Upside Down Marxism and a bit of Harry Lauder

You may note that I have dropped the ads from the blog.  I had no control over them and I found some were political in nature and inappropriate for this blog.  No great loss.  And where, may I ask, are the regular contributors?

UPSIDE DOWN MARXISM

Here’s a further thought on the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand.  (See the posting immediately preceding this one.)  I was intrigued when I looked into it and found it being referred to as “Upside Down Marxism.”  Let’s try to figure that one out.

I may be a bit weak on theory but I have always assumed that the key to the workings of a Marxist society is the worker.  Didn’t the Communists call their local paper in the United States the Daily Worker?  Remember the hammer and sickle on the old flag of the U.S.S.R.?  Well, those symbols represented the labor performed by workers in factories and on farms.  In Marxism, all wealth in the economy is supposed to arise from that labor. Regardless of how well planned and well funded an economy may be, without labor, nothing will happen they say.  Everything was supposed to start with the worker’s labor, ostensibly the source of all wealth, and economic progress would follow.  So they said.

Ayn Rand wrote in the shadow of the Great Depression, when everyone was looking for solutions.  Marxism was one of those solutions, and while not infatuated with it, our government did borrow from it and adopted a greater role in our economic system than ever before, primarily in an effort to get the worker back to work.  New Deal agencies such as the WPA, the PWA, the CCC, the NRA and farm subsidies were tools of government stimuli to the economy. 

Rand abhorred this approach.  She felt that the worker, rather than being the key to the economy, was merely a tool ultimately to be utilized to toil on the projects which were started by those who had the funding, inspiration and guts to initiate a venture.  Everything was supposed to start with the brave entrepreneur, and economic progress would follow.  This was “Upside Down Marxism,” with the worker’s contribution, his labor, now the least significant factor in the mix whereas in Marxism, it was the most important part.  (In today’s thinking, such labor could even be “outsourced” eliminating the domestic worker entirely.)  

Sounds a lot like our free enterprise system, doesn’t it.  That’s why some Republicans, and all Libertarians, are in love with Ayn Rand.  That’s why there is a concerted attack on labor, with the National Labor Relations Board as well as those remaining unions  still active in government, industry and the service sector of our economy being painted darkly.  

Ayn Rand would applaud legislation which deprives workers of the right to organize into such unions.  In the name of “freedom,” Right to Work laws supposedly open up jobs to individuals who will work for whatever the employer offers rather than for what a union can gain for them through bargaining. Such laws have been passed in 22 states. When the G.O.P. thinks of Rand’s ideas, they see “Marxism Turned Upside Down,” with the worker getting only what his employer chooses to pay him, locked at the bottom of the economic ladder, and they like what they see. The G.O.P. does everything they can to keep him there, although they would never admit it.  They continue to claim that when the economy is healthy and business makes profits, benefits will trickle down to the workers. We have been hearing that for years and it never happens.  Never.

Any move to better the lot of the working person, in their myopic eyes, is a step toward turning their corrupted version of Marxism “right side up,” with the worker back on top.  Hence they maliciously hint and not so subtly suggest that the Democratic Party which has significant union support includes evil Marxism in its agenda for America and that the President really is a socialist.  

Here is a billboard which a Tea Party group erected in northern Iowa last summer.  As you can see, there is no limit to the depths to which they will sink in order to get working people to vote against their own interests and for candidates who are basically anti-labor, pro-business and against any kind of tax increases, even at the expense of Medicare and Social Security. 

The only "fearful and naive" who are preyed upon by stuff like this are the gullible Tea Party folks who have been conned into hating their government and end up voting for candidates who have adopted the Grover Norquist extreme anti-tax position.  Norquist is the fellow who said he would like to shrink government to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub.  He is extremely influential among Republican legislators. (See recent postings on Norquist.) 

This complex of Republican lies is a wonderful tool to use in convincing people to support such candidates.  Remember, as I pointed out many posts ago on this blog, in a not-so-close election which might result in the winner getting 54% of the vote and the loser 46%, this kind of dishonest garbage can easily swing the five percent needed to change the result. 

Getting back to Ayn Rand, were she alive today, and if the Republicans decided to put a woman on their 2012 ticket, she would blow Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann out of the water.

Jack Lippman

                    *****          *****          *****          *****

Enjoying Harry Lauder

The other day, I was listening to an ancient 33 1/3 record of Harry Lauder, the Scottish music hall performer, singing some of the songs like “a Wee Doch an Doris,” “She’s the Gal for Me,” “The End of the Road,” and “Wee House in the Heather,” which made him famous on both sides of the Atlantic, and got him knighted by the Queen.  Some may recall his appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show, long before the Beatles.  

Anyhow, when you listen to Harry, your enjoyment is always enhanced if you accompany the music with “a wee doch an doris” which translates as a drink before departing.  The lyric Lauder sings in the song of that name goes “just a wee doch an doris afore we gang to war,” but it also seems appropriate even if you’re not leaving on a troopship, whenever you listen to him sing.  The only question is whether Johnnie Walker (any color) is okay. My answer is “Yes, but only if a single malt Scotch like GlenLivet or GlenFiddich is not available.  Vodka is never permissible.  It must be Scotch to best enjoy the music.” 

JL

To send this posting to a friend (or enemy for that matter) whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on it right below this line.