| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Donald Trump is a symptom of a new kind of class warfare raging at home and abroad |
| 2019-10-07 |
| And oldie, but still a goody [USAToday 1/15/2019] To understand events around the world today, one must think in terms of the class struggle. This sentence sounds like something that could be written by a doctrinaire Marxist. But it is nonetheless true. Much of the current tension in America and in many other democracies is in fact a product of a class struggle. It’s not the kind of class struggle that Karl Marx wrote about, with workers and peasants facing off against rapacious capitalists, but it is a case of today’s ruling class facing disaffection from its working class. In the old Soviet Union, the Marxists assured us that once true communism was established under a "dictatorship of the proletariat," the state would wither away and everyone would be free. In fact, however, the dictatorship of the proletariat turned into a dictatorship of the party hacks, who had no interest whatsoever in seeing their positions or power wither. Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas called these party hacks the "New Class," noting that instead of workers and peasants against capitalists, it was now a case of workers and peasants being ruled by a managerial new class of technocrats who, while purporting to act for the benefit of the workers and peasants, somehow wound up with the lion’s share of the goodies. ...But the New Class isn’t limited to communist countries, really. Around the world in the postwar era, power was taken up by unelected professional and managerial elites. To understand what’s going on with President Donald Trump and his opposition, and in other countries as diverse as France, Hungary, Italy and Brazil, it’s important to realize that the post-World War II institutional arrangements of the Western democracies are being renegotiated, and that those democracies’ professional and managerial elites don’t like that very much, because they have done very well under those arrangements. And, like all elites who are doing very well, they don’t want that to change. Look at the current crop of Democratic candidates - each and every one a member of Nomenklatura |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #11 #6 "In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government" ...and thus often has become politicized towards a particular narrative, talking point or result. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-10-07 19:05 |
| #10 Technocrats understand managing a country the way MBAs understand managing a company, Abu |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-10-07 13:49 |
| #9 Yes, I admitted "Maybe it's supposed to imply some sort of expertise in managing the reins of power." But I still think kleptocrat is more like it. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-10-07 13:43 |
| #8 Not that kind of technology, Abu |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru PB 2019-10-07 11:52 |
| #7 After reading about how John Podesta fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book and got his email account hacked, I don't believe the term technocrat applies. Maybe I'm not thinking of the term in its correct definition. Maybe it's supposed to imply some sort of expertise in managing the reins of power. But Podesta is obviously, pathetically, computer illiterate and technophobic and, if you can't keep up with the latest methods of managing the reins of power, you're a piss poor technocrat. I think kleptocrat suits him and his kind a whole lot better. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-10-07 11:18 |
| #6 They always bring up Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex but ignore what immediately follows in the speech - Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-10-07 11:07 |
| #5 Dissolving the CIA, transferring the technical people to the DIA and shuffling off (can't fire Civil Service) anyone above second level manager to the Border Patrol would be just desserts. Amen. Dissolve the CIA and start over. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-10-07 09:40 |
| #4 Heinz Höhne's The Order of the Death's Head (1971) opined that two evil movements marked the 20th Century: Fascism and... Technocracy: the perverse idea that a dispassionate rule of experts would somehow be better / kinder/ 'more just' and et cetera ad nauseum. The death tolls prove otherwise. |
| Posted by: magpie 2019-10-07 06:27 |
| #3 The only way to win back some freedom is to cut off the government's bottomless rice bowl. When reelected with R majority in both House and Senate, I hope Pres Trump will force through a balanced budget amendment with a requirement to pay down the national debt. Dissolving the CIA, transferring the technical people to the DIA and shuffling off (can't fire Civil Service) anyone above second level manager to the Border Patrol would be just desserts. |
| Posted by: Elmavimp Glinegum6967 2019-10-07 05:30 |
| #2 In fact, however, the dictatorship of the proletariat turned into a dictatorship of the party hacks, who had no interest whatsoever in seeing their positions or power wither. "Power corrups, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, KCVO DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), was an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer. He was the only son of Sir Ferdinand Dalberg-Acton, 7th Baronet,[1] and a grandson of the Neapolitan admiral and prime minister Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet.[2][3] Between 1837 and 1869 he was known as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet. He is perhaps best known for the remark, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...", which he made in a letter to an Anglican bishop. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-10-07 04:08 |
| #1 Progressive capitalism is anything but capitalism. It's a way to maximise rent-seeking and funnel the maximum amount to the establishment. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2019-10-07 03:08 |