NOTE as of 1/11/13 Update! I wrote this too soon. I wanted to be merciful towards Andrew Tate, because despite his flaws and now his criminal accusations coming to light, I was trying to see if there was a redeemable person within Mr. Tate. After I wrote the below post, Mr. Tate was arrested in Romania for possible sex trafficking. If true, and I say that only because the courts have to work themselves out, then Tate should face punishment. My initial reason in trying to reconcile Mr. Tate’s beliefs was because I felt frustrated that the Left appears at times to think a space for men is childish, and I felt the Right Wing gaining steam by appropriating masculinity which of course…angered me as a man. But, I spoke too soon. The type of masculinity Mr. Tate promotes isn’t progress at all. [End Note Update 1.11.23]
I’m proud that I’m a regular guy. Especially as I write my thoughts out. I have no real skin in the game, and I’m doing this for free for now. I am just sharing my thoughts.
I don’t hate Andrew Tate, but I just don’t agree with him on most things, but he does make good points, or rather I can appreciate his ability to question things to attempt to find any latent hypocrisies in arguments.
But, it is easy to blame the Left because they represent A) change & inclusion, B) represent a threat into how we view economics by challenging “winner take all” games. It easy to put the Left into a bubble even though it’s very diverse ideologically speaking which ironically why it often stalls, e.g., anarchists vs social democrats vs democratic socialists vs reformists or revolutionaries vs communists who may or may not adhere to frameworks like Marxism.
I will be writing about an episode of the YouTube podcast called PBD Podcast I watched, under the larger Valuetainment Media Group, hosted by Patrick Bet-David and Adam Sosnick, titled: Exclusive: Andrew Tate UNCENSORED Interview with Andrew Tate, published on September 13, 2022.
I don’t think Andrew is evil. Maybe a little too intense for me, but that’s fine. Let him live his life.
Some good points or insights he has is (1) Men value respect/honor and some of the most dangerous or damaged men who do irrational things are often those who feel the most disrespected – granted, men have responsibility for their actions even if their egos are hurt, i.e., no excuses for violence, but Andrew is not making an excuse but giving an insight; (2) Men are emotional creatures capable of intense and deeper levels of love; (3) Modern men in many ways are “drone” like figures, and many lack a sense of purpose or meaning, considering institutions like marriage aren’t socially required anymore, so more and more people are more lonely that ever. Having kids can be a motivator for many because they have something to live for outside of themselves. The future has literally been labeled as not being of “men”, i.e., The Future is Female, however, I understand this catch phrase isn’t literal but serves as an inspirational battle cry; (4) Men in certain ways are held to what I call the “standard of disposability”, i.e., men are often seen as worthy of being sacrificed when times are rough because nature is rough, and women carry life. However, this isn’t entirely true because in many ways women who don’t comply to traditional norms are often seen as disposable too; (5) our society is being dumbed down with social media, however, I would argue that his is a collective effort by foreign enemies and not simply the Chinese, but also the Russians, Sauds, Iranians, etc. It’s also just a natural extension of capitalism where you need consumers who produce goods under division-of-labor, i.e., people specialize in one part of the production process without understanding the whole [I don’t know how to make a cellphone from scratch for example. And, no one was going to teach me how to, especially for free], etc.
I would also agree with Andrew calling out some annoying elements of certain segments of feminism such as saying men aren’t needed, but when something bad happens, calling out men for not being there.
For example, there was the sad case of the murder of Sarah Everard, who was killed by an active-duty cop, who stalked, sexually assaulted, and then killed the young women. A horrible case for sure. However, while surfing around Instagram, even in the United States where the story broke into the news cycle, I noticed many feminist pages calling out men collectively for her murder because they didn’t save her.
What were men supposed to do when they didn’t know she was in danger? She didn’t even know she was in danger. Many good men have been encouraged to not talk to women for fear of being a catcaller, a creep, “not reading signals” well enough, being accused of another guy just trying to get laid, or to be secretly recorded and used as a pawn in someone’s Tik Tok video about “trash men”. The reactions seemed borderline fanatical to me, i.e., people who have adopted a specific framework of seeing the world, so much so, they never question it, and when they apply this blanket framework to everything it creates distortions in people’s heads (i.e., they see flaws or contradictions). But they don’t question it because the ideology isn’t simply about equality but power, and it seems this power is being achieved pragmatically, i.e., by any means necessary, even if unfair criticism or outright hypocrisy is utilized.
Some of the women (emphasis on some) are saying they don’t need men, but men are supposed to magically appear when they’re in trouble and protect them, and if we don’t then it proves how crappy we are as men?
Which is it? Some want this free or expected protection, while never saying anything good about modern men, let alone ever sympathizing with men. But what’s funny is, is that that most men if they knew Sarah was in trouble would have intervened but they weren’t around to help her. They would have helped her without even knowing if she was a “radical feminist” or not.
Certain feminists have based their entire empowerment by challenging men. But, I’m too old to care, yet, I can admit this mentality has in part created a reactionary modern male movement, full of very impressionable people, which can get dangerous, considering the realities of our late-stage capitalist existences. [Note: Feminism is not bad. It is a broad spectrum of various ideologies where women are central, so hating on feminism objectively, is nonsense because you can’t lump all feminists together]
However, many of his concerning statements about women aside (or, at least crude analogies he might use to prove his points), one main issue with his rhetoric is it would be better suited if he criticized both sides, yet, as a chess player, I suspect Andrew is encouraging the more right-wing adjacent sentiment because it’s simply more conducive to his lifestyle at the current moment.
However in his interview on Valuetainment’s PBD Podcast, he stated he was apolitical, and he said some very progressive things (such as how the world rallied around Ukraine but traditionally the West exploited Africa and the Middle East and no one cared), etc.
He’s smart enough to know that any system has inherent flaws, but he’s also smart enough to know his audience and the reactionary elements within the political-right.
However, I am a proponent to the belief that even though Leftist thought is not perfect by any means, it will always be better than the political right, because the political left at least believes in humanism and inclusion. Yet, I’m critical of certain frameworks and mentalities in the contemporary left such as what I perceive as a “progressive form of segregation”, rather than focusing on uniting the proletariat around economic issues. Granted, I understand that intersectionality where identity is central is vital in analyzing injustice.
But, his persona aside, I think Andrew is funny, more so because after hearing his life story I can relate to him because he and myself were…military brats who are Americans of varying black ancestry living overseas. In other words, I know he’s funny. He reminds me of a relative. Sure, I don’t agree with him, but I don’t hate him. He is not dangerous to the world or rather he doesn’t want to harm the world. His dad is from the South, my dad is from the South. His dad was Air Force, my dad was Army even though we lived on an Air Base for many years (I, myself served in the USAF). I know he was raised in England and as a Cold War Era and later 1990s military brat living in Germany, I knew of the British bases like Lakenheath, Mindenhall, Alconbury, etc. His current persona aside, he reminds me of a kid I would have grown up with, notably since the military is so diverse, full of interracial families, etc.
Andrew Tate talks about The Matrix a lot and to some extent he has valid points, i.e., we live in an ever-growing and more interconnected world where a few people at the top of power structures and institutions can craft narratives, especially though mass media. Basic stuff really. From a Leftist perspective, it’s basic Noam “Manufacturing Consent” Chomsky 101. Talking about The Matrix is a smart business and marketing move, even if he truly believes it, because we do live in a “paranoid”, “they are out to get us” world especially as people subjectivity interpret data, often with their own preconceived biases, fears, etc. But those fears are not unfounded entirely, yet, how we act on what we learn is important though (e.g., violence isn’t the answer, or, it does more harm than good, it accelerates to chaos, etc.).
Ludwig Wittgenstein said it best that the “limits of my language is the limits of my world”. This is true about everyone, me included.
And, Andrew using the film reference is simply because the movie The Matrix was popular, and a recent version was released (fresh on peoples’ minds), so saying The Matrix creates a subconscious pathway (I suppose, neural-linguistic programming) that people can understand since the movie is embedded into pop culture (people know it even without seeing it).
Yet, Andrew, like many in the digital “Manosphere” space, keep making this basic mistake of thinking in dialectical terms, yet, they claim to be free from the matrix. These men in these spaces as they “revolt against the modern world” (a Julius Evola reference), always blame the political-left and are incapable it seems of checking their own ideology, including their love for capitalism, i.e., the capitalist bro culture that now encompasses the crypto-coin bro culture (which Andrew spoke out against in his interview with PBD and Adam of Valuetainment).
I would argue that they’re stuck in the matrix. In theory, that’s even the point of the films or a theory of them I would argue. There was no real escape. The blue pill, red pill dichotomy was largely manufactured by the engineers of the matrix, so just people you think you’re free, you’re sort of stuck in a Nietzschean “eternal recurrence” nightmare, i.e., you keep coming back to where you started, such as in the Greek myth of Sisyphus.
Andrew acknowledges that “we’re under control” and I agree with him. Our data is being tracked with coding such as “Meta Pixel” by Facebook (now Meta). Cameras are everywhere and software firms with government contracts are specializing in facial recognition. Every app on your phone even if dormant is sending your data to 3rd party “data brokers”. Most of our food is made a few producers (which has benefits and negatives). Every aspect of modern life has been commodified. Mental health apps or Teladoc firms for example, though serving a real need, emulate the business model of social media companies and sell your data too. Our diets and lifestyles. Our retirements are pegged to the success of a stock market where the rich own most of the stocks to begin with, etc. It’s a rigged, pre-planned, Walt Disney – inspired, meets Patrick Bateman from American Psycho nightmare. Cities like Atlanta are building “cop cities”, while elsewhere there’s no affordable housing or cities don’t have drinkable water.
Capitalism in the West, not socialism, is turning more and more Orwellian by the day, but oddly, people support capitalism, since its so good at shrouding actual fear and intentions. In other words, acting like the” Alpha capitalist” might be covering up a person’s racism, fear, sexism, what have you. Capitalism being more individualist in nature is of course preferred by many on the political-right because it affords a passive aggressive way of segregating and maintaining historical hierarchies away from government regulations that might attempt at creating more equity for all. However, it could be argued that capitalism since it is individual creates an egalitarian state where capable individuals regardless of identity.
But, don’t you think the powerful are smart enough to already be one-hundred steps ahead?
It is chilling to think that your whole worldview and ideology, be it on the right or the political left, was designed and intended to serve a role as warring binaries? I truly believe, especially from an American perspective, that our countries were designed by the capitalist oligarch class using theories such as system’s theory where groups are treated like “commodities” to be pitted up against each other, so they never look up at power.
The people in power don’t care about capitalism or communism because they are smart enough to know that these ideas are things, i.e., tools, i.e., pragmatic concepts created to achieve certain objectives but within specific ways. For example, Communism tends to centralize resources which can be exploited, whereas capitalism has the tendency of exploiting labor to forge materials into finished products able to be jacked up in price with insane margins to make profit for a few owners.
Many of these men in the Manosphere, blame people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, etc., yet never seem to point to the fact that the misery they are trying to “Alpha Male” themselves out of is the result of a capitalist system that atomized society with concepts like division-of-labor, the monetization of time, wage theft, the notion of “sex sells” in advertising, pollution, poverty, gentrification, etc.
For example, I support women working because no woman is happy if she feels she didn’t at least try to own her life and own her own agency (considering men will guilt trip them if they aren’t able to earn their own income, i.e., “you’re living in my house”, “I buy the food”, etc.).
Yet, capitalism made women work because A) they were able to be exploited more easily and underpaid, and B) inflation over time caused by a confluence of diverse events over time and space created the need for two income households. The very fact that capitalism needs consumers inspired the two-income household, because more workers earning wages means more goods they will likely buy, thus more rich people. Yet, since growth must be a constant in capitalist systems, otherwise “people freak out” (market panics), to sustain this hard growth, capitalist either automate with machines, merge job specialties with management principles such as Lean Management or zero-defect Six Sigma, offshore to cheaper and more destitute waters, The truth is that many men got away with being able to marry women by simply providing them things they couldn’t get on their own in a more regressive and anti-woman environment, such as women being disbarred from owning property or obtaining insurance.
Many of the men in these “Manosphere” spaces often refer to the video-game boss-like figure of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Peterson sold this myth to impressionable and angry young men raised by meme culture, Taco Bell, and video games, that their blight is the fault of the “Postmodern Neo-Marxists”, a type of hybrid scapegoat terms that mashes Pat Buchanan with covert nods to the Nazis themselves (who called anything they didn’t like such as modern art or Bauhaus architecture degenerate).
Peterson flat out lied about postmodernism, knowing that most people have no clue what it is. Postmodernism, as I’ve said many times before, is simply “after modernism”, i.e., it is a broad framework that challenges the structuralism, objective truth-claims, etc. The intention wasn’t to be “relativist” but to analyze or deconstruction objective truths because objectives can’t be oppressive but also very biased, e.g., just because history is written by winners doesn’t mean their version of history is accurate. Postmodernism is a result of capitalism, because capitalism built modernity (the Industrial Revolution which opened the door for the psychological revolution over religion), yet, postmodernism is simply when this capitalist system reaches its apex on some level and starts to create simulation of itself, and it becomes hard to discern what is real or what is fake, be it an object (for example, is a GMO apple a real apple?) or reality itself. Because, truth becomes more relative, even in the face of empirical data, society starts naturally becoming nihilistic, apathetic, etc., because people by way of capitalism have been reduced to what Nietzsche would call the “Last Man”, i.e., the coach potato, near sexless conspiracy theorists, whose food is produce by one mega corporation, works in a cubical farm, and lives amongst extreme wealth disparity and urban decay, with the last statement being the result of capitalist systems being rigged by the “winners” (buying out competition, paying off politicians, writing laws that gives them universal right to copyright claims, etc.).
Postmodernism is both a condition of living in late-stage capitalism where it’s hard to discern what is real or fake, but also a study of the condition and the study of the condition occurs in traditional philosophy discourse (e.g., the work of Fredric Jameson), experimental literature, art, etc.
As already stated, I don’t think Andrew Tate is the worst person on the planet and even though he is a figure that has worked with many figures in the “Men’s Rights” or “Manosphere” space, I think that Andrew out of most of these people is authentic, or more authentic than most. Andrew didn’t need the Men’s Rights movement, Manosphere or YouTube to become successful, unlike others in these spaces, so he is able to be more honest. He doesn’t need to chase the algorithm or escalate toxicity to get likes (for example, the Fresh and Fit podcast), because the truth is most men in the Manosphere are faking it to they make it and are using their followers to fund their lifestyles. Tate had a particular lifestyle before the popularity of the Manosphere. However,
3 hours:48 minute:15 second, Andrew states that nations that are not privileged, such as the Global South or Eastern Europe, etc., are more prone to traditionalism because they need to rely on survival more so than spoiled Westerners. So, if Andrew is complementing these societies for being tougher because they are poor, then what made them poor to begin with? Capitalist exploitation, colonialism, divide-and-conquer politics meant to destabilize nations such as in African or Middle Eastern nations where borders were arbitrarily drawn by foreign powers and smashed warring groups with ancient feuds together (for example, the Tutsis vs Hutus in Rwanda, Sunnis vs Shias, Pakistanis vs Indians, etc.). Andrew often talks about how the Left, progressives, feminist, people who take the “blue pill”, socialists, etc., are the problem and weakening society, yet, he praises the strength of societies that are exploited by a globalist capitalist system for the benefit of the West, China, United States, etc. From predatory loans, all out invasions, intelligence agency orchestrated overthrows, narco-terrorism, eco-terrorism, political terrorism, and a general objective of exploiting people with nothing else to live for.
In other words, capitalism not only makes stronger societies more apathetic and spoiled (self-destructive), but it also creates great inequities in the developing world. The same people who control the “matrix” as Andrew puts it are responsible for both, but these people aren’t Communists, they’re corporatists, capitalists, etc. There’s a reason why every aspiring socialist nation received military hostility from Western powers because they jeopardized the cheap resources needed by capitalist to insanely mark up their items built with the sweat (surplus labor value) of workers.
It’s also interesting to note that people like Andrew lean towards people like Donald Trump because of the way he carries himself, yet, Trump called developing nations, “shit holes”. So, is Andrew saying that people from “shithole” developing nations that are exploited by a global capitalist system, stronger? If he has administration from them, then why not stand up for them against the powers of capitalism, and not just this manufactured hysteria regarding “wokeness”?
It is also interesting how Right Winger thinkers who espouse these strong-men beliefs are often xenophobic to some degree, yet, if immigrants have traditionalist cultures, then why not accept immigrants?
The irony of the Left and Right relating to immigrants is that progressive movements often accept immigrants, e.g., the notion of Borders Don’t Exists or Borders are Illegal, yet, once these immigrants come to their nation, some over time become conservative, either because they’re still adapting to the free libertine nature of Western societies, and/or they comply with the assimilation and supremacy mindset of conservatives, i.e., the immigrants want to fit in so they emulate those who oppress them. Yet, conservatives often don’t want immigrants coming despite exploiting their cheap labor at home and abroad, largely because of a sense of racial, ethnic, and/or group preservation sentiments.
Let’s say Andrew knows all I am saying. Cool. But, do the world a favor and call out capitalism. It’s popular to call out socialism or communism, but what is affecting the US for example? America was already in decline even before it was OK for Americans to identify as socialists.
The American Revolution was a worker’s strike and the modern Left needs to embrace this tradition to alleviate the accusation that it’s not “patriotic”. The colonists were subjects (contracted workers, i.e., contractors), within chartered colonies (corporations) – thirteen departments to be exact (the Thirteen Colonies)-, whose labor was being exploited for the benefit of shareholders back in the United Kingdom. Our understanding of the Revolution was crafted by the business class who used the proletariat class, for their “hostile takeover of the corporation”, to emphasis a radical worship of individual liberty and anti-taxation, which translates to power for the most powerful private interests.
Part 1. 1776 as a Worker’s Socialist Movement
Part 2. The Left Has a Patriotism Problem, in theory.
I. 1776 as a Worker’s Socialist Movement
Imagine it’s 1776 and somehow, we have TV and the modern mainstream news. Imagine the news talking about a guerilla army in a place called America revolting against the business interests of the British Empire. The news, imaging Tucker Carlson in a powered wig, would likely call the American Revolutionaries, terrorists, and Communist agitators for propaganda purposes.
When we’re taught about American Independence stories of Paul Revere, The Boston Tea Party, the crossing of the Delaware River, etc., come to mind, yet, what we’re not taught is that the energy of the American Revolution wasn’t purely about freedom in the way we understand it now, i.e., individual rights, personal property rights, etc., – which, in and of itself were used by the business class to advance their own interests at the expense of the people – but, also within the American Revolution there was a very Socialist energy. By Socialist it doesn’t necessarily mean Marxist, considering Marxism is just one of the many theories of Socialism, but since Marxism had the most indelible impact on the Socialist movement by providing a scientific framework for analysis, then what I’m saying is partially influenced by Marx such as his notion of class struggle, dialectical materialism, etc.
The colonists were subjects (contracted workers, i.e., contractors), within chartered colonies (corporations), thirteen departments to be exact (the Thirteen Colonies) whose labor was being exploited for the benefit of shareholders back in the United Kingdom.
The colony is the basis for the concept of the corporation where the first corporation, The Dutch East India Company, later inspired other companies such as The British East India Company. Colonies were business enterprises, often risky, which required private military contractors, inmate labor, human trafficked labor (slaves), and volunteers.
So, when the American Revolutionaries revolted, they as workers/slaves were revolting against a corporation, i.e., a capitalist enterprise.
We are often told one side of the coin when it comes the energy of the American revolution. It was not only libertarian in nature, but also socialist in nature. I suppose a merger of these traditions would be what we consider socio-anarchist.
For example, we often hear revolts against taxes as being American, yet even though the colonists (workers) were being taxed unfairly, there’s not much difference between taxes and wages. The workers were basically not being paid well enough, i.e., they weren’t fairly compensated for their labor to begin with, even before on the back end when they had to pay taxes, stamp duties, tariffs, etc. Colonists were getting the “double whammy” of being underpaid (slaves not paid at all) and then taxed (which likely caused harsher exploitation of workers/slaves by managers to make up for losses).
The energy of the revolution could only have happened if the worker classes revolted. In a way you could say the energy of the Revolution was a union movement, or, we could say the American Revolution is the birth of the American workers’ rights movement.
So, how did our conception of the American Revolution come to be? Those with power dictated the narrative, divided the public naturally with a capitalist system that created class struggle, but also layered it all with a racial caste system, so the white poor would identify, i.e., vicariously live through, the white elites.
I do feel that the Founders, some well-read into Enlightenment philosophers, might have speculated of the possibility of what would later become socialism as being a possibility, yet, since “mob rule of the people” would negate their own plans, but by not taking caring of the people would lead to disaster, they left an ambiguous statement within the Preamble, i.e., providing for the good will. Therefore, this one of the reasons why I believe in the Living Document interpretation of the constitution as opposed to the Originalist interpretation such as that of Supreme Court Justices such as Amy Coney Barrett, where the Originalist believe you must view the Constitution based on the time it was written, which is ridiculous, because that method denies the realities of the time at hand, its nuances, etc. (people were also slaves in this time, women had no right to vote in those times, etc.). The Founders were smart enough to know that the Enlightenment Tradition, such as what they were seeing in France, i.e., America’s fraternal brother, had utopian scope that not only emphasized the individual but also the collective.
We often hail the Founding Fathers as sage-life wisemen of virtuous character, but in essence they were of the gentry class, i.e., the middle-management classes, i.e., the managers of trading houses, labor agencies (slave depots), estates, warehouses, and law firms that served British investor interests. They were of the class had Anglophile sensibilities particularly in their education, and we can see this in the schism of the Loyalist gentry class versus the Revolutionary gentry class where Loyalists of the same class migrated to what is now Canada.
The American Revolution was two things, (1) A revolt of the proletariat, i.e., working classes subconsciously channeling what we could consider a Socialist energy, and (2) a “Hostile Takeover” by the middle-management of the colonies who wanted to cut out their foreign investors and become the de facto board of chairmen themselves.
Essentially, middle managers used the working classes, exploiting their unrealized concept of Socialism and worker’s rights, and then applied a concept of unfettered economic liberty which would always serve the ruling classes which the Founders after their victory now owned. It’s no different than workers revolting against a firm, but the leader of that firm simply uses them and turns around and does the same thing.
The very fact that the signers and framers from the upper classes didn’t trust democracy which they called “mob rule” is proof that the conscious and subconscious construction of the USA was based on classism. We can even add to the rebellions which came after the Revolution which weren’t simply about taxes, but about people fearing their wages would be eaten into since they likely didn’t make that much to begin with, such as in Shay’s Rebellion. Shay’s Rebellion on the surface seems like American’s simply protesting taxes, but really, they were protesting the merchant class passing down costs on to them for them to pay their own creditors. It’s no different than a bank steadily increasing your withdrawal fees, as a means of covering their own overhead. The people who revolted at what is now called Shay’s Rebellion were suppressed by a private army funded by the merchant class and commanded by General Benjamin Lincoln, which foreshadows how today private military contractors are used to suppress workers across the globe.
However, the framers and signers of the constitution all had their own personalities and reasons, and their occupations spanned from doctors, lawyers, military, and land holders, etc. We can’t lump all Framers and Signers together since they all had their own philosophy, yet the one thing they did have in common, is they were, even if they had moral reservations about it, were a part of a class system, where many of the signers by the time of Independence had their own special interests in mind, and not necessarily the good will of the American people as claimed.
To add to the claim that the American revolution had a Socialist element to it is that the Enlightenment philosophy of the revolution encompasses Leftist thought, i.e., individualism versus collectivism, both have roots in an Enlightenment thought through the centuries of European history.
Yes, what we consider to be notions of radical freedom, democracy, capitalism, and socialism all have a common ancestry dating back to the Renaissance (thinkers such as Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola), yet over time as history carried on and democratic experiments were burgeoning there was a splintering of ideas, yet, what we consider to be libertarian and socialists both have the same ends but through different strategy, e.g., one posits that individual rights and private property rights somehow ensures liberty, whereas the other posits that collective control over the means of production or an empowerment of the larger collective working class ensures that individual rights are respected, i.e., equality. The issue with the capitalist argument is that you can’t have equality even if equality or liberty exists on paper because the accumulation of capital, often created by robbing one’s labor, i.e., underpaying, creates too much of a vast spread within a hierarchy, i.e., there’s a larger difference between the haves and have nots. Socialism, particularly the specific, I repeat specific framework (since other types of socialism exist) of Fredrich Engels and Karl Marx, i.e., Scientific Socialism or Marxism, is more based within reality, whereas notions of capitalism, despite what we’ve been told, are more based on romantic idealism, i.e., ideas over real-world conditions.
The notion freedom by way of a capitalist system is based more in ideas (romanticism, religion, non-empiricism), rather than realism (understanding negative effects of systems, i.e., externalities, using a scientific framework to study human interactions, the interconnection of things, the inherent social nature of humans and the social nature of transaction, etc.), thus the American notion as we know it of liberty is more in aligned with Hegelian idealism, which is something that Marx disagreed with. Instead of living under “grand ideas”, Marx rather called capitalism what it is, which is a system based on the exploitation of labor for the benefit of a few or an individual. It exists to have people work for you, but you underpay them and collect the surplus yourself.
We can put Karl Marx in the same umbrella of Western philosophy as the thinkers who inspired the Revolutionaries, even though Marx came later, and many thinkers went in their own directions. For example, both Marx and Jefferson were influenced by J.J. Rousseau. Hegel, Kant, Spinoza, Smith, etc.
Both Marx and Jefferson had a materialist view to reality, though unique and modified to themselves, which could be translated as a scientific (observation of nature) or a realist view to nature, i.e., science, such as the science influenced by Newtonian thought. Yet, to not get too much into religion, it could be argued that Jefferson would be agnostic in a modern-day sense with Christian apologetics, whereas Marx would have been an atheist on the deeper end of scientific realism.
Jefferson stated, “Nature has, in truth, produced units only through all her works. Classes, orders, genera, species, are not of her works. Her creation is of individuals.” If Jefferson had survived to read Charles Darwin, he may be interested in the works Darwin such as the interconnectivity of all life.
Marx stated, ““Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle”.
“Like many other contemporaries he read—e.g., Hutcheson, Kames, Bolingbroke, Tracy, and Hume—Jefferson was an empiricist, and in keeping with Isaac Newton, a dyed-in-the-wool materialist.”
The Left as a Patriotism problem. It’s not that those on the Left, Progressive, or Left Liberal side of the house don’t like the United States. Their efforts to improve conditions is proof they do care about America. Yet, the Left as largely lost the “Patriotism optics” war, despite winning the Culture War as far as mainstream media as mainstream media has become more inclusive over time. Many on the Left might think that not being a radical patriot, waving the Stars and Stripes, posting things about supporting the troops, etc., is all that necessary, and some might even think it’s cringe or nonsensical to do such things because they could be seen as mere figurative gestures that don’t improve material conditions of the American people.
Yet, by not owning more of the Patriotic aesthetic this gives easy ammunition to the political right who can simply rebut any progressive idea as being “un-American”, etc. The Political Right as far as culture, i.e., fashion, optics, aesthetics, attempts to own the soul of the military, police, and even the Revolutionary War. Why do Leftist let this happen? It’s ok to be critical of the American system while still honoring the aesthetics of it. It’s ok to have a post-colonial framework, or even a Critical Theory viewpoint, or to apply intersectionality, and still have the appearance, but also the innate belief of loving your country.
Basically, we need to see more marketing campaigns to stitch the Leftist Framework with Patriotic imagery. Having American Flags at a rally for Bernie or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is something simple to do. Unifying progressive veteran organizations and focusing on veteran care for troops while still honoring their service, even though the Left might lean towards pacifism, is fine. But the major point is to present the truth that the American Revolution was a worker’s strike (more to come on this below).
Republicans can easily have no policy besides enriching the rich even more, but they capture people with the allure of belonging to a Patriotic Tradition. Yet, the issue with how we understand this tradition is that the Revolutionary War for example wasn’t merely a war to free ourselves from taxes, but was also a worker’s strike, meaning the energy of the Revolutionary had a Leftist framework.
I’m frustrated as an everyday “heteronormative” guy wanting to see the Left succeed.
I surf the internet and on Instagram I constantly see beautiful models with Bible quotes above their LinkTree link (leading to OnlyFans) covering themselves with the US flag (something you wouldn’t see on the political left – which is fine, but it is a powerful tool), I see gun enthusiast pages, Don’t Tread on Me flags, people selling T-Shirts such as “Liberty or Death” or “1776”, truck or off-road vehicle pages, Blue Lives Matter pages, etc. The appeal of the political right is that it makes itself seem like a fun place for the normal person. “We got beautiful woman, we love our country, we admire our heroes, we eat meat, watch sports, we use our hands, we’re manly men and the women who love these men”, etc., etc.
Yet, on the Left things aren’t as monolithic and homogenous, which is fine, but due to ideologies such as Identity politics the Left is left in state where it can’t even agree internally on what can be done without people feeling they’re offending someone of another intersectional component. There’s a lot of “you aren’t down” enough shaming tactics on the Left which further divides things so the unified right can easily pick it apart or obstruct. How can the Left unite if the ideology of feminism (which isn’t bad) does posit itself against men and don’t really care what men think (not necessarily in theory as what a person criticizing this would say, but just look to social media where you see pages after pages essentially not…liking men), and I would say the same thing in reverse, when men on the Left might feel stunned or unable to feel they can articulate their thoughts without fear of being lectured? As crazy as it wounds, sexual politics are a big part of the appeal of the political-right because it coddles the heteronormative ego, whereas the left questions it, yet women on the right are willing to “stand by their men” because it’s beneficial for them to do so, i.e., they get adoring love and admiration.
You can apply this feeling of awkwardness across race, gender, orientation, assignment, etc. Yet, it’s not bad what the left has achieved as far as advancing the conversation. I almost feel a sense of “existential” growth at pondering intersectionality and I would say the Left has made me into a better person, but what I feel in my head even if it on the right track, and how the world outside of my head are two different things. The Left might feel enlightened but it’s a flimsy reality on the streets, where people like see it as “weak”, “intellectual”, etc.
I always had the idea of trying to reconcile heteronormative masculinity with Leftist thought. And, sure, I bet a critic with the typical “eye roll” response as if attempting such as thing is just proof of “male insecurity”, but I would argue it’s essential since this identity does exists in the material world, and the Right Wing is able to exploit masculinity and make it seem “explicitly” Right Wing. As a man, to be honest, this erks me. Maybe the American Left needs a “Men of Steel” tradition, where the notion of steel goes back to old Socialist imagery of the hammer, and this could help in hedging the culture war of the political right.
Regardless, the Right Wing is a unified force that markets itself with the high horse position of patriotic imagery and it also appeals to a “safe space” of non-intellectual, Football watching, beer drinking, firework shooting, Redneck rigging, “chicks” in daisy duke loving Americana. As a Leftist who grew up an old school Democrat before the passage of NAFTA, in many ways the culture of the right wing, is my culture (I’m watching Sunday Night Football with a beer right now), despite me coming from a tradition that always sympathized with the worker, had disdain for Wall Street, etc.
In many ways, the American Left lost its style of the “Roseanne America” or Axel Foley’s Detroit in Beverly Hills Cop. And, sure, these might not be “representative” of America as is, but ask yourself this question, “How do you help a Southern guy with a truck actually embrace Leftist ideology?”. Beau the Fifth Column for example is a refreshing attempt at inserting culturally conservative chic with the Leftist framework.
The last attempt at making the Left an actual fun place was decried at being “Bernie Bros”. Remember that? When men who supported Bernie were lumped into this category of a “Bernie Bro” because Bernie Sanders posed an ideological threat to Hillary Clinton, yet Bernie’s message even after the loss of Hillary in 2016 helped to re-energize the Democratic Party, going so far as helping first-time female candidates such as Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, Rhasida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, even though the powerbase of the Democrats are neoliberal capitalist. Were Bernie Bros toxic, or even a thing, or where they simply believers in Leftist ideology, simply using their masculine energy to rebut the appropriate masculine energy of the right-wing, who posed a risk to neoliberal female candidate whose decisions over her long (and impressive) career lead up to the issues we face today?
Seeing how radical Trump supporters are, the Left needs some All American “Bernie Bros” in the mix right alongside strong females, BIPOC communities, service workers, the LGBTQ community, veterans, etc.
It comes off as too erudite now, walking on eggshells, brainy, etc., yet ironically also living off a neoliberal “hipster” culture. It lacks the older aesthetics of the beer drinking truck driving union card holder, or the striking union organizers fighting the Rockefellers at coal mines in Colorado or Appalachia. It lacks the aesthetic of the “anti-war yet still patriotic veteran” such as how things were during the Vietnam War era, i.e., the men who might ride motorcycles with a POW/MIA flag.
The Left to survive needs to figure out its Patriotic and Americana problem, even though I know many intellectuals, content creators, podcasters, etc., on the Left will see this all as a silly attempt that doesn’t improve material conditions. But, why let your opposition have free ammunition, especially when that ammunition is easy the Left’s as well?
It has to also figure out a way of reconciling certain positions such as gun rights, which is a culture war aspect that the right holds onto firmly. There are actual liberal and left leaning gun clubs who could be used to advocate for gun ownership but also with progressive policies for safer gun controls. For example, the Socialist Rifle Association (https://socialistra.org/) and The Liberal Gun Club (https://theliberalgunclub.com/)
The Cuban Communist regime is WAY more advanced and technical that what we are taught in the USA. IF the Communist Regime can survive constant harassment, they might be able to innovate to bring forth Marx’s dream of a classless, money-less, and stateless society. Yet, we have to pump our breaks when talking about Marx because it will take time and change for the world at large to be ready for such a reality, yet, individual nations like Cuba are worthy baton holders of the Communist Revolutionary dream. In other words, working at country level and perfecting systems and processes under Marxist principles is a key stepping stone, and I believe the Cuban Communist state are proof of anti-capitalist systems. Cuba is WAY more professional that given credit for by the Western media, in that they have negotiated deals in traditional fossil fuels and in mining with companies and/or firms such as Canada’s Sherritt International, Russia’s Zarubezhneft, Angola’s Sonangol, Spain’s Repsol, The People’s Republic of China, and Venezuela’s PDVSA. Cuba has a high home-ownership rate and literary rate. Cuba has socialized medicine which has developed Meningitis B vaccines, bone marrow transplants, retinal innovations for eye deterioration, therapies for diabetes, etc. Cuba is actually managed very well, but like any nation external factors such as energy from partners is vital. Cuba also has high potential in sustainable energy.
The current July 2021 Cuban Protests are not simply “Anti Communist” but the confluence of various factors. (Hurricanes x COVID x US Sanctions on Cuba such as halting Western Union remittance payments/Sanctions on Cuban companies x US Sanctions on Cuban Oil partners such as Venezuela x US Intel based “Color Revolution Strategy” by way of the Council of Foreign Relations, Associated Press, misinformation campaigns, and the #soscuba South Florida Cuban Republican movement that has elements touching upon Blue Lives Matter Movement, Anti Black Lives Matter Movement despite Governor DeSantis allowing Cubans to protests but criminalizing Black Lives Matters, Proud Boys such as FBI Informant possibly COININTELPRO leader Enrique Tarrio, MAGA, etc.)
I recommend before reading through this that you skip to watching the videos since people are more visual learners.
(Preface) The Game That Never Stops. Before We Get to Cuba. To Understand Current Coverage of Cuban Protests we must analyze current media relations with state intelligence, the past, and how neoliberalism is the underlying ideology of both the American Center Left and Right Wing:
In the early 1970s, democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, implemented Project Cybersyn with the help of British Industrial engineer Stafford Beer. The project constructed a then state of the art decision making room that was effectively an early form of Enterprise Resource Planning System, so the Socialist regime could better make decisions in real time based on data acquired from first responders, businesses, weather forecasts, etc. But, Allende, of course, was overthrown in a CIA backed coup that propped up Right Wing Fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was himself a a Nazi sympathizer. The breakthrough Project Cybersyn was destroyed. Pinochet went on to torture his people in soccer stadiums, throw them out of helicopters, and be a pawn to the CIA, even having a close relationship with Britain’s Margaret Thatcher. Many of the victims of the Pinochet Regime have been never been found. Pinochet would later invite University of Chicago economist, Milton Friedman, and a group of Chilean students trained under Friedman known as the Chicago Boys, to reform Allende’s policies and implement free market neoliberalism. Milton was a member of the Mont Perelin Society which was a collective of free market and libertarian economists who would meet in Switzerland. Mont Perelin under the ideology of Friedrich Hayek had ties to the Atlas Network, i.e., the former Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which was created by Antony Fisher. Fisher would establish other think tanks such as the Manhattan Institute of Policy Research with former CIA Director William Casey, but also the Pacific Research Institute. The Manhattan Institute has hosted billionaires such as a PayPayl Mafia member Peter Thiel, an associated of Elon Musk, where Musk himself was called out for a controversial Tweet supporting a coup against Leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales, since Bolivia is rich in Lithium deposits needed for Musk’s electric batteries.
Relating back to the Manhattan Institute of Policy Research (created by the CIA and Austrian economists), it is currently ran surprisingly by former Vice News contributor Reihan Salam, which links in part, if only by proxy the Vice Media Group, which despite championing many progressive causes and having a demographic of watchers who might lean Left or Far Left, Vice might simply be a proponent of progressivism with an underlying neoliberal free market ideology, i.e., it uses Progressivism as a “CIA Freedom Strategy” to expand US economic and geopolitical interests. For example, recently President Biden was interviewed by Margaret Brennan of CBS New’s segment called Face The Nation, but Brennan is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, another Think Tank, if not the most prominent in the USA, which has a roster of almuni and members spanning CIA Directors, Statement Department Directors, ex military, business people, intellectuals, and even celebrities.
The Council of Foreign Relations dates back to the Woodrow Wilson (a racist) Presidency where Wilson, an elitist, wanted to push for Internationalism, hence why he was vital in establishing the United Nations precursor organization in the League of Nations. Expanding America’s role on the international stage was vital to Wilson, despite many Americans at the time being isolationist. With American involvement in WWI, the stage was set for WWII considering the dire economic situation in Germany and German war debt payments. Regardless, the CFR would later be effectively bought out by Ford Foundation (where Henry Ford himself was a Nazi sympathizer) and The Rockefeller Foundation (who also have funding to Nazi researchers such as through grants to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, which hosted unethical doctors such as Josef Mengele and Erich Fischer. Fischer’s ideas would shape the Nazi Nuremberg Laws, i.e., racial laws, and his experiments on the African Herero tribe would foreshadow experiments on Jews, orphans, twins, mixed race peoples, and POWs during the Holocaust).
Effectively the CFR is a private organization funded by billionaires which dictates US foreign policy, which is similar to the CIA, which started as a private organization of Ivy League graduates and lawyers (often sent abroad to set up law offices in Europe especially during WWI and WWII, e.g., Allen Dulles with law firm Sullivan and Cromwell. Note. Peter Thiel of the Manhattan Institute worked for Sullivan and Cromwell). The CFR and the OSS (CIA) have always been in tandum with private business interests.
Margaret Brennan called into question Biden’s commitment to withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, which without her explicitly saying it, is a key area in a struggle once referred to as The Great Game between the UK and Russia but later re-coined as The Grand Chessboard by National Security Strategists Zbigniew Brzezinski, father of Mika Brzezinski of The Morning Joe news segment on MSNBC, when the USA filled the void in Central Asia during The Cold War.
Her questioning called doubt into Biden’s withdrawal strategy in that it would hurt women in Afghanistan, i.e., by applying feminism she is able to take a moral high-ground position even though continued militarism is the intent, i.e., the USA must maintain a strategic foothold in the area because the theory of Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard states that Central Asia is vital to world control in that it separates West from East, and has since man’s early beginnings been a vital trade route, for example The Silk Road, the spread of Indo-European languages, the spread of religions such as Zoroastrian thought by way of Iran (where with India the word Aryan in part comes from) that influenced Middle Eastern faiths such as Judaism, Christianity, and Island and Classical Greco-Roman thought. Capping Central Asia by having a Western Front bulkhead in Eastern Europe, hence why Ukraine is important, and maintaining the Asia bulkhead in the Far East via Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines to protect the South China Sea against China, helps the USA leverage its power against Russia, China, and Iran. I wrote this previous part about Brennan to show how Progressive ideologies can be used by the state as a cover for ‘business as usual” arguably Right Wing neoliberal policies.
The modern “Freedom Strategy” is similar to all the past CIA operations that used modern abstract art, music, movies (such as the film The Exorcist which caused controversy in Catholic nations but by encouraging lapsed faith, people became more morally accepting of secularism, free market consumption, etc., i.e., they were either so terrified or found it all silly they questioned their faith. Note, William Casey of the CIA had close ties to Pope John Paul II, yet the Pope was nearly killed in a botched assassination attempt by a Turkish national, Mehmet Agca, a member of Far Right organization The Grey Wolves, which was a spin off to the NATO US backed Operation Gladio unit in Turkey known as Counter Guerilla), libertine sexuality (for example, West Germany’s large pornography industry), etc., as propaganda for freedom against The Soviets.
Cuba Is Surviving and Carved it’s own way. Healthcare, Education, Home Ownership, etc.
The Communist Regime in Cuba has two options.
I don’t think the Cuban Communist Regime has to worry about anything. Threats can be mitigated with strategic vision and leverage pre-existing relationships. The Communists need technocratic dynamism.
A) The current Communist Regime needs a major managerial overhaul that can better provide promised services and wanted commodities to the people, likely by applying a technocratic approach to centralized allocation of resources, e.g., capturing data analytics in real time, thinking through the DIKA model (Data, Information, Knowledge, Action). Cuba must upgrade to a newer version of what Castro did by applying market principles within the constraint of Marxist ideology and/or leveraging technology for better Industrial Management practices. It has to rebrand and upgrade, and look to other Socialists or Progressive ideologies that aren’t Marx or Engels such as Robert Owens, Thorstein Veblen, Henri Saint-Simon, Henry George, Etienne Cabet, Charles Fourier, Ricardian Socialists (cooperatives), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (mutualism, e.g., this could be applied to supporting internet Peer to Peer Sharing in Cuba between Cubans), Eduard Bernstein, etc.
Is it funny that people say “Socialism doesn’t’ work” when there’s so much hostility towards it by the capitalist nations needing cheap resources?
I support Communist Cuba and the Revolutionaries. Sorry, but I do. I am impressed by their determination, resilience, and innovation, yet I do support the protestors in that they should want a better and more flexible Communist regime. Many protestors are fighting for a better regime that lives up to the promises of Castro, despite many saying that Cubans want to get rid of Communism.
There needs to be an invigorated, active, exciting Communist Party that can remind people of the strength of the Cuban people who survived in a hostile world while others wanted it to fail. When Cuba was cut off from the world, the Cuban people innovated creating breakthroughs in sustainable organic farming, medicine, energy, etc. You can still have Socialism but with freedoms and by granting freedoms you can reinvigorate the revolutionary spirit in that the people are working together to make a better society for all.
Investing in capital equipment upgrades but also Software as a Service. SaaS such as Enterprise Resource Planning systems can better capture data so the Communist regime and better allocate resources. Reaching out Software Engineers from trade partners such as Canada and The Netherlands
Emergency, Disaster, and Response upgrades for natural disasters
Micro-Scale Competition. Fostering competition between state subsidized industries is a better way to determine what works for citizens, but also increases productivity, quality, etc.
National internet infrastructure using concepts such as Peer to Peer Sharing.
Using innovations in Clean Technology to produce clothing from recycled goods, organic plastics, but also produce green energy, i.e., solar, wind, bio-fuels, tidal power, etc.
Allowing remittances, i.e., Western Union payments, to Cuba to allow currency flows between nations such as the United States, so Cubans can get cash to purchase goods and services.
Investing in crypto currencies
Continued support for Organic Farming Practices and Permaculture
Reaching out to Green Firms such as Canadian Solar, Peru’s TransBiodisel, Tyton Biofuel pioneering tobacoo to fuel research, Enviva, etc.
Green Education as a part of Marxist education in higher learning institutions.
Reforestation and diversification of tree planting to create a sustainable supply of timber but also a source of sustainable fuel such as tree pulp.
Land distribution of the state to private custodianship on the conditions that farmers support the state and the people. Or..
Henry George Policy where all the is controlled equally but people can profit from what they make from that land, but they pay taxes to support Social Services
Investing in cannabis where cannabis can be used for industrial hemp, medicines, recreation, oils, etc.
Using Cuba’s high tobacco production for biofuels
Patenting inventions made by Cubans for use abroad while keeping Open Sources and Free Use domestically
Establishing a Sovereign Wealth Fund to invest in foreign countries, i.e., let foreign businesses make money for you.
Continue to leverage friendships with Socialist International parties.
Revitalizing the sugar mills with more emphasis on ethanol fuels for domestic use but also export for revenues.
Working with developed nations to acquire COVID medicines, and reverse engineering techniques.
Diversification of the economy particularly in agricultural products
Tapping into Cuba’s core-competencies, i.e., what it does best, e.g., Cuba has a highly literate and educated population with very capable medical professionals, it is known for its love of baseball with a plethora of talent, it has tourism possibilities, etc.
Closer relations to Cuban Import and Export Partners
What is going on in Cuba?”:
A lot is going on with Cuba, but I support the Communist Revolution that occurred in Cuba as an American. I am a Socialist. I have Socialist tendencies, i.e., Power to the People and unity of the people away from an economic system that divides the public and exploits their labor for the benefit of a few rich people such as the historical landed gentry (Hacienda, plantation owners) of Latin America. As of July 2021, Cuban people have taken to the streets to protests the lack of food, power, and COVID vaccines. This is a management issue.
Yet, I do find it interesting that the protests are being broadcasted to the world during a time that is near Cuba’s Independence Day which is July 26th, i.e., the day that Castro rose to overthrow colonialists. Is the timing of these protests intended to have a sort of psychological warfare effect? The protests being so close to the Cuban Revolutionary Day could be a psychological play to help bring neoliberal, capitalist, and corporate reforms to the island nation. It other words, the protests are being used to discredit the Revolution. There are many factors that have gone into Cuba’s current state of shortages, but I find it ironic that many in the United States are decrying Communism when our own system has many problems such as issues of food insecurity, dirty water (such as Flint, Michigan), pollution, crime, homelessness, STD pandemics, gentrification, rising suicide rates, etc.
Floridan Republican Cubans keep creating an excuse for capitalism (a variant of colonialism which is a variant of aristocratic feudalism) as if it the ultimate system that offers freedom and happiness is capitalism, even though Communism (a form of Socialism) has always been on the defensive due to constant embargoes, sanctions, etc. Did these people protests Trump who imposed additional sanctions under Mike Pompeo? No, but they want to blame Joe Biden for keeping those restrictions, even though President Obama attempted to normalized Cuban relations.
There are lots of factors going on in how we in the West see the Cuban crisis. 1) The Associated Press and other outlets, likely through consulting of pro-American think tanks such as the Council of Foreign Relations and Atlantic Council (which are close to the Central Intelligence Agency) aren’t’ showing the full story of Cuba and using the protests to explicitly attack Communism, when in fact there are many Communists in Cuba who simply want new blood in the Communist Party; however, Chinese investments in Cuba are likely the source of this propaganda campaign, yet, this is the fault of the United States for not having better relations with Cuba, i.e., supporting economic self-determination even if both nations have differing economic systems, 2) many South Florida Cubans have adopted Far Right or Republican ideology, so politicians such as Marco Rubio can use the crisis in Cuba to sure up political power for himself while using it as ammunition to attack to growing American Progressive movement of people such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, etc., and 3) the American Left who wants their own American version of Progressive politics such as Medicare for All, are on the defensive as both the Center Left Democrats and Right Wing Republicans try to discredit Socialist ideology for the benefit of Big Business.
DIKA. Data, Information, Knowledge, and Action. How Software-as-a-Service, i.e., SaaS, Can Help Save the Cuban Revolution:
Problems can arise in highly centralized command style economies because it is hard for the government to capture information in real-time, but also it is difficult to gauge demands and allocate the proper resources for supply. When you add on hostility from other nations, many resources are directed towards militarism, which takes away from other areas such as food production, water and energy, welfare, etc. It is not that Socialist, especially Communist nations, cannot work, but rather management and data are vital for successful operations. Any nation regardless of economic ideology, but specifically a Communist nation, particularly one that is Marxist-Leninist, operates like a factory but with various departments, workers, resources, inputs, outputs, etc.
The goal of the any regime is to capture data-information-knowledge-action, i.e., DIKA. Capture data from the ground-floor, properly translate it into information, turn the information in stored knowledge, and use that knowledge to take decisive action.
Therefore, technology particularly Software as a Service, SaaS, is vital for Cuba, and a Decision Support System (DSS) could be built using software such as Enterprise Resource Planning systems, Material Requirements Planning, Asset Management Systems, Warehouse Management, Third Party Logistics (3PL), Remote Monitoring & Patch Access (such as with companies such as Atera), Supply Chain Management, Customer Relationship Management (essential in capturing consumer’s needs, wants, behavior, etc., so the government and better allocate resources), Weather Forecasting Software (which is vital for protecting agricultural yields, but also preparing for Emergency and Disaster coordination efforts), etc.
For example, I work in the Industrial Sector. I have used Enterprise Resourcing Planning systems such SAP Netweaver and Procure-to-Pay Systems. This centralized software consolidates and/or links various departments such as Finance, upper management, procurement, inventory, material planners, Environmental, Safety and Health (ESH), vendors (be they foreign or domestic), quality assurance, and logistics (by way of systems such as Transportation Management systems that links Third Party Logistics, i.e., 3PLs, to track deliveries for Just in Time delivery capabilities), etc. The SAP I used to sync with IBM Asset Management Systems such as Maximo where Maximo was used by departments to put in requests for capital equipment needs, fund them through their allocated office budgets, provide for accountability of goods or services once procured, etc. All the data of types of needs, money spent, which vendors used, who bought them, how much maintenance a product needed, etc., can be captured, and therefore help to plan for future situations.
The Cuban Green Revolution!! Capital Investments in Clean Energy is Vital:
Yet, any nation needs energy, and Green Energy is also vital to giving power to entire nation, i.e., “the factory”. However, this is not as easy it seems. The software must be procured, systems and facilities need to be upgraded so that the software can be implemented, people need to be trained within in it, and people must be able to translate data into information, knowledge, and action. The benefits must outweigh the costs, but you cannot make money if you do not spend money, especially within a high technical globalized economy of instantaneous information, competition, etc. Yet, Cuba does not have to “compete with the world”, but rather the goal is to great a situation that is hospitable to the people of Cuba while still preserving the Revolutionary spirit of Marx.
Zhao (2017), stated, “In 2014, the Cuban government announced plans to generate 24 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030, with an installed capacity of up to 2GW. It was an ambitious goal — and in order to achieve it, Cuba would need capital investments of approximately US$3.5 billion. The government’s designation of technology-specific targets and departments in charge suggested that it did not take the challenge lightly.” (Zhao, 2017)
Further, Zhao (2017), stated, “In the three years since, much has changed geopolitically. For a time, it appeared that the world might be witnessing a thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations, culminating in then-President Barack Obama’s historic visit in 2016 and the death of Fidel Castro a few months later. Now, the inauguration of Donald Trump — a U.S. president who has promised a decidedly less-friendly approach toward Cuba — has cast uncertainty over the future.” (Zhao, 2017)
Examples of clean energy solutions includes Heat Recovery Systems such as those provided by Clean Energy Technologies, which acquired the Heat Recovery solutions division from General Electric. This company helps to turn heat waste from buildings, landfills, etc., into renewable energy. Enviva is a company that uses wood pellets to create biofuels from biomass.
Brief Summary of Ideas: Cuba needs to diversify, somehow turn its core competencies into marketable products or services, reassure and broaden its relationships with its Marxist allies, implement SaaS to better capture information from various sectors to better align supply and demand for citizens (within manufacturing, services, agriculture, water, transportation, logistics, energy, etc.), and increase the purchasing power of the Cuban Peso.
Rethinking how the Cuban Regime Inspires Revolutionary Principles:
The Communist regime does not have to give up power, but it can give liberties to its people, which are still in alignment with Enlightenment thought, but the Cuban government can live accreditation or license to workers to freely work while still promoting Revolutionary ideals for the protection of the Cuban people from Imperialist exploitation. Essentially, you do not have control so much, but by giving freedom it can inspire people to remember the legacy of the Cuban Revolution.
The Cuban Communist regime needs to re-inspire people about the importance of unity and egalitarianism, such as showing the failures of capitalism (there is plenty of examples from the West i.e., poverty, homelessness, disease that goes uncured because of private health insurance, etc.), such as the fact that capitalism is built upon the notion of private property rights which therefore gives those who have more easier access to political power and privileges. For example, police within a capitalist system are not simply protecting people’s individual property such as their bodies for harm, but police are fundamentally an extension of property rights meaning they typically target those of low economic means (compounded by a history of racism, sexism, etc.), without always even realizing it. The fact that police in capitalist nations are extensions of property rights means that they often service without knowing it those with the most power, such as real estate developers, the wealthy (who are no immune from committing crimes themselves), etc.
Lack of engineering solutions might be one the biggest hurdles facing nations such as Cuba, but the resourcefulness of the Cuban people makes it possible for them to apply SaaS technologies if given exposure to what is on the market.
Brief Overview of Market Reforms in Cuba:
Cuba has implemented Market Reforms starting in 1993. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba had to hit the drawing board. Cuba decriminalized self-employment implemented freedoms on farmers and decriminalized the US dollar. There reforms had to come largely due to Cuba’s over-reliance on the Soviet Unions for subsidies, the collapse of COMECON (which was an economic union of Communist states such as Russia, Vietnam, etc.), the death of the Cuban/Soviet sugar-for-oil exchange in which Cuba was highly dependent upon sugar and lacked diversification in its agricultural sector, etc.
An Over-reliance on Sugar:
Like many colonial Caribbean nations, Cuba was designed to be a one-commodity type of economy, and the power-structures that grew around these sorts of economies, exacerbated economic disparity, especially along intersectional lines of race. Once nations had liberated themselves from colonialism, they were effectively in the hole economically speaking because embargoes from colonial nations could easily target a nation that was economic dependent upon cash-crops, which lacked industrialized manufacturing etc. This is one of the many natures of capitalism and consumerism. The consumers in capitalism end up having more political sway in that their purchases generate profits via the nature of mark-ups, so since consumers make more money for sellers, sellers are more inclined to low-ball those who provide the materials that make the finish products sold to consumers. Put it this way, there was no OPEC for sugar, so Cuba never had a strong bargaining position on the international stage because other sugar producing nations were struggling to survive and did not unit to create a cartel like how OPEC was a cartel design for petroleum. OPEC as a cartel had political power, such as when Saudi Arabia boycotted oil production in the 1970s over Israel. In summary, Cuba was highly dependent upon sugar but other sugar producing nations never united and lacked the political and military might to bargain their demands.
The period of economic malaise from the early nineties to early two-thousands, was known was the Special Period in Time of Peace, i.e., Período especial, which lasted from 1991 to 2000.
Cuban Import and Export Partners
State Department Restrictions on Cuba.
The Fight for Untapped Natural Gas. Cuban Nationalized Natural Gas versus American Exploration
Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke (2016) stated, the United States Geological Survey estimates that the Cuban portion of the Straits of Florida contains 5.5 billion barrels of undiscovered petroleum liquids and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with much of these resources in waters only 60 miles off the United States’ coastline.9 The Cuban government’s own estimates are purportedly larger. However, developing these deepwater resources involves inherent risks and substantial challenges. To the extent the development of such deepwater resources is not properly managed, the consequences of potential well incidents or other environmental crises for the United States and, in particular, the economy of Florida, could be substantial.10 Models plotting the trajectory of “virtual particles” from an oil exploration site 22 miles north of Havana have shown that, due to the strong current of the Gulf Stream, oil would reach the aquamarine waters and coral reefs off the South Florida coastline within five to six days of any leak or spill.11 If a major spill were long-lasting or to the extent of continuous leakage, it could have a significant impact on Florida’s economy. On average, 100 million tourists visit Florida each year, contributing more than $80 billion per year to Florida’s economy.12 If Florida’s waters were adversely impacted by offshore Cuban oil and gas exploration and production activities, these numbers would be negatively impacted (Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke, 2016).
Further, Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke (2016) stated, thus, to the extent that U.S.-Cuban relations continue on the path of more dialogue and regulatory change, the U.S. government should consider policy changes that promote greater engagement in the energy sector and that are supportive of effective energy development, with special emphasis on supporting the LNG/CNG trade on the island. Presently, the United States has a policy of general approval for export and re-exports to Cuba of items related to renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, the U.S. government has adopted a case-by-case review policy for exports and re-exports of certain items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including facilities for supplying electricity and other energy to the Cuban people. This established platform of U.S. policy provides a basis to expand and build upon as a matter of common bilateral interests. (Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke, 2016).
Further, Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke (2016) stated, clearly, the U.S. embargo against Cuba remains a substantial impediment to energy projects involving Cuba at the present time. The sanctions generally prohibit U.S. persons – including U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries, as well as other non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by U.S. persons – from engaging in transactions with, or involving, Cuba or Cuban nationals (including entities), except where specific transactions are exempt from the regulations or otherwise licensed. Nonetheless, President Obama’s recent policy initiative to re-engage with Cuba, diplomatically and economically, creates significant opportunities for U.S. businesses to enter the Cuban market and potentially to expand economic engagement in the energy sector. (Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke, 2016).
Further, Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke (2016) stated, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC) and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) have implemented the administration’s policy initiative through changes to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), Part 515 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), Parts 730 through 772 of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, respectively, which ease many of the embargo’s restrictions on doing business with Cuba. Specifically, OFAC has issued and expanded general licenses that authorize activities otherwise prohibited by the CACR. In addition, BIS has issued, and expanded, a number of license exceptions allowing persons to export or re-export items subject to the EAR to Cuba for certain authorized purposes. BIS has also established licensing policy changes that are largely focused on supporting the needs of, and empowering, the Cuban people and creating increased opportunities for U.S. companies to trade with Cuba. Among other changes, these reforms include the recent general authorization of disaster mitigation and relief services, including potential exports necessary for rapid response to offshore well events in the energy sector that pose a common threat to parallel U.S. and Cuban environmental and national interests (Procaccini, Parven, Segall, Davis & Nweke, 2016).
Cuba Petroleo Union, i.e., CAPET. Cuba’s Oil Sector. It’s Canadian Allies, etc. Joint Ventures in Mining, i.e., Moa Joint Venture
The Cuba Oil Union(Spanish: Unión Cuba-Petróleo) or CUPET is Cuba‘s largest oil company. It is owned and operated by the Cuban national government. The company is involved in the extraction of petroleum deposits as well as the refining and distributing of petroleum products. In conjunction with the conglomerate Cimex, it operates a chain of filling stations selling gasoline in convertible pesos.
Sherritt International based in Canada not only has joint ventures with Cuban oil but also in mining for resources like nickel and cobalt. Relating to electricity by way of natural gas, Sherritt’s primary power generating assets are located in Cuba at Varadero, Boca de Jaruco and Puerto Escondido. These assets are held by Sherritt through its one‑third interest in Energas S.A. (Energas), which is a Cuban joint arrangement established to process raw natural gas and generate electricity for sale to the Cuban national electrical grid. Cuban government agencies Unión Eléctrica (UNE) and Unión Cubapetróleo (CUPET) hold the remaining two‑thirds interest in Energas. Raw natural gas is supplied to Energas by CUPET free of charge. The processing of raw natural gas produces clean natural gas, used to generate electricity, as well as by‑products such as condensate and liquefied petroleum gas. All of Energas’ electrical generation is purchased by UNE under long‑term fixed‑price contracts while the by‑products are purchased by CUPET or a Cuban entity providing natural gas to the City of Havana at market based prices. Sherritt provided the financing for the construction of the Energas facilities and is being repaid from the cash flows generated by the facilities. The Energas facilities, which consist of the two combined cycle plants at Varadero and Boca de Jaruco, produce electricity using natural gas and steam generated from the waste heat captured from the gas turbines. Energas’ electrical generating capacity is 506 MW.
It is interesting to note that Energas is BASED in the United States and falls under Atmos Energy based in Dallas, Texas. Think about that. A Canadian exploration company has a holding company in Texas that does business with Communist Cuba, where CUPET provides raw resources but Energas (under Atmos in Texas, but jointly held by Cuba) processes the resources so the Cubans can resell in their domestic market.
Cuba looking to ally Angola for Natural Gas and Oil Help. Old Friends in a common Communists Struggle. Angola, Russia, Venezuela
Tully (2015) on Business Insider stated, “The Cuban oil company Cubapetroleo, or Cupet, is close to a deal with Angola’s state-run Sonangol to get Cuba’s deepwater energy exploration program up and running three years after work was suspended because of failure to find any oil or gas. two of four areas of the Gulf of Mexico off the Cuban coast based on an agreement between Cupet and Sonangol signed in 2010. Cuba’s program of deepwater exploration was suspended after several foreign companies’ drilling efforts proved fruitless. ” [Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/cuba-is-hoping-to-up-its-oil-and-gas-game-2015-7%5D
“Russia is to begin oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, after signing a deal with Cuba, says Cuban state media. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin signed four contracts securing exploration rights in Cuba’s economic zone in the Gulf. Havana says there may be some 20 billion barrels of oil off its coast but the US puts that estimate at five billion. Russia and Cuba have been working to revitalize relations, which cooled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia’s Zarubezhneft oil concern will work alongside the Cubapetroleo monopoly in the deep waters of the Gulf.” (Merco Press, 2009) [Source: https://en.mercopress.com/2009/07/30/russia-and-cuba-sign-gulf-of-mexico-oil-exploration-agreement%5D
Cuban Revolutionaries Helped Angola
Redefining Cuban Communism:
Business is an inherently social enterprise. Nothing is created out of a vacuum but through an array of social systems, social relations, and processes which culminates in finalized products and services. This is where capitalism fails. Capitalism denies the inherent social nature of itself and shifts the benefits to those who own. Socialism can still have principles such as competition, supply, and demand, etc., but where surplus or profits benefits the common good. Socialism is a broad spectrum. For example, China is Communist and is ran by a party that calls itself Communists, but many call China’s communism into question such as the fact that it lacks social safety nets for many of its people.
China has more a syncretic system where Communism is mixed with corporatism and uses the masses of underpaid labor to create export surpluses for profits where those profits are used for reinvestment to create core competencies, and from there they use the money to acquire foreign assets from across the globe. To maintain their position as the “factory of the world”, the Chinese government, like many countries, employs currency manipulation to undervalue their currency so it is affordable for stronger currencies to continue to buy their products.
How the American Empire Functions:
For example, the United States has a strong currency as far as purchasing power, but there are many factors that goes into this considering the United States is heavily in debt. The United States uses debt (Treasury notes, bonds, T Bills, et.) that is backed by its allies (where America does the same in return, i.e., a sort of racket, i.e., if everyone makes debt and vouches for it then the system doesn’t collapse) to help fund day-to-day operations, but the United States with its vast military power effectively makes itself the “world police”, so by investing in US debt, investors are ensured protection by the Americans (a protection racket). Further, using debt helps to keep the US dollar at a competitive rate, since debt devalues the power of money, so that American exports are competitive on the global market, and since the United States has the premier brand names through the multi-national corporate model, America can make steady profits from across the world based on various business models such as franchise models. Since such an operation requires resources, this further empowers the United States through the State Department embassies to bribe, pay, wheel-and-deal with nations, and if nations are compliant, we can simply use intelligence to implement regime change.
By having debt, extensive trade networks, notable brand name companies, and heavily funded military (which makes it hard for creditors to truly call be debts), etc., the US can extend its geopolitical scope across the world, and trade lanes become military supply lines, meaning America’s military influence is parallel to that of trade giving it influence in host nations, but the cost of most of this is funded by debt in that America by its constitution is required to pay its debts, but also the military has such as ridiculous military that no one would ever call it back. America positioned itself into key roles with the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlements, that it does not fear any sort of major reprisal that a developing nation seeking debt might have. Weaker forces have not bargaining power in structuring loans or restricting debt.
You Can Create Whatever Socialist Society You Want. Not all Socialist Nations are Marxist-Leninist:
Western European nationssuch as France and Nordic nations have a strong influence of Socialism with socialist parties that play a key role, based movements such as the labor movement, but they mix capitalism and Socialism to create Market-type Social Democracies. You can create whatever sort of Socialist nation you want, and it can be explicitly Marxists or influenced or appreciative at least of some of Marxist’s theories.
There are various ideologies of non-Marxist Socialism. Robert Owens for example, created a unique type of Socialist utopian ideology based on a matter of ethics, i.e., sharing is the right thing to do, and felt that disparity came from an imbalance of goods and surplus. Pierre J. Proudhon, was a Socio-Anarchists, where one could argue that his philosophy meant that erosion of any sort of hierarchical power structures including that of government was the ultimate form of egalitarianism, and his ideas have had impact, if not directly, on movements such as cooperatives, mutualism, voluntary sharing economies, freedom of intellectual property, etc. Henry George, despite not being a socialist in that he did not believe in sharing profits, had a quasi-socialist ideology which argued that everyone should own land equally even though people should be able to keep the profits from their labor they pull from the land and its resources. Henri de Saint Simon, who similarly believed that disparity was caused by an imbalance of goods between people, was an early proponent of technocracy based on a meritocratic model. Ricardian Socialists were known as Market Socialists, i.e., achieving socialism by factoring in supply and demand models. Social Democrats are broad, but I consider Social Democrats to see disparity as arising out of a fundamental disparity between the application of property rights justified by laws of Common Law descended systems. Social Democrats often exist in liberal democracies, even if the modus operandi of such democracy is based on Republicanism (representative forms of government), where such systems are based on private property rights, but these rights create a natural disparity, so the Social Democrat is more in alignment with Welfare States that reconciles capitalism with socialist ideologies. You also have many other forms such as Eco-Socialism (humans are not simply over nature but within nature, i.e., sustainability is vital in any sort of political economy), Christian Based forms of Socialism such as Communitarianism (even though the Catholic Church during the Cold War which was under US led NATO had to make statements denouncing Marxism, which it did due its belief in Reason over Divinity), and Syndicalism (union control of economies which had a major impact in Spain, which means there is a cultural relation to that of Cuba).
So, what would a New Cuban Communism look like? It would have to be aware of the threats that comes from capitalism but reconcile those threats and adopt them within a system that is uniquely their own. Technology, an internet, self-expression, etc., are all important especially for younger generations, yet the Communist regime must re-inspire the youth that Socialist ideology is a world-saving ideology, but everyone has a place within it. Art, aesthetics, and style are especially important here as marketing tools. Cuba has also offered the world humanitarian assistance so doing the same is vital for the Communist Regime so youths can take socialist principles elsewhere, such as volunteering in Africa and other Latin American nations.
But, the guts of the system, i.e., the economic arrangement is the most important. Socialism is freedom but it is a freedom through equality for all and this equality is ensured by sharing the means of production and its profits to discourage class disparity. Encouraging social technologies, decentralization, volunteerism, etc., is important, even if networks are closed off to Cuba under firewalls, etc. Since under Communism all the people own things equally, supporting people to take pride in custodianship of their property is vital and encouraging competition amongst that custodianship is key to creating energy, excitement, etc.
Even if the Cuban Communist regime were to loosen up power, the Constitution of Cuba should ensure that any other political party must be Socialist and meet a certain level of criteria ensuring that it is truly Socialist, especially based on a Marxist framework. However, I am not hating on the singular control of the Communist Party as is, but rather they must adapt and adapt quickly to re-inspire the importance of Revolutionary Ideals.
There needs to be an invigorated, active, exciting Communist Party that can remind people of the strength of the Cuban people who survived in a hostile world while others wanted it to fail.
Hypocrisy from Capitalist (and Fascist) nations:
It is easy to say that “well, Communism doesn’t work”, but we must realize that capitalist industrialist nations such as Japan experienced its own decade long economic malaise referred to as the Lost Decade, which was created by economic speculation, leveraging debt with debt (such as margin trading, i.e., using debt to invest in highly speculative assets), asset price bubbles within real estate, etc. We can also look to the United States in 2008 when a near decade long recession was created by fraudulence on Wall Street relating to speculation of toxic mortgage-backed securities, bribery by credit rating agencies, etc.
Cuba was left without any friends after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but as the nineteen nineties commenced after the end of the Cold War, leaders such as Hugo Chavez of oil rich Venezuela rose to power and Vladimir Putin consolidated power and pushed economic reforms in oil and resource rich Russia. Venezuela and Russia gave Cuba partners to work with to help stabilize their economy. Yet, as we know both Venezuela and Russia even to this day in 2021 still suffer from economic sanctions, so Cuba’s larger friends are economically fighting to stabilize and this tips over downstream to Cuba, who themselves experience various levels of restrictions from nations like the United States such as travel restrictions, embargoes, and the restrictions over cash-transfers, i.e., remittances.
United States sanctions pushed Cuba closer to China:
China as an aspiring super-power that wishes to spread hegemony through cultural influence, business acquisitions, investments in the developing world, etc., could help Cuba. However, China is a politically toxic situation considering getting closer to China will make Cuba seem like an explicit Chinese ally, i.e., it will be bad public relations, considering China’s human right’s violations, ambitions, etc.
Cuba leveraging alliances with nations such as Vietnam, Brazil, India, Russia, France or any other nation that is not China is key, even though China has provided Cuba with much help, similarly to how China funded America’s consumerism since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger opened China to US manufacturing.
Sending delegates abroad to talk to parties or leaders that are members of Socialist International, which is the organization that accredits Democratic Socialist parties across the world including Europe, is key. It is vital in obtaining foreign direct investment or at least building friendships that can translate into training, exposure to innovations whether its manufacturing, healthcare, agriculture, etc.
Socialism is a broad spectrum. Often within the West we conflate Communism, particularly Marxism, or Marxist-Leninism, with “Socialism”. Socialism existed before Marx and Engels, however, Marx and Engels provided a scientific approach, as opposed to what we call a utopian approach, to their Socialist ideology, using qualitative approaches such as historical analysis and quantitative approaches such as critiquing market ideologies, to provide a framework that became the most iconic form of Socialism.
Marx and Engels used a system’s theory approach to their Socialist philosophy, i.e., the interconnectivity of things, on top of exploring through history how economics, class, and power create intersections, where usually those with the most economic power (often granted through the guise of religion, supremacy, etc.), exploit the masses. They distilled the concept of class struggle. Preview(opens in a new tab)
The masses or the proletariat are used by owners and their labor is exploited so the owner can take mark-up or surplus on their labor for profit for the owner’s own benefit, thus giving the owner more sway over the direction of a democracy or any given political entity. Marx and Engels attempted to apply realness as opposed to idealism where idealism was a concept championed by Hegel, whom Marx and Engels liked but disagreed with on certain Hegelian claims.
Regardless, Socialism is a broad spectrum that Marxism so happens to be a part of as a specific ideology. Yet, we have been indoctrinated by capitalist systems within the West to conflate Socialism as explicitly being Marxism, since within Capitalist nations we are ruled by those often with generational wealth or those with “new money” who have no qualms in exploiting the working classes, i.e., slaving.
Let me repeat, Socialism is the spectrum of thought, whereas Marxism is specific framework of thought within that spectrum, yet Leninism or Maoism are specific nationalistic interpretations of Marxism. So, to say that Marxist-Leninism is explicitly Socialism is false, but rather Marxist-Leninism is a specific nationalistic interpretation of Marxism subjectively applied to a nation, which falls under the overarching umbrella of Socialist thought, but there’s different theories of Socialism that are not Marxist, despite the findings of Marx being enduring.
Marx and Engels provided ideas but those ideas are applied subjectively by a particular regime, so to use the supposed failings of orthodox Marxism, specially Marxist-Leninism, just to discredit Socialism is disingenuous, at both a didactic (argumentative) level, but on the “reality level” considering many Industrial Western nations applied Socialist principles across the spectrum into their own political economies, e.g., France, Scandinavia, even the United States (welfare, subsidies to business, etc.).
Marxist-Leninism just so happened to be the most impactful form of Socialist thought, not necessarily because the ideas were all correct, but rather because of the determination of the regime at hand, e.g., the fact that the Soviets were able to industrialize from subsistence farming in post-Czarist Russia to industrialization in relatively short amount of time. The fact that the Soviet model was the most powerful form of Socialism during the twentieth century made it the most marketable form of Socialism, and it was applied by many aspiring nations who wish to free themselves from colonialism, but Marxist-Leninism, later Stalinism, become synonymous within the West as being explicitly the only form of Socialism.
So, to say that Socialism does not work is a falsity and disingenuous (considering coordinated efforts by Western Industrial nations along economic, political, and intelligence sabotage lines are constant), but when you are dealing with an opposing economic ideology that naturally exploits labor as if it just a natural “matter-of-fact”, if anything a natural concept deriving from Darwinist “natural selection”, any sort of shaming is on the table, i.e., predatory behavior is deemed as natural by capitalism, just as seeing human activity as purely transactional is. If humans are merely these bots of labor potential with varying degrees of worth, how does this really give sentiment to the human spirit? How does such systems not make us devalue humans naturally by making humans merely a means to an end for individualistic self-pleasure, especially when capitalist systems layer themselves with notions of divinity by way of religion, i.e., somehow ordained by God through Christ when many tenants of Christ are anti-capitalistic?
I am sure if you bring up such hypocrisy to a capitalist, they will reject such claims by presenting some sort empirical or technical argument, i.e., “Communism just doesn’t work”, but also, they will revert to the deconstructed animus of racial superiority or ethnocentrism that guides they are very being, stripping away all the regalia, propaganda, etc. Therefore, in the United States or other Western industrial nations there is an intersection between libertarians (positing freedom while denying others their own), capitalists, Settler Politics, survivalists, Darwinists, conspiracy theorists, racists, etc. Capitalism in many ways is just an empirical, “intellectual” guise for racism and selfishness. The more a capitalist adds on to his intellectualism and philosophical rants, the more he or she is merely protecting what they hold dear with is an identity of entitlement built upon a system of exploitation.
It is easy to shroud racism with freedom, as we can see in the United States with concepts used by racist regimes such as the notion of “states’ rights”. Those of the majority classes, e.g., those designated white (even though I am not anti-white), even if they are poor and exploited would rather side with the capitalists who exploit their labor as long their intrinsic value of “whiteness” is maintained as being superior. Capitalism is inherently a system built upon propaganda and diversion which seeks to keep the masses preoccupied with over-work, consumption, and a neoliberal viewpoint of identity, i.e., each identity can be exploited for profits while being used as variables in creating tension to shroud the power of the elites.
Do we have convenience in the United States? Yes, we do, but we also have lost of problems that capitalism cannot fix at least ethically and based on humanist principles that preserves a person’s dignity.
The alluring factor to capitalistic-democratic systems is the notions that they promote individualism and personal freedoms. This too can be implemented in socialist ideologies, considering if socialism is an egalitarian principle. Yet, capitalist nations like the United States have leverage personal freedom to promote capitalism, whereas it Communism counties have failed at creating a sense of personal freedom reconciled with a dictatorship of the proletariat. But socialist countries can promote individualism if it aligns to a benefit of the masses and people.
And, that’s a good thing. I’m not saying certain practice on Wall Street don’t need to be regulated, but stocks and socialism can be mesh and will mesh in the the USA because the truth is Bernie won’t do everything he’s saying, but he should win. I voted early for Bernie. I donated to Bernie. I defend Bernie but I can also understand that he’ll need business to accomplish his mission. A Bernie Sanders America would be more like France or England more than Russia during Perestroika or Glasnost. That’s just reality and that’s good. The amount of checks and balances in government should eradicate any fear in those who fear Bernie because of the word, yes – just a word, of socialism. He’s the only consistent candidate. If Trump’s populism had 4 years which unleashed fringe white supremacy creating a very noble backlash by “Social Justice Warriors”, i.e., people who are fed up of negative behavior keeping others down, then Bernie should have 4 years largely since his base is about Power to the People regardless of who they are. It’s about community.
Bernie Sanders and Wall Street are compatible. Bernie shouldn’t scare the stock market; the stock market should like Bernie. A few companies that could benefit.
France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Canada all have stock exchanges and a more expansive welfare state to spread the costs across a society. I like socialism and I’ve live in a socialist democracy before and honestly….it’s cool. It’s beyond cool. I also like stocks. **** THIS ISN’T FINANCIAL ADVICE BUT RATHER A THEORY OF HOW BERNIE AND THE STOCK MARKET CAN WORK TOGETHER ****
Green New Deal: Green Energy segment ranging from solar panels, green utility companies, battery manufacturers for electric cars, windmill manufacturers, recycling collection. Brookfield Energy Partners (BEP); Canadian Solar (CSIQ); Renewables Energy Group (REGI); Terraform Power, Inc (TERP); Tesla (TSLA); Waste Management (WM) which offers recycling; Ormat Technologies (ORA); General Electric (GE) which has skills in power distribution, etc.; silicon producers which is vital for solar cells such as Tokuyama Corp (TKYMY), Wacker Chemie AG (WKCMF), etc. Yet, when it comes to power infrastructure and controls, you have companies such as Rockwell Automation (ROK), Eaton Corp (ETN),
Universal Education: Sectors that could benefit from Universal Education by driving up demand with federal subsidy spread across the population would include Testing services, book distributors, food providers, and even student loan industries since certain services won’t be covered such as room and board, supplies, travel, etc. Companies such as Chegg (CHGG); American Campus Communities is an REIT that invests in Dormitory housing (ACC); Aramark (ARMK); Sodexho (SDXAY); Pearson PLC (PSO); Cengage which is private but owned by BlackRock (BLK), Franklin Mutual Advisers (BEN), Oaktree Capital Management (OAK), Searchlight Capital Partners, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR); Scholastic Corporation (SCHL); Amazon (AMZN); Starbucks (SBUX); Yum Brand (YUM); Texas Instruments (TXN); Microsoft (MSFT); Apple (AAPL); Jacobs Engineering (J) does Architectural and Engineering services including designing college facilities.
Medicare For All: Diagnostics such as Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (DGX), Neogenomics (NEO) and LabCorp (LH), Lab Equipment; Medical Equipment such GE (MRI machines), ThermoFischer (TMO), Mettler Toledo (MTD), Aligent (A), Koninklijke Philips (PHG); Real Estate Investment Trusts dedicated to Medical Facilities such Medical Property Trust Inc (MPW), Healthpeak Properties (PEAK), Small Cap Pharma engaged in R&D who will have a higher chance of passing trial tests if more people are insured
Yet, markets like certainty and Bernie hasn’t done a good job of at least sitting in a room with business leaders about working things out. Socialism isn’t incompatible with capitalism. Bernie in his head might be a Socialist, just like some Republican might think they’re a Libertarian, but the truth is regarding both, in the outside world, is that the system is a mesh of both. Did we call Reagan a socialist for driving up military spending? Do we call Democrats libertarians because they may be easier on marijuana consumption? Bernie isn’t a threat, but he should be President of the United States as a moral beacon, but the Constitution was wise regardless of who held power because of checks and balances. Bernie would still have to deal with the Congress, SCOTUS, the federal circuit courts, and State Governments. He won’t be Mao, but he’ll be a Mitterrand of France.
What Socialist don’t realize is that government doesn’t really do the work, but rather it’s the job of suppliers, contractors, vendors, etc., who provide the goods and services. I know because I was the guy in government who spent the money on contracted work and the acquisition of items, i.e., I am in Procurement. What the Right Wing doesn’t get is that there is no true free market in the United States. At some point or another tax dollars are subsidizing the economy either through direct contracts (giving business money) or indirectly through public works, such as Corporations that may not pay taxes as much as they should, utilizing public roads or police, etc.
So, when Bernie Sanders talks about the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Universal Higher Education, from a reactionary standpoint, it instantly insinuates a type of “wastefulness” that it is inefficient when compared to supply-side economics, free markets, supply and demand, etc. However, these ideas Bernie has are essentially stimulus packages where businesses that are both public and private can benefit. Did the GI Bill destroy the United States? No. Did Medicare drive all the good doctors from the USA? No. Does the Federal Government put businesses out of business for simply existing? No. In fact, if the government were to pull back spending via stimulus, particularly if it abolished contracting, the nation would likely go into a Recession and Depression, even, though, sure, Free Markets would fil the void by possibly creating efficiencies but at the cost of employing people (doing more with less), wages (paying people less; temp workers, etc.), etc.
Hey, guest what?
France is a Social Democracy and they have a stock market, is home to some of the world’s most powerful companies, has a powerful military, and the people not only live a life of materialist consumption and entertainment…they also have healthcare and education. What Bernie Sander’s wants is more in alignment with what you see in France. The funny things to most Americans who call themselves Patriots, which is great if you do, is that France and United States are twins. Think of them that way. We both had our Revolutions, we both inspired and funded each other at various time throughout our history. We are both Democracies despite being organized differently, i.e., the U.S. is a Constitutional Democratic Republic held in Union, whereas France is a Democracy based around a Unitarian form of government with a revolutionary sentiment based on class struggle against the Ancient Regime (nobility) which evolved into an acceptance of Marxist Theory – hence, why French people value workers and organized labor. The United States and France are spiritually linked. We have the Statue of Liberty (which was gift from France) and France has Marianne.