“The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles.”
If you look at politics, it is not difficult to see two main factions: bankers and all the rest.
Nigel Farage of course was a banker. Emmanuel Macron too. The husband of Theresa May in a way. And for Trump, he got billions in loans from banks.
In some ways you can even argue banks rule the world, and do so with no accountability, nor any real oversight.
Making them an easy target for the left, which used to bash them at any opportunity they could.
Yet in a twist or in a show of hypocrisy, the left is beginning to support banks and the wider banking system, while the right and Trump is sort of taking them head on.
The well known bitcoin basher, Congressman Brad Sherman, called for bitcoin to be banned all-together.
The, almost caricature, Democrat argued bitcoin undermines the dollar and the ability of the United States to impose sanctions.
That’s days after Joseph Stiglitz, the left leaning Keynesian economist, also argued the cryptocurrency should be banned.
Paul Krugman of course has long raged at bitcoin without engaging the actual arguments. Specifically the question of who should control and benefit from the creation of this very artificial concept we call money which is useful only as a means of measurement.
A new very interesting theory is now rising which argues the government should totally control the creation of money. While the alternative view is that everyone should be free and is practically free to create their own money and compete for the best managed currency.
Such competition already exists between fiat currencies, but doesn’t within a nation.
Currency competition within a nation is hated by the left and by banks in the most peculiar alliance that would make for a very puzzled Karl Marx.
His words instill fear to today because much of it was true. The end solution, however, as is still imagined by the likes of Stiglitz or corrupt congressmen, was to take power away from a semi-centralized market of competing providers to concentrate it fully in what eventually ended up being just one man.
The word eventually is very crucial because that was not what was imagined. The broad forehead of Marx would have not fallen so low as to suggest a dictator.
That end result is also a warning for our current system because what eventually transpired is in great part due to the corruption of power and its tendency to concentrate.
In the beginning, communism was decentralized. There were collectives, a few neighbors together owning some land, and they used to compete.
For quite a few decades this system worked well. They were even richer than the west. This decentralization however gradually led to centralization. A few neighbors were merged into a neighborhood, neighborhoods into villages or towns, and then the latter were combined together to the point it was eventually the state alone running a farmer’s land.
What were local decisions became silly statistics in some bureaucrat’s home. What was workers unite became state enslavement. What was freedom in some ways, the broken chains, became an atrocity that has turned this subject of class competition into a caricature.
Far more importantly, it has turned communism into the state. Understandably perhaps because the raw writings of Marx are very difficult to read as a man with such a broad forehead necessarily has many thoughts running while condensing them into words.
Yet it is an abomination to suggest that the question of bargaining power was reduced to nothing more than giving all power to the state.
That Krugman and the rest do so suggest, indicates either our elite is full of imbeciles, or that it’s plotting, knowingly or otherwise, to make us wear the chains and shut up.
That anyone in the left, learned in its history and its complexities, would ally with an idea that has descended to basically giving total control to the state, remains a byproduct of the revisionism that gave rise to the bloody communist dictators.
In any debate, it is often very easy to discard means or arguments for ends. It is easy to shift words, to make a yellow flower look the devil itself if it is worn by the opponent, with the end being the greater good, the flower being but detail.
Yet so too it is easy to lose oneself and fool even yourself. The greater public however can’t easily be fooled, especially when it comes to such questions as: why should one person or one cabal control the creation of our money?
What communist would argue the capitalists are fleecing us, so let’s have the state do it instead? And yet since money is the valuer of all things, fleecing through its creation or management is exactly what is being done with the question of whether it is banks or gov being very irrelevant.
Just as the views of this old generation are arguably irrelevant as it is a generation that can stand accused of a long list of injustices, starting with the enslaving of millennials to rent because they haven’t built houses.
It is hopefully inconceivable that any millennial of standing from the left finds it fit to espouse such views as banning peoples’ control.
Nor is it without exaggeration our generalization of the left for there are many Democrat Congressmen who are in vocal support of this space due to the considerable nuances.
The left however has arguably failed to modernize and in many ways the elite on the left is hypocritical for they do appear to like raising the most regressive taxes, like VAT or sales taxes, while not quite facilitating autonomy for low earners by taking them out of tax alltogether.
They moreover appear to be very detached and out of touch, with an old schemata that has not updated itself to accommodate the very new world.
They risk becoming irrelevant because these rigid ideologies of state control abuse intellect for the gains of snakes, and worse, incompetents who think they can rule our bread.
Power to the people is not power to the government. Communism is not state control. Neighbors sharing land should remain at neighbors sharing land. And if they want their own money, so what?
What difference does it make if a collective is issuing its own coin? None. To totalitarians, however, to stalinists, well it matters quite a lot because they lose control.
And yet that loss of control was the whole point of what Marx wrote, writings that have been turned into monstrosities by his chief proponents, while his critics in a curious twist now give them close ear.
Ever thus the incompetence of man and its curious twists in the power struggle between individualism and the social animal.
Editorial Copyrights Trustnodes.com