Thursday, April 26, 2012

Labels (again)

I was rereading a bit of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto the other night (one should read this from time to time, I think, especially at various ages and stages of your life - it is surprising how your views change over time. Even (especially?) after living for many years under the "good guys" of democracy.

In this post I am not really meaning to speak only of Marx's original labels, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, but more about some of our modern labels we like to  stick on each other here in the USA.

Marx was right (though it was hardly an original thought or earthshaking discovery) that the history of mankind, from earliest times, has been a history of class warfare (as the current crop of Republicans like to label it) - the poor and the rich, the exploiters and the exploitees, the haves and the have nots, the workers and the bosses, the... well, you know. Marx gives many more boring and redundant examples, long after you've gotten the point. He probably was afraid his little manifesto book would not be thick enough to be taken seriously. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he was just naturally verbose and boring. It doesn't matter.

 Our labels today haven't really changed that much in the past several decades. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives and Marxists. Greens, reds, whites, blacks, rainbows. And so many more - far too many to ridicule in this one post. Not that anyone's earnest beliefs should ever be ridiculed by such as me. All views are important to our colorful family, and deserve the appropriate consideration, I say.


Democrats and Republicans are POLITICAL PARTIES. Political parties are organizations whose goal is to manipulate our political system and put people (lackeys? Scumsuckers?) into positions of power who will best further the special financial interests of certain groups. "Special Interest Groups" we call these puppeteers. "Special Interest Groups versus the Downtrodden Masses" as Karl probably wished he'd thought of instead of me.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Read any of the donkey literature and you will soon learn that the Dems are for the working man, the downtrodden victims of the rich. Unions. The handicapped. GaysLesbiansTransgenderedsUndecideds. The elevation of African-Americans, preferably through Affirmative Action programs which will begin working just any day now. Unborn babies? Not so much. Republicans are "for" the rich, anti-union, anti gay, racist, workhouse-loving monsters who, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, want women to die from back-alley abortions and would have the elderly and infirm die in the gutters of starvation and lack of basic health care. Republicans hate blacks, of course. Mexicans? Forgedaboudit. Read the elephant literature and you will discover that Republics are grossly misunderstood and severely maligned. They are good decent salt-of-the-earth folk who just have different plans to reach Marx's shining Utiopia on a hill. Parity. But they gotta earn it, goddammit.

Of course there are many more POLITICAL PARTIES, all espousing their own mish-mash of descriptions of equally cockamamie paths to proletariat salvation. You have your Greens (the tree huggers who want clean energy, but don't have any actual workable or affordable alternatives available just yet, and who haven't even THOUGHT about Iran) and you have your reds (commies) and you have your Libertarians (do your own thing, man, and keep the government the hell out of everything) and you have your Socialist Workers and your American Independents. Probably the Prohibition Party is still running candidates in Mississippi and northern Wisconsin, and maybe California Dreamers (they dream that by spending more money on health care for illegal aliens they will eventually get out of debt.) No, I made that last one up.

Heavens, but there is SO much more ground to cover! I just HAVE to tell you my opinions and definitions of those who are labeled liberals and conservatives and progressives and such. And I am not even CLOSE to sharing my thoughts on Reverend Al and Trayvon. However, I fear those tidbits (and more) will have to wait for a future post. That pesky artery in my temple is starting to pulse again, signaling time for a blood-pressure pill and a brief lie-down.


  1. Replies
    1. I did. This is because he was a shining example of what we should all aspire to be when we are living as our best and most generous self. I meant no insult to you by Lord Blair's (surely soon-to-be) omission. He simply stands head and shoulders above your current crop, who, in sin and error pining, continue blindly down the path of financial ruin.

      The world will always note and long remember this man you love so dearly, this man whose portrait you keep on your night stand next to the alarm, so his visage is the first thing your weary eyes focus on when your mind greets each new day. This man, this Bush-beloved whom the great Dubya soulfully called "friend" in time of sorrow. A rock, this man. Father of Linda Blair. Inspiration of the Blair Witch Project. Money manager extraordinaire. Omit Tony Blair? I think I would sooner endure being barred from attending the final tribute of the Iron Lady.

  2. Not sure what you were trying to say there.

    1. I'm trying to define some labels that I frequently see thrown around in the comments of news and political blogs.

      I'm trying to clarify my thinking by learning precisely what some of those commonly used labels or terms mean. That's a first step.

      I haven't formulated an ultimate goal yet, but I think it is gong to be an attempt to define what kind of government I would want to live under if I could use the mistakes of history to guide me - if I were writing a new constitution, or if I were trying to form a new political party. What do I think most people living here would want as planks in that new party platform or as points and rights in a new constitution?

      The first step in such research involves me knowing exactly what is meant by all of the current labels. Then I want to try and quantify, in the most general terms, what most of us want our government and country to be like.

      My thesis is that it is the different MEANS to fix our country that is dividing us, not the general goals we all want to see happen. For example, I don't think ANYONE believes that the poor and infirm should REALLY be left in the street to die. It is the mechanism to help these people and help raise their quality of life, that we differ on and quarrel about.

      So, I think my first main goal would be (to paraphrase George W. Bush) "No American Left Behind."

      And so on from there.

      So, first I want to learn what all these names and labels really mean, by definition. They all seem to have different visions. I want to restate simply what their visions and methods are. who knows - I may agree with some of the people I seem to be ridiculing.

      The much shorter answer to your comment is that, as always, I am trying to come to understand something more clearly. This blog, when it is best serving it's original intention, is simply me talking to myself and trying to work things out. Any statements I make that seem trite or unfeeling, shallow or sarcastic, merely reflect my current state of of incomplete understanding before deeper learning ensues. I always start talking before I fully understand something or have it fully reasoned out. It progresses until I am a better (or at least more knowledgeable) person. I still want people's comments, though, else I would just talk to myself on paper in private. Analysis without outside input and rebuttal does not lead to clarity. Not to me.



Related Posts with Thumbnails