What is the city but the people? -- Coriolanus
(3.1.239)A major difference between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party is that the former is a genuine grass roots movement while the latter is astroturf. If we quibble about the meaning of
Tea Party, we end up with two concepts. In one sense, there is no Tea Party but its leaders,
viz., the Koch brothers, Dick Armey, Rick Scott, etc. These people foot the bill for the Tea Party movement. They inform a segment of the population with disinformation delivered by FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh and assorted televangelists, who deride more foresighted people who see through the propaganda with names like "communist," "socialist" and "dirty hippies"; then the Tea Party leaders use those frustrated people who has been receptive to this message as storm troopers to shut down town hall meetings where a congressman wants to talk about health care reform. They tell these people that they should fear those with power over their lives, and that the government has power over their lives. This is a convenient half-truth. Yes, we should fear the government, but is that all we should fear? Well, what about corporate power? The news is full of reasons why that also should be feared, but one should never expect that to be part of the Koch brothers' message.
Instead, they preach the gospel of a counterfeit freedom from the droppings of quack philosopher, Ayn Rand. Ms. Rand taught that man is a selfish, but intelligent and creative individual and that the best among us should be free to organize and dominate the rest of us. Ms. Rand taught that with absolute freedom, the best among us build a society that benefits all when they take control of the instruments of economic production. These capitalist
Übermenschen (not Ms. Rand's term, but one I'll borrow from Nietzsche, whose influence Ms. Rand acknowledged) have no need of society themselves, just a need to organize it.
For Ms. Rand, the effect of the
Übermenschen on society is wholly beneficial. In her novel,
Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, her fictitious prophet of laissez faire capitalism, uses Hank Rearden, her fictitious iron manufacturer and prototype of a capitalist
Übermenschen, as an example of this benefit:
The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics' Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden.
Well, how much did Hank Rearden bring to the enterprise? Without that muscle, his ideas would remain on paper. He, too, would bring nothing more than what he could do with his bare hands and that would be his earning potential. Without an investment banker on Wall Street (believe or not, they are of some use when they do their jobs right), he would have no funds to build the machine. Without laborers, that machine would not be built. Without more laborers, that machine that produces an stronger type of rail would remain idle. Without all of those other people, Hank Rearden would not be a rich man. That machine ad the rail it produces is as much a "gift" to Hank Reardon from society as the increased production of better rails is a "gift" from Hank Rearden.
That this is a contradiction is easy enough to see. The capitalist has no need of society, but needs to organize it. By organizing it, does he not become part of it? He needs the labor of others to create wealth, which he then claims as his own. Thus, his existence as a capitalist is conditioned by the existence of others as workers; the capitalist is a part of the society he has organized. Nevertheless, he sets the rules for the rest of us, although he should not be subject to any himself. Even the government, considered by Ms. Rand, is his tool. It enforces his rules on the masses, but he is exempt from responsibility. Thus, as it turns out, the freedom of the
Übermenschen is a counterfeit freedom: is is the freedom of one man to enslave others.
This might all work if we we could depend on these
Übermenschen to behave rationally at all times. Alas, we cannot. If recent history has shown us anything, it is that that economic forces spin out of control of the capitalist, becoming a destructive force of nature that engulfs
Herren and
Herden alike.
By no means is the capitalist the only "universal class" that has claimed Plato's mantle of
aristocracy (rule by the best). Plato, however, meant for the aristocracy to rule in the interests of the entire community. However, throughout history, each succeeding "aristocracy" has ruled only in its own self interest, while, free from their own rules, members of the aristocracy live a life of decadence and opulence at the expense of the subordinate classes (the word
aristocracy is indeed ironic). Eventually, the aristocracy squeezes the very life out of those who make up subordinate classes until the individuals of the subordinate classes do some organizing of their and, taking matters into their own hands, overthrow the old aristocracy. For the non-aristocrat, this is a matter of survival. Revolution is a force of nature.
The Declaration of Independence is basically right:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We need only realize that, in addition to government, all social systems apply, including the organization of economic order.
The Tea Party as we have examined it thus far is a tool of the aristocracy to dominate the masses at whose expense they thrive. In that sense, the Tea Party is only its leaders, those who have organized members of subordinate classes into a political force that benefits only the aristocracy itself.
But, just as the capitalist is nothing without those who work for him, so the leaders of the Tea Party are nothing without the mob they've organized, the individuals who make up the rank and file of the Tea Party. They are frustrated and fearful of the power of alien forces over their lives. Well, so are we. If we are the 99%, as we claim, then the rank-and-file Tea Partier, riot policeman doing the bidding of the corporate
Übermenschen and even the politician who sold himself to the
Übermenschen are part of us, too.
We have seen what the order of laissez-faire capitalism really is: it is chaos, it is destructive and even self-destructive. In the end, it is unsustainable. Its presence state is based on fraud in the market place and disinformation in the media about global warming, race relations and economics.
The real question is how to counter the propaganda funded by the Koch brothers
et al. and persuade the rank-and-file Tea Partiers, the riot policemen and many bought politicians that their fight is our fight. We have nothing to discuss with the Koch brothers, but we have much to discuss with those they have misinformed or bought.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
