Postcards from Ecotopia

old new lefty

old new lefty
alienation, discontent
September 16
Making trouble whenever possible
virgin novelist, middle school teacher for the morally handicapped, government bureaucrat, most famous unknown photographer in LA, PhD dropout, coat hanger sorter, presidential campaign worker, sewer worker, and retired guy -- but not in that order.


Old new lefty's Links

No links in this category.
APRIL 16, 2012 3:27PM

Why Ronald Reagan Made Karl Marx Come Back From the Dead

Rate: 19 Flag


 Mitt Romney and the Republican Party seem to be channeling Soviet nostalgia, and well they might.  The death of communism has not been good overall to the health of the conservative movement, and oddly enough -- Karl Marx is one of the sharpest political theorists  now to explain the predicament that this whole planet is in.

But perhaps first, I should talk about the death of Marxism. The fall of the Soviet Union supposedly showed the hollowness of the Marxist ideology, giving the handmaidens and apologists of the free market theory a hunting license to lay to waste the entire planet.  Up until the moment that Boris Yeltsin pulled a fast one on Mikhail Gorbachev and broke up the Soviet Union, the fall of the USSR  was proof of the criminality of the Soviet system, its long term unworkability, and its inate inferiority to the religious beliefs of free market capitalism.

So, what's happened since 1990?  The GINI index for the USA has gone sky high.  What's the GINI index? It's the measure of income inequality that's used as a yardstick for every country in the world.  The only people who've benefitted from the hegemony of the USA in world affairs have been the plutocrats.  The middle class has stagnated, as people have worked harder and harder progressively just to attempt to stay in the same place.  Instead, we have real estate rapers building 60,000 square feet "homes" where they can entertain Newt Gingrich and the Reverend Jerry Falwell.  That's progress for you.

Once upon a time, New Deal liberalism and Fordism, the principle of paying employees a better than "just living" wage so that they could buy some of the products they manufactured, ruled America.  The New Deal came to America as a memory of Teddy Roosevelt progressivism.  And TR did what he did because of the depridations of the robber barons of the 19th Century.  From the New Deal was forged the principles of not only a living wage, but strong American unions, and eventually the United Nations Charter.

It didn't hurt America that there was a strong Soviet Union  with a competing religion. The presence of Soviet Union-style Marxism allowed  the two party system in America to evolve into Cold War Democrats and Wall Street Republicans, with the Joe McCarthy spear carriers of the American right eventually standing all by themselves in the corner (until they re-emerged with the campaign of Barry Goldwater in 1964). These political constellations  of near-left, right, and far right in America look like they're fixed into the history of the USA, but now there's a joker in the mix.  More on that later.

The cold war produced Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, but Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover won the day as far as US history from then until now.  Thanks in part to Nixon's Southern strategy, the right wing influence grew and grew, up until today. Meanwhile, liberalism shrank as American power overreached itself and New Deal ideas began to coast on fumes.  I can mark the date in 1972 when  I felt that American power  had reached its absolute zenith.  From then until now, it's all been downhill.

A good part of my political point of view rests on the theories of historic economic and political cycles.  If we want to put a rough date on the length of New Deal and Cold War liberalism, we could go from the years 1930 to 1970.  Around 1970, the New Deal coalition began to break up, and Richard Nixon perfected his Southern strategy.

1970 up until today represents the Age of Reagan. Although Reagan didn't take power of the White House until 1980, his ideas were on the rise from at least the time of Nixon's election in 1968.  The holding action of whatever resembled New Deal liberalism was officially dead by the time that Bill Clinton became president.

The 1990s were the times of American triumphalism.  We were indeed,  the big swinging dicks of the world.  Capitalism American style was the only way to go, and inferior peoples all over the world were preached at about how they should get with the system.  The 1990s were also the time when the effects of neoliberalism were beginning to pinch shoes all over America.  The massive job outsourcing for the religion of free trade sent factory jobs in Ohio to Mexico, China, and Bangladesh. While offloading factories began with Reagan, the trend continued like  progressing cancer for America.

Reagan's fight with the air traffic controllers was the big opening gun in the emasculinization of the American labor union, and we were all downsourced and offsized, with according reductions in American wages and fringe benefits. Once again, the decline of the unions is in good part directly linked to the rise of the libertarian, free market right wing.

The decline of American liberalism and the growth of the religion of Milton Freidman and Ronald Reagan were part of the grand cycle of American politics and the world economy.  During this period, the  beliefs of the right attacked and tore down the safety valves that had been put in place by the New Deal to fight the principles of Marxist-Soviet communism.  From 1930 up until 1970, it was the philosophy of the US government to provide better standards of living to the majority of the population, and part of the motivation for this was the presence of the Soviet Union and its competing ideology.

From 1990 to the present, we've had Bill Clinton end welfare as we know it, as well as  the repealing  of the Glass-Stegall Act.  And then we had G.W. Bush, who managed to screw the pooch over everything else.  I would contend that the death of the Soviet Union pushed the United States substantially more in a rightward direction, leading us up to the conditions we see today.

And what do we see today?  We see people going for years without employment.  We see millions of people who've lost their homes. We've seen criminals on Wall Street walk away scot free, and then go out and redouble their bets of funny money.  We've seen the financialization of the world, growing like Topsy so that collateralized debt instruments and other exotic derivatives are now worth over twenty times the actual domestic product of the world.

Where once upon a time, there was a fat and happy middle class, totally rejecting the tenets of communism (while they enjoyed some of the benefits of American socialism) now we have the plutocrats as the only beneficiaries of government largess.  Socialism for the rich has produced a tenuous existence for everyone else.  More importantly, we are seeing the signs of unrest, both in the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.  One of the few things that these otherwise hostile groups might have in common is the fact that they both reject the siren songs of the dominant narrative of American media (and the corporate masters who control them).  The TeaParty blames government.  Occupy Wall Street says that government is just a puppet of the real powers that be. There may come a time in the near future when these two insurgent forces realize that they both have a lot more in common than their differences.

From 1930 to 1970, the United States did everything in its power to fight the threat of communism.  And one of the ways it did so was to basically repeal the class struggle.  Supposedly the American way could be a rising tide for all boats, lifting people up out of poverty and into the middle class.  In the process, they cut off the roots for class unrest in this country.  Politics migrated to a different place.  Basically, everything the USA did for the middle class was to mitigate the operational dynamics of Marxism to build the American consumer society.

Unfortunately, the death of the Soviet Union gave the right wing the daylight to run for a touchdown.  But in the process of taking the principles of neoliberalism and libertarian beliefs to an extreme in government, unintentionally American conservatives created the conditions whereby the thoughts of Marx could arise from the grave.

Marxism is based in good part on commodification.  If you turn everything into a commodity, it can be bought and sold at will.  People who were earning good pensions and a living wage found their jobs going to Indonesia, where the Fortune 500 had no such costs.  That's because under the religion of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan, American workers' production (and jobs) could be commodified.  The lowest common denominator began to operate in factory placement, and some of the worst countries in the world became attractive manufacturing platforms.

In the process, America has been hollowed out, and the natives have become very restless indeed.  Perhaps the most significant thing that Occupy Wall Street will do this spring is to occupy corporate board and shareholder meetings.  By occupying Halliburton and Exxon, OWS will do its part to notch class warfare up.  Not coincidentally, the age of Reagan will be over 40 years old.  Age of New Deal = 1930 t0 1970.  Age of Reagan = 1970 t0 2010.  There's a fine symmetry there, isn't there?

There may be a ten year period of transition into a truly new regime of thinking.  However, between now and 2020 extreme capitalism will  coexist with ever more harsh and dangerous conditions of manmade global climate change.  How things actually play out, I don't have  clue. What I've tried to do in this essay is to lay out a point of view that can be obviously debated.

 You said  that you wanted to live in interesting times?






Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Liberal became a dirty word... progressive was originally a Republican label... the problem with economic theory is money... money is now reduced to worthless paper and electronic ones and zeroes... organize a protest where every wage earner in the world shows up to cash their paychecks on the same day and poof... the man behind the curtain is exposed and he has no clothes. How's dat for revolutionary rhetoric?
I always refused to call myself a progressive because I've been happy with the liberal label all along.

I keep watching the strategic mistakes, over and over and over. Liberals aren't comfortable talking about money. Liberals aren't comfortable talking about religion. Conservatives are perfectly happy talking about both; the trouble is that they're wrong about both, but with liberals leaving the field, there's no one left to argue the other side.

What continues to amaze me more than anything else is how the business community continues to support policies that undermine the crap out of business. When did the majority of our capitalists become so stupid about capitalism? What made them think that Fordism doesn't make any sense when Fordism made America? Where do they think the money to buy their stuff comes from?

I don't trust the future because I don't trust enough people to give enough thought to what makes sense.
labels are just too convenient- the illusion that everyone has a fair chance based on economics is proven wrong long before fifth grade so we mold our children to see us and ignore them and if we are uncomfortably awakened by the remnants of our conscience we throw money at it like the tea party'ers tossing dollars at the gentleman with cerebral palsey. But everyone has a fair chance at the simple joys of life if that would be our goal but even simple goals can be the struggle of a lifetime- see Wilberforce.
Marx is about a lot of things, commodification is hardly central. There are a number of academic theories that get this wrong because they don't want to talk about the central contradictions and crisis trends that drive capital forward--always have. The falling rate of profit and even big crises based on overaccumulation were thought to be controllable with minor adjustments in mechanisms created to monitor inflation and money supply. These misconceptions became very popular during the post-War boom. The age of fix-it economics was on, but it would be wrong to say this was a time of Keynesianism--Keynes' ideas were always more preached than practiced. By the late 60s, early 70s overaccumulation had set in and the system began showing signs of extreme stress. Neoliberalism was brought in from the far reaches of academia as a form of fundamentalism to try and keep the myths of the post-War period alive. Meanwhile all the advances of the working class were put on the table. Were witnessing the end of that process of reduction now, certainly, and as you suggest, things will get worse before they get better. But we have to get over this idea that capital was every healthier, or more humane--it was more productive at the Euro-American core, and it seemed more humane to people there because they weren't living on the violent end of it. They system used to export its violence a lot more, that's all. Most of the post-War boom was based on arms expenditures by us and the Soviets, busy exporting weapons and wars all over the globe. There's nothing big enough to replace this productivity. The worst crisis trends of capital will keep wracking the system, there's no way to arrest that process with financial or regulatory means. Large-scale structural readjustment is needed, and the austerity hawks are moving in the wrong direction and with all the wrong ideas.

It really helps to get the timeline analysis of our history and system, rather than opting to live in a snapshot, and base our viewpoints on that narrow slice of truth. Thank you for laying this all out for us so compellingly! Rated.
I know what we need...MORE PROSTITUTES!!!

And cocaine!!

Ooooo and chocolate ice cream!!

Would you please run for public office, old lefty? America needs thinkers of your caliber.
The analysis holds pretty well except it leaves out a couple of reality factors leading to a crunch of civilization. It visualizes an infinite world of endless resources and a totally friendly environment, neither of which exist in reality. The relentless growth of overpopulation and the limited capability of the planet to supply nourishment and other basic resources plus the rapid decline of a friendly environment due to scarcity of basic usable land and viable energy resources will prevent the former third world countries from attaining the living standards previously existing in the USA. There are simply too many people now and the growth is not stopping whatever the economic system. Brutality and violence is obviously soon to become general as deprivation advances with idiots in control who cannot accept that their welfare depends upon facing the reality that their welfare depends upon the general welfare of the world.
Good post. I wrote something similar last year, about how the USSR helped moderate US capitalist excesses, by serving as a left wing foil. Much of the New Deal and Great Society legislation was intentionally passed so as to curb the spread of "radical" ideas among the populace and thereby maintain order and social stability. LBJ has many direct quotes attributed to him where he explicitly states these things.
One other basic element which has been neglected in this view is the exponential growth of technology massively increasing the productivity of the individual worker making a good deal of the work force superfluous. These unneeded workers nevertheless need the basics of sustenance to exist but the Protestant work ethic has no means of transferring the necessities to them without work which is unavailable. As automatic processes and robotics becomes more sophisticated and general and economic this will only get worse without a massive rethinking as to the basic relationships of society.
Although the massive corruption and police state tactics fits in nicely with previous communist regimes, the huge growth of an elite economic class in China is not quite what one conceives as communism.
Another huge change that seems to be unnoticed lately is the ubiquitous requirement for cash in daily life along with the decline of free services. When I was a kid in New York in the 1930's many businesses were provided free as the cost of doing business and many museums and zoos and exhibitions etc were free. Today everything is being privatized and all sorts of small strange charges are added to utility bills which, in the end, add up to a large bite out of income.And income is disappearing. It cannot sustain.
Excellent summary of the demise of Marxism and liberalism. It's my belief that Marx was unmatched in his ability to understand and describe capitalism. Where he fell short was in his prescription of how it should be dismantled and what should replace it.
pretty good analysis and I havent seen a nice strong essay by anyone on how much Marx actually got right about capitalism in retrospect.... quite the visionary. but now there seems to be no alternative system to compete with. if you rule out "sensibility"....
"religion of free trade," indeed, Lefty; I loved that one. Correct, comprehensive, account of our state of affairs. I also, sadly, agree with your predictions. Very well done, a great read. R
Can't argue with anything you have said here. Rated!

I sincerely hope the Republican convention, turns out to be a party Tampa will never forget! --- if you get my drift
Cheap and speedy transportation and communications combined with liberalization in countries like China made it possible to produce things for far less in places with cheaper labor. They also made consolidation easier. Cheap transportation and logistics means that increasingly, companies could become national. Volume discounts gave a price advantage over smaller local stores. The CEO was no longer living in the community with his workers.

I think, though, communism collapsing meant that the free markets theory was proved right, creating almost a religion of free markets. And for a short time, it worked, fueled by cheap labor suddenly available in China and burgeoning markets in such places.

What we need is a theory that separates extractive activities from productive activities. Even if it is quite theoretical, policy implications should push more of a balance towards productive.

I think we'll get there. Romney is particularly devoid of any theories on how to improve the economy, other than tired formulas designed for a different era.
Oil has already passed it's peak. There is no shortage at the moment and the current price rises are the product of speculation but it is a finite supply and the battles in the Middle East and Africa are about securing whatever is left. Oil is ot only the basis of transportation but also fertilizers, mass food production, heating and power and when that becomes more expensive there will be turmoil whatever the system.

Production is intimately involved with extraction. Rare earth materials are difficult to discover and the whole electronic explosion of various products depends upon them. And since power also is deeply involved you cannot separate the two.

here is a hug for you...o...cute cat that you are.
My dog is having trouble with love affairs,will take another few days or weeks.

Erica K.
I agree with you,but there others that would be eligible for the job.
If we're going to attempt to inject life into capitalism because we can't figure out what to replace it with, one place I'd start is with draconian enforcement of antitrust legislation. I once heard a story on All Things Considered back during the first Bush administration (the father). It seems that Corning Glass had bought out a competitor who was the major employer in a community. Corning shut them down. This was a violation of antitrust regulation but they calculated that by the time this case worked its way through the courts they'd come out ahead even if they were convicted of the violation. In the meantime, they shut down a whole town's employment. The worst of it was that the competitor they shut down was productive; in fact, they shut it down precisely because it was productive.

And that's what brings me to my point. When companies consolidate, they eliminate duplication of function - for example, if two manufacturers merge, why do they now need two credit managers? They don't, so one gets fired. However, it's not that the fired workers aren't productive, it's that consolidation eliminates their necessity.

Consolidation may be the result of competition, but it also eliminates competition, which is of course what theoretically drives capitalism, at least the parts sold to the general public. So, maybe we should be attacking consolidation, which was essentially TR's approach.
If we're going to attempt to inject life into capitalism because we can't figure out what to replace it with, one place I'd start is with draconian enforcement of antitrust legislation. I once heard a story on All Things Considered back during the first Bush administration (the father). It seems that Corning Glass had bought out a competitor who was the major employer in a community. Corning shut them down. This was a violation of antitrust regulation but they calculated that by the time this case worked its way through the courts they'd come out ahead even if they were convicted of the violation. In the meantime, they shut down a whole town's employment. The worst of it was that the competitor they shut down was productive; in fact, they shut it down precisely because it was productive.

And that's what brings me to my point. When companies consolidate, they eliminate duplication of function - for example, if two manufacturers merge, why do they now need two credit managers? They don't, so one gets fired. However, it's not that the fired workers aren't productive, it's that consolidation eliminates their necessity.

Consolidation may be the result of competition, but it also eliminates competition, which is of course what theoretically drives capitalism, at least the parts sold to the general public. So, maybe we should be attacking consolidation, which was essentially TR's approach.
The irony is that the destruction of the Soviet Union planted the seeds for the destruction of capitalism -- at least in its present perverted form. And the revolution will be -- is being -- televised.

That doesn't necessarily mean another Revolution like the last, but it does mean a revolution, and revolutions are always painful for those on the bottom. But they are most painful for those with most to lose, as the former French aristocracy could attest if they were still around to attest. But alas, they lost their heads as well as their "nobility".

So what form might this revolution take? It's already taking shape in the form of drastically reduced consumption and consumer debt. Nothing can so alter the present consumer-based economy as the elimination of consumers.

Paper "profits" will continue for awhile, but those who are counting on replacing American consumers with Chinese and Indian consumers are in for a big surprise I suspect. For evidence of that, one need only look to Japan, the most Americanized (consumerized) of Asian nations.

So what accounts for this difference? Culture. That was recognized long ago by someone far wiser than today's so-called foreign policy and economic experts. This is an excerpt from a white paper offered by George F. Kennan in 1949. Read it and weep:

PPS23, FRUS, 1948, volume 1, part II, pages 510-529

VII. Far East

My main impression with regard to the position of this Government with regard to the Far East is that we are greatly over-extended in our whole thinking about what we can accomplish, and should try to accomplish, in that area. This applies, unfortunately, to the people in our country as well as to the Government.

It is urgently necessary that we recognize our own limitations as a moral and ideological force among the Asiatic peoples.

Our political philosophy and our patterns for living have very little applicability to masses of people in Asia. They may be all right for us, with our highly developed political traditions running back into the centuries and with our peculiarly favorable geographic position; but they are simply not practical or helpful, today, for most of the people in Asia.

This being the case, we must be very careful when we speak of exercising "leadership" in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have the answers to the problems which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples.

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples - the Chinese and the Indians - have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and -- for the Far East -- unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

For more, please see my post When Fools Think Themselves Wise.
I do wish you'd stop channelling Dom Cobb, I get so little sleep as it is.

But some points:
- socialism for the rich is an oxymoron; the word is fascism
- Reagan, in my view, was mostly about domestic paranoia; his message "I know you're OK, but you know and I know that your neighbor is a bum. Your neighbor should starve."
- Clinton signed the bill, but neither he nor his admin wrote; that honor belongs to Gramm, Leach, Bliley (really does sound like a tri-part infection)
- I don't see Marxism as being commodification driven, rather a recognition (voiced much later by Eccles) that industrialization (aka, capitalism) requires a theory of distribution different from that proposed by Adam Smith and his forebears. Without it, the whole edifice falls apart due to collapsing demand for output
For such a sweeping essay, this seems rather U.S. based onl. The notion that the free market is always best and government is the problem has less sway in most parts of the world. So sticking to the U.S., I'd like to think there will be a swing back to New Dealism. But given the concentrations of wealth and the Citizens United lifting of effective limits on money controlling politics, I doubt there'll be a natural evolution. It will likely take until global warming is so blindingly obvious and destructive that radical actions will be countenanced. Until then too much political attention will be focused on sideshows like restricting abortion rights, drug testing welfare recipients and giving creationism equal time in classrooms. And you know it won't be easy in an environment where close to 30% of the populace are deluded ignoramuses.

Also, it's been a while since I read Marx but where's this commodification coming from? I thought that the essentials of Marxism were the rejection of private property and the value of things being determined by the labor needed to produce them. Where does commodification arise from these tenets?
My today's USPS mail brought me the latest edition of the London Review of Books (dead tree edition). I'm no good at urls but I'm quite sure many of you would be really interested in John Lanchester's current article titled 'Marx at 193'. Give it a look-see, o.k.? And if LRB online doesn't allow access to the article except to subscribers and anyone is interested enough, let me know, and I'll post some excerpts.

Both Robert Young and Abrawang have called me out as to just where Marx talked about commodification. And BOKO has disagreed with me somewhat on my Marxist interpretations.

Here's where I fess up to my inspiration, from reading Frederick Jameson's new book, REPRESENTING CAPITAL (as in Das Kapital). Jameson is essentially rereading Marx, possibly in the framework of some of the modern French philosophers like Baudrillaud.

On page 16, in discussing Marx's overview of history from medieval times, through "Asiatic" modes of production, up to capitalism in the 19th Century, Jameson says, "...the identity of dominant and determinant in capitalism in principle constitutes it as the first transparent society... the secret of capitalism is revealed...knowledge of society only (is) possible when commodificiation has become tendentially universal, that is, WHEN WAGE LABOR HAS LARGELY SUPERCEDED ALL OTHER FORMS OF CLASS RELATIONSHIP. (my emphasis added)

From here, I came to the realization that commodification had a profound affect on America when outsourcing factories for increased profit margins (and the jettisoning of things like good wages, pensions, and benefits) became the fad and fashion of the Fortune 500 boardrooms.

Once jobs started getting shipped overseas, the old New Deal social contract that had been struck between labor and management began to come apart at the seams.
Somebody wrote above:

"The notion that the free market is always best and government is the problem has less sway in most parts of the world."

This is really true. For example in my country even right-wing parties agree that in some cases state-owned industries are the best solutions. And you can asily see that even in America big-scale private industries such as car industries and even more importantly arms industries exist there only because of the state supports.

Marxism has got many tenets, but maybe the most important thing is 'socialism', the idea that production means should be owned by all of the people; in practice, by the state, which is governed by all.

Soviet Union was far from real socialism, with 'Communism' it had little to do even if their leaders called themselves 'communists'.
There is great energy in hope. All religions are based upon it. All gambling and lotteries are based on it. And all revolutions are driven by it. Although, in large, the American dream of independence and wealth had as much reality as any lottery in which there are real visible winners and enough of them to keep the fires burning in each citizen to give power to the system. These last years i the USA has seen, not only a great drain of jobs and opportunity but a disappearance of much of the hope that kept the country dynamic. But the energies that drove the hopes of the nation still exist and those energies have to have an outlet somehow. And it will be in frustration and open fury.
Grand theories are always just that: theories.

If you review the economic history of this country, it's always been a little or a lot eccentric in terms of who got what in this country. FDR got closest to evening out wealth distribution and he did it on the simple premise that capitalism works - within limits. The key word is, of course, limits. The New Deal had elements of both collectivism and private enterprise within its scope. The public built Hoover Dam and the TVA, which allowed private industry to use their benefits to their own profit.

When things like the NRA got passed, Big Money in this country pledged to bring the New Deal down, then and there. It took them 54 years, but they pulled it off. The signal point which demonstrates how effectively Big Money accomplished this was the Clinton Administration, which signed into law the takedown of banking regulations, of telecommunications restrictions, and allowing a wholesale exodus of manufacturing jobs to low wage countries, every one of which practiced not globalism but mercantilism. All under the guise of globalism.The party of FDR was now a thing of the past.

We've abandoned the checks and balances on capitalism and we're paying the price. But...the good news is that things DO change.