The Left hates self-sufficiency

American Thinker ^ | 7 Oct, 2021 | Steve Bigler

[MtnClimber]

Without the need for a ruling elite to preside over the oppressed, the Left is meaningless.

Classical Marxist socialism was based upon a presumed revolt of the working class. Interestingly enough, in the more than 100 years since Marx, there has never been a single revolt of the working class in a capitalist country -- not one. Why? Because in capitalist countries, the working class has it too good. Workers have no reason to revolt. In fact, in capitalist countries, workers aspire to improve their lot until they themselves become members of management or business owners. And such economic advancement is readily available to all who are willing to work hard, devote many hours of time, save and invest money, and accept and mitigate risk. In America, remaining a lifelong employee is a choice. It may be a good and appropriate choice, but it’s a choice nonetheless.

The failure of capitalist workers to do their part and revolt is perhaps a fundamental reason the Left has abandoned the working middle class and in its place adopted the strategy of creating multiple other oppressed groups and pitting them against imagined oppressors: Females against males, Blacks against Whites, transgender against “cisgender,” immigrants against citizens, LGBTQ against heterosexuals, the newly woke against those proud to be American, and of course, poor against rich.

But I believe there’s another ideology at play here. Despite its name, socialism is merely another form of sovereignty of the state. And when the state is sovereign, it simply must have subjects over which to rule -- otherwise there is nothing or no one over whom to exercise sovereignty. And that reality -- at least in a political system based on the oxymoron of “democratic socialism” -- requires a dependent class

[Jonty30]

Because dependency gives them power.

[MtnClimber]

Feed Me! Feed Me!

An oldie from "A Clockwork Orange".

[Oberon]

The ideology of Marxism is entirely divorced from the goals of Marxism.

Marxist ideology is primarily a tool for overturning the existing power structure, clearing the way for a new elite. The fact that the new elite have no intention whatsoever of creating the purported “class-free society” has nothing to do with nothing... as long as the Marxist ideology enables revolution, the new boss is entirely free to be the same as the old boss.

In fact, that’s just what the new boss intends.

[Wuli]

Socialism is about spreading the sovereign rule of government until the government, not a free society, chooses everything that is “right” for everyone.

[1Old Pro]

Socialism is about spreading the sovereign rule of government until the government, not a free society, chooses everything that is “right” for everyone.

Socialism is basically here. Our government (taxpayers) literally finances more projects and such than we can count that high.

[central_va]

Free Traitors™ hate economic self sufficiency. They hate US workers and love global labor arbitrage.

[central_va]

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

--Karl Marx

[consult]

So true! Live in cities and be dependent on government.

[simpson96]

Bingo.