Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

SHAME on conservatives who ridicule supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders

Young people are drawn to socialism because they have rejected the immorality of corporatism. Conservatives should find solace in this–not ridicule it.

Published

on

481 Views

For at least 20 years, the mainstream political and academic narrative in the west has been that socialism is a failure. Many site production deadlock, strikes, riots and a punitive taxation system to justify these claims.

However, the system which ended up supplanting socialism both as a governing economic force and as a viable mainstream opposition platform in the west has also failed and failed more miserably than any prior socio-economic system. Corporatism, a system that is the logical result of neo-liberal economics rejects the cottage-industry style capitalism of people like Ron Paul and the classical Austrian economists. Therefore it is unfair to call it ‘capitalism’ in a true sense.

Unlike with Austrian economics, corporatism places no value on individual liberty, nor does it decry endless rules and regulations and bureaucracy either. Corporatism is to capitalism what the Manson Family is to a Norman Rockwell family painting–it is a sick perversion.

Likewise, corporatism does not value the growth of a national economy, the steadying of national wealth or the protection of national wealth from foreign hands. In this sense, it is unlike traditional market-protectionist economics, neo-mercantile thinking and what many now call sovereigntist economics. It is in this sense different than what I call conservative socio-economics.

Corporatism is a series of inter-locking oligarchic global-corporations where production often occurs on different continents from where the profits are stored and furthermore,  products themselves are often sold in multiple third locations.

Corporatism has plenty of regulations and bureaucratic red tape but all of it works in the favour of giant multi-nationals who often end up paying less tax than struggling middle-income individuals and families who are oppressed with the high taxation of socialism while receiving none of the benefits of a real welfare state.

There is neither a moral, national or individualist component in corporatism. In this sense it rejects the morality of socialism, protectionism and classical capitalism simultaneously.

While occasionally corporatist economics can result in a trickle-down effect for some ordinary people, if this ever happens it is generally short lived. The Great Recession of corporatism in 2007/2008 was a testament to this phenomenon.

The result has been that many middle income, middle-aged people have turned to sovereigntist/protectionist conservative politicians who reject the multi-nationalism of corporatism and the collectivism of socialism equally.

People in all age groups have also begun to revisit classic capitalism as defined by the Austrian school of economics. Generally these people are drawn to the connection this school makes between individual liberty and economic liberality.

Socialism too has seen a revival and one of the biggest constituent part of this new socialist coalition has been the young, although it is a very different kind of youth than those who previously voted for classical left wing parties.

Throughout much of the 20th century, left wing voters came from the heart of suburban industry and of course the urban proletariat also. In the US this was the so-called ‘rust belt’ states and in Europe this was generally in the big industrial cities outside of the more urbane capitals (Marseilles, Calais, Birmingham, Glasgow etc).

It was only logical that working class voters would vote for parties with an emphasis on the morality of treating working class people with economic and social dignity and fairness.

However, today’s socialist core voters are very different. Although what remains of a western industrial base still often vote for politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, an increasing amount of young people from struggling middle-income families are turning to ideas which previously had appeal among the working classes and those of other classes who for moral, intellectual or spiritual reasons turned to socialism.

These young people are not classical socialists but they are victims of corporatism. They have found that the first proper job in life hardly pays enough to make it worth considering and that the comfortable middle-income jobs of their parents’ generation have either gone oversees or become reserved exclusively for an upper-middle class of people who are highly connected, beyond simply having a decent income and ability to work hard for an honest first world pay-cheque.

They have found that the neo-liberal myth that having a university education guarantees good employment was simply a lie to force young people to take out insanely high loans to pay a university which was in actual fact, a business disguised as a place of learning.

They have also come to the realisation that many of the comforts of middle-income life were based on the fact that working class people created wealth. Now that wealth is being created in foreign factories.

All of these factors have led young people to turn to socialism for moral and personal reasons rather than more broad economic beliefs.

It is difficult for socialism to work in a non-industrial society. Socialism relies on working-class labour to create wealth in the same way that conservative economics relies on investment into national (rather than global) industry to initially create wealth. A healthy working class however is indispensable to proper, moral conservative socio-economics also. One must remember that the Irish famine of the 1840s and 1850s was not created by conservative policies but by the adoption of liberal free trade by the British state which ruled Ireland at the time.

With few countries in the west having any national wealth and millionaires conveniently and legally offshoring their money, it is difficult to see how socialism can achieve anything in the 21st century west unless it takes the crucial step to use the resources of the state to build new factories and pass protectionist laws to keep the wealth they generated flowing on the home front.

These longer term economic issues however, are of little consequences to many young, enthusiastic supporters of people like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, who unlike Sanders, will almost certainly attain the highest political office in his country.

These voters are drawn to the moral message of socialism and this should not be condemned callously, even by conservative, protectionists like myself. It should instead be praised.

The only way society can ever retain its traditional values is by embracing anyone who rejects the immoral ideologies of globalism, liberalism and corporatism. While I personally prefer a mixed system, what Deng Xiaoping called “market socialism”, I am nevertheless sympathetic to those who have turned to classical socialism, even though I fully reject the dogma of radical wealth distribution and the rejection of traditional conservative values that many socialists preach.

However, in this case, socialism is a healthy first step towards rejecting neo-liberalism and allowing a path back to conservatism to form.

In many ways it is the opposite of the Marxist historical world view wherein we have to go back from corporatism to socialism to them step back to conservatism, in each case along the way one must realise our return to past values while combining such thought with contemporary realities. In this sense one can be both a reactionary and a pragmatic modernist simultaneously. This is the essence of any mixed socio-economic system which rejects the dogmas of progressive thinking for the sake of modernity alone.

This obviously assumes that it is not full communism but full corporatism which is the final ‘end of economics’. Here, Marx got it wrong while Oswald Spengler (a conservative) got it right.

This has been proved not by a theory but by history. After Russia attempted communism between 1917 and 1991, Russia then turned to corporatism for the remainder of the 1990s.

Today, Russia is taking certain socialist elements of the past such as higher pensions and better funding for public services vis-a-vis the 1990s, while ultimately returning to a modern version of patriotic conservative socio-economics.

If the west is to attempt to save itself, it must follow the same path. While my view is that the October Revolution was a crime against humanity, I nevertheless wept in the 1990s at photos of old women, too thin for their age, who were carrying photos of Stalin while protesting the piratical liberal economics of Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais. Indeed, if Russia was ever to return to a fraction of its pre-1917 conservatism, the liberal corporatists of the 1990s would have to be opposed by both conservatives and those holding placards of Stalin while protesting the Yeltsin regime.

This is why conservatives who ridicule supporters of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn ought to really step back from their position of arrogance.

The young people voting for Sanders and Corbyn may often be odd in their appearance and the idea that they would want to radically redistribute wealth might be horrifying. Their lack of God is also deeply sad for conservative believers. However, in finding Corbyn, these young people are rejecting the same immoral Godlessness inherent in neo-liberalism that true conservatives reject. They are looking for morality, they are looking for ethics, they are looking for community, they are looking for family. The authentic conservative solution is the best way to find each, but if they support socialism which for all of its faults is still endlessly more moral than liberalism/corporatism, then we should wish them well while respectfully offering them a respectable conservative alternative.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

EU leaders dictate Brexit terms to Theresa May (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 115.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss how EU leaders have agreed on a plan to delay the the Article 50 process which effectively postpones Brexit beyond the 29 March deadline.

The UK will now be offered a delay until the 22nd of May, only if MPs approve Theresa May’s withdrawal deal next week. If MPs do not approve May’s negotiated deal, then the EU will support a short delay until the 12th of April, allowing the UK extra time to get the deal passed or to “indicate a way forward”.

UK PM Theresa May said there was now a “clear choice” facing MPs, who could vote for a third time on her deal next week.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Theresa May outlines four Brexit options, via Politico

In a letter to MPs, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May set out the four options she believes the country has in light of Thursday’s decision by EU leaders to extend the Brexit deadline beyond next Friday.

The U.K. is faced with a four-way choice, May wrote late Friday.

The government could revoke Article 50 — which May called a betrayal of the Brexit vote; leave without a deal on April 12; pass her deal in a vote next week; or, “if it appears that there is not sufficient support” for a vote on her deal in parliament next week or if it is rejected for a third time, she could ask for an extension beyond April 12.

But this would require for the U.K. taking part in European elections in May, which the prime minister said “would be wrong.”

May wrote that she’s hoping for the deal to pass, allowing the U.K. to leave the EU “in an orderly way,” adding “I still believe there is a majority in the House for that course of action.”

“I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision,” she wrote.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending