Stopping ruling class monstrosities

This is a response to a post on Dissident Voice, here.

It’s going to be stopped in the same way every other vast criminal system is stopped – by massive populist organizing. Either the American people are going to join political groups that cause systemic change in political institutions or they are going to live in a fascist state with increased global and domestic terror and poverty. The 3rd option is that America is destroyed through war (terrorist strikes are a form of war), the multinationals and attached ruling class relocate with most of their wealth intact, and they continue the imperialist project from a new geographic center. A greatly weakened America would then start a rebuilding process possibly in a democratic fashion, if for no other reason than that there are not vast taxpayer dollars for the ruling class to steal thus there’s much less resistance to democracy.

The problem, even in this “good case scenario”, is that the world is hardly more democratic than America. So if America becomes relatively democratic, similar to much of South America today, they become subject to imperialist control from sources of elite power in Europe or Asia. So the only real solution, the only lasting solution, the “final solution”, is for a global democratic movement, unifying local movements, that takes democratic control of ALL global political institutions, in particular institutions of wealthy countries. While such a movement has started, it needs to be much, much stronger to have any effect on global politics. If, say, even 10% of Americans joined such a movement, it would gain tremendous strength and momentum.

Part of the problem is that even progressive sites like this aren’t filled by people who want global democracy, which is global socialism. Most progressives in America want wealth redistribution only *within* America – to take the blood money obtained by the American ruling class from exploiting non-Americans and redistribute it to “poor” Americans, nevermind that “poor Americans” are wealthy compared to the average person in the world. That is to say, 95% or more of Americans who congratulate themselves on being “good people” are in fact simply trying to get the criminal’s money transferred to himself. Stealing second-hand.

The percentage of Americans who want global democracy is probably 2-3% tops. More would want it but are apolitical. Therefore America is politically useless on the global democratic scene, far weaker than many South American countries and probably weaker than 90% of all countries.

America’s role in the world from a progressive standpoint is to provide money and a whole lot of condescension and holier-than-thou while “helping” poor people. Meanwhile at home they “fight” the criminal class to get money transferred to themselves for “justice” and “equality” and so that apparently they can continue to “help” poor people who they have contempt for in the same way as does the criminal class itself.

The first solution is for progressive America to face the reality of what it is and to realize that nothing can be done in America until progressives reform their own morality. Sites like this prove that instead of that project progressives prefer to complain about how bad the actions of other people are.

7 Responses to “Stopping ruling class monstrosities”

  1. Adam Pieniazek Says:

    I’d argue that the Americans who really want global democracy is much higher, but many people are quite skeptical that a global democratic system can be implemented without massive corruption. I for one fear a global democratic system that is not truly democratic, open, and just. I’m quite alright with a system where America loses its false supreme lordship status and I am certainly quite alright with a system where each and every human being is given one vote that is actually counted. One thing is for sure, if a global government is to be instituted correctly it must be done by the people and before the power-elite get one implemented first.

  2. briankoontz Says:

    We already have a global government – it’s run by multinational corporations and facilitated by their allies in centers of government. That’s one aspect of the term “globalization”. Corporations have more wealth and much more power than ostensibly democratic states, and they influence governments to do what they want, through many ways including integrating the government into their own functions (like when a government official moves from the public sector to the corporate sector).

    We know we have a global government – take a look at what the war in Iraq, decided by a few people in Washington D.C. did to food prices, which affects everyone, everywhere. How many of the nearly 7 Billion people on the planet voted to raise the prices of food staples? How many of them voted on whether the American war machine should enter Iraq? These are IMPORTANT votes, which of course means they don’t occur since the global government ruling us is corporate, not democratic. Instead we get an endless stream of Obama/Clinton/McCain, themselves all corporatist militarist monsters.

    I completely do not agree with “one person, one vote”. If the decision is whether the American war machine should enter Iraq the Iraqi people should have a much higher per capita vote, since they face the greatest consequences. Likewise, poor people should have higher per capita votes if the decision is on the price of food staples. Also, not everything would need a vote – one thing the global community would vote on are laws – the laws would be used to reduce the need for voting on everything. So for example the global community could vote on procedures for conducting military aggression – therefore any military aggression would go through a legal process instead of needing separate votes. Also, the global community would vote on and create institutions whose actions would not require separate votes, but rather receive oversight and have periodic votes to determine whether to continue, modify, or disband the institution.

    The “global community” would have one function, while local communities would themselves be run democratically. Most decisions are local, not global, since they affect (in any meaningful way) only a local community – such as whether or not a building should be built on a piece of land. So decisions would be made either locally, regionally, or globally, in proportion to the scale of their effect. Issues of global warming, macroeconomics, interregional politics, large-scale weaponry, and the like would all be decided globally.

  3. libertyforamerica Says:

    (aka, Mad Dog)

    I do like how you are portraying the so called progressives here. Did you know that a lot of that so-called foreign aid ends up in the hands of dictators who use the money to buy weapons? If the foreign aid is not money, but goods, they might then dangle them in front of their people like carrots.

  4. briankoontz Says:

    Progressives don’t have anything in particular to do with “foreign aid”. One-third of America’s foreign aid is to Israel, largely military supplies. Foreign Aid is a trade, where the United States gives goods in exchange for allegiance, political control, and services.

    For example, America often gives foreign aid to repressive puppet regimes and friendly regimes, in order for them to maintain power and attack “their own” people.

    It’s funny that you use the term “ends up” when the whole point of foreign aid is to end up in the hands of dictators and monarchs. I hardly think the Bush Administration would want those fighter jets to end up in the hands of Israeli civilians.

    Here’s an analogy to make the case clear:

    Let’s say you like shoeshines. So you give $20 a month to Joe in “foreign aid”. The expectation, the reason for the $20, is that Joe shines your shoes every so often. But it’s not a trade per se. However, each of you knows that if the shoeshines stop, the $20 stops.

    Here’s another analogy:

    Let’s say that Joe starts beating his wife Sally. Since you hate Sally, you give Joe $40 a month instead of $20, essentially paying $20 a month for Joe to continue to beat Sally. While this is not a trade per se, again qualifying as “foreign aid”, you both know that if the beatings stop, the “foreign aid” is reduced back to $20.

    This is one of the methods by which the American Empire maintains global control. Trades to promote behavior friendly to the American regime under the Orwellian term “foreign aid”.

  5. libertyforamerica Says:

    Foreign Aid is trade, but between governments, with taxpayer money, usually without the permission of the citizens themselves. 99% of the time, I am opposed to it.

  6. briankoontz Says:

    99% of Americans believe that “foreign aid” is actually aid given to other countries, for humanitarian reasons. Needless to say the corporate media doesn’t disabuse them of this notion.

  7. Willis Says:

    Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation🙂 Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Willis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: