The super-rich and socialism
August 27, 2008 @ 4:03 pm by Noble Lie“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.
Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
- Gary Allen, JBS and author of The Rockefeller File
Related
Tags: Quotes
4 Comments »
All comments are the sole opinion and property of the commenter.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
on 
on 
Comment by Paul M. Peterson
— August 29, 2008 @ 6:33 am
That is the reality of the economic system practiced here in America. I site Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as recent examples. Of course, dole outs for the rich are always propagandized as a way of helping the masses. That is the system we have, socialism for the mega-rich and capitalism for everyone else.
Comment by Paul M. Peterson
— August 29, 2008 @ 6:34 am
Come to think of it, another example would be senator John McCain. He gets the very best health care in the world, paid for by the taxpayer, and regularly votes to prevent extending that health care system to everyone.
Comment by Noble Lie
— August 29, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Paul - good points.
RFK Jr. expressed the same sentiment in a different way -
“America is now a land of socialism for the rich and brutal capitalism for the poor.”
Public works go privatized when they turn a profit and the kinks are ironed out. If they falter, the taxpayer bails them out. If they falter badly, the “public” picks up the tab again, until the bugs can be worked out again and it can be privatized. It’s like we get all the worst parts of all systems (or the best of all systems, from the perspective of the elite).
A number of early communist thinkers (including Marx, I believe) did say that capitalism and communism would eventually merge into one system. I think that’s maybe the best explanation for what we see today. This is a classic case of Hegelian Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. You use different wealth centralization strategies on different cultures, then you gradually move them together so they can be reconciled, centralized, standardized.
From my perspective, if the State owns everything through communism or an oligarchy of businessmen own everything through monopoly capitalism, I’m in the same sad helpless position.
I tend to use the terms “communism” and “socialism” a little too interchangeably for some people’s tastes. I see it as a gradient. Socialism left to run its course couldn’t become anything but communism, as the prime directive of all bureaucracies is to expand and get bigger, get more powerful.
I’ve also been re-reading selections from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Between Two Ages” (I’ve been a little obsessed with this man lately) and was fascinated by the way he described the different social strata of the Soviet Union and how each group (elites, technocrats, scientific community, working class, etc) were each given a different definition of communism and a different meaning as to how it really works.
Some of these words have become so muddied and emotionally charged it’s hard to use them in conversation anymore, but I have to try. It’s easy to see my parent’s generation was brainwashed to hate communism (they were the badguys at the time) — I think it’s less obvious but no less correct to say that, by the time I was in school, children were being brainwashed to love communism. And pre-WWII, who knows. Before Stalin was the Big Bad Bear, he was Uncle Joe.
Comment by Noble Lie
— August 29, 2008 @ 8:32 am
And as I may have mentioned before, I don’t trust the John Birch Society.
A lot of truth comes out of that group, and so does a lot of pro-gold, pro-bigotry, pro-founding-fathers claptrap. If there is a violent civil insurrection, these guys (and their patriot radio assets) will be the guys to say start shooting.