Michael Anton, Codevilla describes an enduring psychological defect in the logic of American conservatives, as applied to the threat to individual liberty of the emerging BLM class consciousness.
The conservative mental defect inhibits the development of a middle class consciousness among both Black people and White people.
“Conservatives have continued to believe that the United States’s institutions and those who run them retain legitimacy. Conservative complaisance made possible a half-century of Progressive rule’s abuse… The combination of the ruling class constituents’ fired-up insatiability, the rulers’ inability to control them, and the limits of conservative Americans’ patience is sure to cause a crisis that ends up in some kind of “Caesarism” of the Left or the Right.”
The mental defect does not allow the conservatives to see the Ruling Class as enemies of liberty, or to see the collaboration between the ruling class and BLM Marxists as “the election to end all elections,” as Codevilla puts it.
From this point in time forward, any single victory by the BLM Democrats will end the entire history of two-party rule, in favor of a totalitarian one-party system.
The socialist journal, Against the Current, describes the effect of the conservative mental defect of placing faith in the legitimacy of the existing two party system in America:
“Part of nationalizing the two-party rivalry established the national faith that the system had evolved to represent the will of the voters. As we have seen, it never actually did so, but all politicians and virtually all pundits implicitly and explicitly turn every election into a well-practiced celebration of that faith…At the most basic level, either of the parties, under the right circumstances, could find partisan uses for an ostensibly independent bid for power.”
The conservative faith in the legitimacy of the political and economic system is misguided. It is based upon a distortion of the reasons Madison created a representative republic to represent the commercial and financial factions of the natural aristocracy.
Madison’s system devolved into a rotten corrupt system dominated by the ruling class, which is on the verge of forming an alliance with BLM Marxists to permanently destroy the existing framework of government.
Unless, and until, middle class citizens correct their mental defect of granting legitimacy to the ruling class, they will not develop a social class consciousness to confront the crony capitalist class.
We slightly disagree with Codevilla’s conclusion that the current state of affairs will end up in “some kind of “Caesarism” of the Left or the Right.”
That civil dissolution will not occur until the changes made by the ruling class and the BLM Marxists leads to a change in the status quo mentality of the middle class.
And, should that future national dissolution occur, the end goal is not a global, totalitarian tyranny, but a new nation based upon the principles of radical citizen egalitarianism, in a democratic republic, that replaces Madison’s flawed representative republic.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network. www.clpnewsnetwork.com
Our constitutional principles of government are on our Democratic Republic of America website. www.democraticrepublicofamerica.com
You can follow our daily commentary on twitter https://twitter.com/ltvtoo and at Parler https://bit.ly/2C3NgWf
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at www.GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com