by system
failure
On the
occasion of the 2016 US elections, we observe a culmination of
ideological battles in primaries' debates, mainstream media panel
discussions, as well as, online discussions in forums, social media,
etc., in the blogosphere.
In previous article we referred to some "logical leaps"
that the establishment uses to force the individual to bypass a
certain rational hierarchy. This process is based on the fact that
many voters are being misinformed, poorly informed, or, not informed
at all, concerning the substance of the political process. The
establishment frequently exploits such a fact to promote preferable
candidates using a powerful symbolism, rather than focusing on the
most significant details of the real policies that these candidates
will promote once they get elected. Hillary Clinton is a
characteristic example of such a candidate for the US presidency.
It appears
that the means of the dominant neoliberal doctrine also use such
logical leaps for the purpose of spreading ideological confusion and
revive, more or less, a modern type of McCarthyism and a new round of
Communist Phobia. We've already mentioned
such type of tactics back in the FDR-era, through which the corporate
establishment tried to demonize Roosevelt's New Deal plan.
What makes
such an effort today appear rather bizarre, is the fact that the
dominant neoliberal doctrine itself has been established over the
decades on a deeply apolitical culture. Yet, now that senses a
threat, mobilizes its mechanisms to refuel a distorted ideological
discussion, but only for the purpose of spreading confusion in order to
sustain its dominance.
The
defenders and mouthpieces of a peculiar modern financial fascism, as
a main component of the neoliberal doctrine, naturally use logical
leaps to avoid, for example, to give straight answers to simple,
rational questions. When someone asks a reasonable question, for
example, why after so many billions in bailouts to the banks, the
situation of the banking system has not been improved, while the
pensions-salaries have been slaughtered and the Greek economy is
getting worse, the answer from a mainstream journalist, or,
economist, can be actually irrelevant, like "you have no idea
how the banking system works".
In the
United States, in Greece, and elsewhere, a common ideological
confusion concerns the term Socialism. Now that the establishment
sees that Bernie Sanders' popularity is rising stormily, despite that
he says openly that he is a Democrat Socialist, the mouthpieces in
the mainstream media, social media, etc., are using logical leaps to
present Socialism as something evil and authoritarian. One common
practice to do this, is to equalize the Nazi ideology of National
Socialism with Bernie's Democratic Socialism.
The
manipulation here is based on the fact that in both these ideologies
- apart from the fact that both contain the term Socialism - the
state plays a significant role in many aspects who determine the
everyday life of citizens. By isolating this simple characteristic,
the establishment mechanisms reproduce a totally distorted perception
about Socialism, based on a ridiculously simplified logical leap: the
state plays a central role = Democratic Socialism coincides with Nazi
ideology.
Many people
who have not studied the details and the historical origin and
development of these ideologies, will believe that they are
identical, while in fact, they are not only fundamentally different,
but totally opposite. Furthermore, in practice, in the case of Nazi
Germany for example, it was not the power of the state that supported
Hitler's campaigns, but the power of the big private capital.
Only an
example briefly:
- Nazi ideology is based on National Socialism, which is very different from Democratic Socialism that Sanders supports. In fact, they are totally opposite ideologies. One fundamental difference is that Democratic Socialism supports the rights of the majority (the right for work, education, healthcare, human rights, etc.), regardless of any ethnic, racial, sexual, economic, political, or other differences. Which is very different from the National Socialism, which supports the rights only of a specific ethnic group against others, while also rejects groups based on other characteristics (sexual orientation for example).
- Despite of its "Socialist" component, in practice, and historically, National Socialism developed deep ties with the big private capital. The deep ties of Adolf Hitler with the big German industrialists, like Krupps, for example, as well as many American corporations during WWII, has been recorded. To sustain the necessary means for his huge campaigns, Hitler used the power of the funding and the means of production of the big capital, combined with the labor hands, among them workers from concentration camps, that have been working under slavery conditions.
This is only
an example of how the establishment attempts to demonize undesirable
ideologies which can threaten the sovereignty of the neoliberal
doctrine. It appears that such types of tactics become less and less
influential, which naturally brings further anxiety to the ruling
elites.
Comments
Post a Comment