While one can approach either side by only manipulating one of either, politics or
economics, invariably it must affect the other when one begins with politics.
Increasing political control is a much easier prospect than seizing economic control.
Politics has the force of law, and state violence. This is best expressed in Leninist
theory -- power is from the barrel of a gun. It lets us seize political control and then
change the economy. It is the goal of every revolutionary to seize political control. It
is the reason behind all the crazed terrorist groups -- to seize political power is the
only way to control the economy. And they view their terrorist attacks as political
power against our economy.
The Marxist view that the economy, and following that, the politics will inevitably
change holds that economics will come first. The inherent nature of economics
makes it impossible to control, Never mind gaining control of it and changing the
political situation. That is why no revolutionaries try to gain control of the economy --
and then go into office.
Even all the rich folks who have tried to gain control of the economy have failed. It is
only when they have joined together and obtained some political power that they
begin to control the economy.
So the Marxist idea that economics will inevitably change, followed closely by the
political situation, was found untenable and unworkable. The goal, the dream,
however, still remained: an "equitable society." So Lenin, and others, switched the
order -- first lets control the politics then change the economy. That led to untold
horrors, and a system that does not work. Still this goal, this dream, continues. But it
was found to be unattainable through the means proposed, in no matter which order
tried.
Free markets uncontrolled, or little controlled, economics system thrived. They were
affixed the label capitalism, as socialistically defined, so a working system is found.
Because the socialist dream, the socialist paradise, paradigm exists, there is a call
for the middle, that is, socialist theory with capitalist workings. This is the central
idea behind the belief that politics and economics are separate and can be moved
around and restructured at will.
Hence most of the current anti-Iraq war crowd want to somehow use sanctions to
control the politics. But George Bush saw that the only way to help everyone's
economy, both inside and out of Iraq, was to change the political situation there.
We hear of Sweden -- a socialist economy with democratic government. And we
hear of South Africa, a socialist dictatorship (or right wing in current parlance, but
we are speaking the sense of socialism as any government of force, which the
former South Africa surely fit), with a free economy. These are supposed truths to
these separate notions. In fact, this is an illusion caused by the use of the current
political spectrum -- of socialism on the left and Fascists on the right. Both
governments are state repression, it is only in degrees that they are different, and
more specifically, the cultures create a different need and outcome for the use of
force. In Sweden, economics is strictly controlled, not by guns directly, but by taxes
and laws and regulations backed by a government. Private initiative is squelched.
A "comfortable" life is provided. In South Africa, violence is used to repress people
who attempt to interfere in the political/economic sphere -- that is, those who want
to join and squelches individual private initiatives.
There are two ways to explain the connection between Sweden and South Africa --
despite the seeming legion of differences.
The first is that the political control, economic control issue, is more of a
ratio-tension. For every amount of political control going leftward -- on a continuum
-- the economic control factor will linger in a range to either side leftward or
rightward depending on cultural factors. To illustrate:
economics, invariably it must affect the other when one begins with politics.
Increasing political control is a much easier prospect than seizing economic control.
Politics has the force of law, and state violence. This is best expressed in Leninist
theory -- power is from the barrel of a gun. It lets us seize political control and then
change the economy. It is the goal of every revolutionary to seize political control. It
is the reason behind all the crazed terrorist groups -- to seize political power is the
only way to control the economy. And they view their terrorist attacks as political
power against our economy.
The Marxist view that the economy, and following that, the politics will inevitably
change holds that economics will come first. The inherent nature of economics
makes it impossible to control, Never mind gaining control of it and changing the
political situation. That is why no revolutionaries try to gain control of the economy --
and then go into office.
Even all the rich folks who have tried to gain control of the economy have failed. It is
only when they have joined together and obtained some political power that they
begin to control the economy.
So the Marxist idea that economics will inevitably change, followed closely by the
political situation, was found untenable and unworkable. The goal, the dream,
however, still remained: an "equitable society." So Lenin, and others, switched the
order -- first lets control the politics then change the economy. That led to untold
horrors, and a system that does not work. Still this goal, this dream, continues. But it
was found to be unattainable through the means proposed, in no matter which order
tried.
Free markets uncontrolled, or little controlled, economics system thrived. They were
affixed the label capitalism, as socialistically defined, so a working system is found.
Because the socialist dream, the socialist paradise, paradigm exists, there is a call
for the middle, that is, socialist theory with capitalist workings. This is the central
idea behind the belief that politics and economics are separate and can be moved
around and restructured at will.
Hence most of the current anti-Iraq war crowd want to somehow use sanctions to
control the politics. But George Bush saw that the only way to help everyone's
economy, both inside and out of Iraq, was to change the political situation there.
We hear of Sweden -- a socialist economy with democratic government. And we
hear of South Africa, a socialist dictatorship (or right wing in current parlance, but
we are speaking the sense of socialism as any government of force, which the
former South Africa surely fit), with a free economy. These are supposed truths to
these separate notions. In fact, this is an illusion caused by the use of the current
political spectrum -- of socialism on the left and Fascists on the right. Both
governments are state repression, it is only in degrees that they are different, and
more specifically, the cultures create a different need and outcome for the use of
force. In Sweden, economics is strictly controlled, not by guns directly, but by taxes
and laws and regulations backed by a government. Private initiative is squelched.
A "comfortable" life is provided. In South Africa, violence is used to repress people
who attempt to interfere in the political/economic sphere -- that is, those who want
to join and squelches individual private initiatives.
There are two ways to explain the connection between Sweden and South Africa --
despite the seeming legion of differences.
The first is that the political control, economic control issue, is more of a
ratio-tension. For every amount of political control going leftward -- on a continuum
-- the economic control factor will linger in a range to either side leftward or
rightward depending on cultural factors. To illustrate:
| CHAPTER 10 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
