Monday, November 10, 2008

Our Stalin and Trotsky

My latest post on the Blog at Mises.org:








Our Stalin and Trotsky

Jim Fedako

Our democracy is really a one-party system split into two factions. There is the Democratic faction -- call them Stalin since they are currently in power. And then there is the Republican faction -- call them Trotsky since they are currently in political exile. As Murray N. Rothbard wrote:

"Actually, despite the fascination of Western intellectuals with the Stalin-Trotsky schism, it was far more an intra-Bolshevik personal and factional squabble than any sort of ideological betrayal."

And as Mises noted:

"The truth is that Trotsky found only one fault with Stalin: that he, Stalin, was the dictator and not himself, Trotsky. In their feud they both were right. Stalin was right in maintaining that his regime was the embodiment of socialist principles. Trotsky was right in asserting that Stalin's regime had made Russia a hell."

Our Stalin and Trotsky are no different. They create faux ideological battlefields as the means to decide which faction receives the rent payments for the next four years. In the end, a coin flip would be just as effective: heads, Stalin gets the spoils; tails, Trotsky does. Regardless of the selection method or its outcome, our rent payment to the Treasury is still due as before.



6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brilliant. My analogy has been football teams owned by the same rich men. The peons have a favorite team that they support and watch play games. They buy tickets, sweatshirts, hats, bumper stickers, etc. and run their mouths about the game and care who wins but the owners win regardless because they own all the teams and they just rake in the money from the fools who are team fans. Nothing changes for the fans except they lose their money.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the "fools" are fans because they enjoy the show and have a good time. It sounds to me like you are against the rich guy. Maybe you would prefer to "redistribute the wealth" to the fans.

It is true that bot parties are members of the same club. All that elections do is marginally change the direction that the club is taking us. Throwing the club out is nearly impossible, because the fans seem to like the club. Look at the vote tallies of true third party alternatives. We have very little civil disobedience or uprising against the status quo. Americans seem content to keep cheering for their team, and that doesn't necessarily make them fools.

Anonymous said...

anon 10:03
Of course they enjoy the show. The masses are addicted to being part of the group. They're trained to that in the government schools. The training didn't work on me. I voted for Baldwin. Four years ago I voted for a third-party candidate. They aren't "content", they're fools. They think there's a difference. They actually think they can have some effect on what's happening. The direction doesn't change, but maybe the speed is slightly different.
But where you got the business about me wanting to redistribute wealth is beyond me. All I want is my freedom.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations on your third party votes. That did a lot of good. If you vote for a third party in a one party race, you're every bit the fool that the others are. You made as much of a difference as they did....but I hope it made you feel better.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:03
Great logic. You admit both parties are alike and then call me a fool for not going along with the scam.
I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not reward the Republican Party for shoving a Statist like McCain down my throat. I would have voted for Ron Paul but the Republicans took care of that. Had I voted for McCain I would have still lost. We all lost anyway. Those who voted for Obamessiah and those who voted for others. We all lost.

Anonymous said...

My logic isn't flawed. I agree with you, and the premise of Jim's posting, that we have a one party system. When you have a government completely controlled by a single party (that calls itself a 2 party system) voting for a third party changes nothing. The government is happy to allow you to voted for a third party "alternative". It makes those who opt for the third party feel like "they're making a statement". Nobody's listening!

I am not suggesting that you should have voted for one of the other two candidates. I am suggesting that the ballot box is not the avenue to make your point.