the big pomegranate

SOCIAL IS The key...

As I was gently posting left wing propaganda on the page of Toronto Conservatives -an asocial network created by aspargus faced not so young conservatives believing that the election of Rob Ford meant the global advent of the Tax Martyrs redemption but failing to attract more than 150 fans, including fake profiles- one of my post attracted a violent response featuring the S word. I was peacefully explaining that Greece tragedy was not written by its Socialist government but by its banks, similarly to what happened in Ireland, Portugal, GB, France or Italy that are run by Liberal and/or Conservative governments. I was kindly reminding whoever would read that Brazil and India are run by Socialist governments and are doing fine thank you, that the business world is fond of Socialism, because Socialism is progressive and, while it is heavily taxing rich people and big corporations that enrich only their shareholders and top management, it gives tax breaks to the middle class and to businesses that create jobs and growth, that despite all the Conservatives and Liberals lies to make us believe that Socialism is bad for the economy it is actually way better than Liberalism and way, way, way better than Conservatism. A few seconds after I posted my sweet prose, an angry white female immediately and orgasmically replied: "Ahhhh, so the truth comes out. Like most socialists, you are jealous of rich people." Am I? Why would I? They are wasting their life making money that they don't even know how to spend. I am not jealous but I do think they are useless and that their money will be better used in the economy. Ulrik Westergaard, an intelligent Conservative (yes, there are some) ask me why should he hands over his money to someone who makes less than him? What's the purpose? And how does he justifies that to his kids? Easy, you justifiy it by the fact that we live in a society and that living in a society makes life easier for everyone. If everyone gets delivery and eat it all by himself, it's expensive (and sad) and it's called Conservatism. If everyone cooks its own meal, it's expensive (and complicate) and it is called Liberalism. If someone cooks for everyone, it's cheap (and convenient) but often not satisfying (and boring), and it's called Communism. Now if someone provides the ingredients and help those who can't cook, it is at the same time affordable, convenient and satisfying. This someone is Society and this system is Socialism. Of course, richer people have to contribute more to Society. Let's say the poor brings the water, the salt and the pepper, the middle class brings the pasta, the garlic and the tomatoes, and the rich brings the Parmigiano cheese and the wine. It ends up being beneficial for all, including the rich, because together we are stronger and if each was for himself, we'd still be in caves having trouble competing against tigers or wolves. So, yes, I am in favor of heavily taxing rich people and big corporations that do not create jobs, growth or progress. I am in favor of Market, Finance and Business regulation by Democracy. And that is not all. I am also in favor of a strong public sector and an increased role of the government in the regulation of the society. I am in favor of affordable healthcare, social housing, social security, affordable education, transportation, food security, minimum & honest wages, safe working conditions, leisure & free time and accessible culture. So yes, yes and yes, I am a socialist. I am proud to be a socialist. And I am confident in the future of socialism. You see, the road to socialism is similar to the human evolution, complicate but inevitable. The social evolution is leading us to socialism the same way that biological evolution made us become Homo Sapiens Sapiens. First there were Monarchists, then Republicans, then Democrats, then Socialists. Each new step of the evolution stair is better than the previous and worst than the next. And of course, like in the biological evolution, there are side branches that leads to nowhere. Like Neanderthal, like Imperialists, like Communists, like Fascists, and, more recently like Conservatives and Liberals. These two branches of the Social Evolution look strong, and since the 80s seem to be the two only remaining on the Social Tree. After WWII, socialism, taking the form of Social Democracy, was everywhere in the world, boosted by the impulsion of Franklin D Roosevelt. It gave to the world thirty of its best years, only darkened by the cloud of Communism. It was actually Communism, the Evil Twin of Socialism, that was fatal to post-war Social Democracy. Communism was an archaic ideology and, as such, could be only beaten by another archaic ideology. Actually two archaic ideologies, Liberalism and Conservatism, morphed into Neo Liberalism and Neo Conservatism. This two headed hydra indeed defeated Communism but replaced it by an ideology that was not that much better. Maybe it was not Charybdis and Scylla but almost. And it quickly became Conservybdis and Scylliberals. In Canada, these two parties are sharing the power since ages. What is the difference between them? There was at some point in History. Today, there is almost none. Both are increasing spending and cutting revenues, so much so that if they were to form a coalition, which could happen sooner than anyone expects, they should be called the Fiscally Irresponsible Coalition. The Globe & Mail -a liberal newspaper which endorsed Smitherman in the last Toronto Mayoral Election -is now endorsing Stephen Harper. It shows clearly how similar liberal and conservatives are today, and, by the way, how they are both closely connected to big business, board elites and other Bay Street parasites who are so afraid of progressives that they swing widely their media arms each time the ugly nose of socialism approaches their ancestral territory. By the way, the dippers are not socialists, they are democrats, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama who are socialists only in the wet dreams of Tea Party & Fox Media cavemen (and women). As I mentioned before, Democrats are one step behind Socialists in the social evolution. But the NDP surge is a sign that the socialist ideology is coming back, slowly but surely. The Conservatives & Liberals are failing, everywhere in the world. The last global crisis was a first huge sign of their global failure. The slow recovery, the inflation -in particular gas price & food price-, the unemployment, the low wages, the faltering housing market, the debt crisis are confirming day after day the failure of the Fiscally Irresponsible Coalition. Meanwhile, countries who are doing rather well are led by Socialists, like India or Brazil, and these Socialist countries are successfully challenging the diktats of Neo Liberal institutions such as the IMF. Spain, in Europe, has been hurt a lot under the rule of Conservatives but seems to do better since it became Socialist, and is doing way better than Portugal, Italy, GB or France that are all led by Conservatives. Germany fondly remembers its glorious days under Social Democrats and the Northern Countries, one after the other, return to Socialism. So does Australia under Julia Gillard, the first female PM of Australia and more and more countries. The branch of Socialism never disappeared because it is the future of the social evolution tree. The Neanderthal branches known as Conservatism and Liberalism will take a long time to disappear but they will. And one day, a new Ideology will appear, one step ahead of Socialism. Maybe it does exist already. Maybe it doesn't. But it will. Because the Human Race is still young and the Future is bright.

1 comment:


    Why too much money at the top is bad for everyone

    The glittering lives of billionaires may seem like a harmless source of entertainment. But such concentrated economic power reverberates throughout society, threatening the quality of life and the very functioning of democracy.

    It's no accident that the United States claims the most billionaires – but suffers among the highest rates of infant mortality and crime, the shortest life expectancy, as well as the lowest rates of social mobility and electoral political participation in the developed world.

    Our society tends to regard large fortunes as evidence of great talent or accomplishment. Yet the vast new wealth isn't due to an increase in talent or effort at the top, but rather to changing social attitudes legitimizing greed and government policy changes that favour the new elite. Authoritative and eye-opening, The Trouble with Billionaires will spark debate about the kind of society we want.