Wednesday, April 9, 2008


Bourgeois apologists are basically American liberals. Rather than confront the truth about racism, gender bias, or the failure of the capitalist swindle, they compensate for the racism, gender bias, and swindle with programs which create a dependency on the government. Discontent with this dependency sent hundreds of thousands of moderate democrats to vote for Ronald Reagan. (At the end of this piece I propose some simple questions which help to put this essay into perspective - you might read the questions first as an aide to understanding my dribble.)

During the course of this campaign the Achilles heal of the Democratic Party was exposed when the reality of race and gender bias reared its ugly head. The reality that the bourgeois apologists created, putting racism and gender bias in the closet in hopes no one would ever notice, came roaring out during this campaign.

Barack Obama has a lot of support based on the notion he works with all groups. The reality is, he sought to keep the race question in the closet and it exploded in his face with the Latino community, and the older traditional black civil rights community. In the Latino community, Adelfa Callejo, a civil rights attorney in Dallas, told the truth about how older Latinos feel about blacks - they will not vote for a black. People were horrified with this realization, but it was an unfortunate truth.

Barack Obama knew the truth about black Latino relations and chose to ignore it. Rather than try and cross over and gain the confidence of the Latino community he simply snubbed the Latino community in California and Texas. He had no scheduled events in South Texas. It is true at the last minute he agreed to meet the people at Charro days, but that was not scheduled.
If Obama works with all groups, why has he totally failed with the Latino community? He does not work with all groups - he speaks in very general terms and plays on bourgeois apologists’s emotions to come over to his side, to make up for yesteryear. This seems odd to me because the bourgeois apologists are making up for yesteryear by voting for a man who has no familial ties to the historical plight of black Americans, and was raised in an Anglo home.

It does not end there. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke of God’s wrath on the US for its foreign policy in South East Asia. Obama dare not repudiate the words of Dr. King. But when his own minister merely echoed Dr. King’s words in terms of God’s wrath on the US for its foreign policy in the Middle East, Obama repudiated Reverend Wright’s words. This is the modern Säuberung of the bourgeois apologists. They fear the reality of their failures. After nearly 50 years of trying to make amends without ever really trying to solve the problem or bring people together, the bourgeois apologists need to keep the debate on the issue silent. They cannot accept that the capitalist swindle is the problem, so they simply demand that the reality of the race, gender, and socio-economic divide stay in the closet. As we now know it did not during the course of this campaign.

The bourgeois apologists denounce anyone and everyone who tries to raise it. Today, if Barack Obama has his way no new Dr. King could every rise to the level of Dr. King. That reality must be silenced, rather than confront it head on. I ask my readers, can anyone honestly say Obama has honestly addressed the race divide between older Latinos, and blacks, between moderate Anglo America and the traditional civil rights voices in the black community, such as Dr. King, or the gender divide. Can anyone say Obama has shown any leadership when dealing with any of these groups. When you repudiate the views of an entire sector of the black community, you are not a unifier.

His failure is not a result of his character, it is a result of being part of a system which refuses to accept these problems have never been fixed. They were never fixed because every policy objective was designed to create a dependency between these various groups and the government. The policies pitted Latinos against blacks and women, and visa versa, for limited resources. Now you put the groups together in a battle for power, and the ugly head of denial rises up for the world to see. The guilt policies of the bourgeois apologists failed because rather than address the problems in the capitalist swindle, they simple covered them up with public moneys as payoffs to each of these groups.

The policies had as their object the enslavement of these groups to government programs. A true socialist, unlike an American liberal, puts real value in a good job wherein the worker is paid based on their worth. An American liberal, bourgeois apologists, simply says well, "we will just create programs which put money in the hands of the neediest, instead of the dignity of a good job with pay based on worth. (Where the jobs come from is another essay.)

Some of you, with the exception of the term capitalist swindle, will notice American conservatives make the same argument. The key difference is the American conservative believes the market place will eventually work out the problems, whereas the true socialist believes the market place will never fix anything and it is time to begin the move towards a socialist economy. The American bourgeois apologists believes you can simply buy the calm with social welfare programs which create dependency on the government and the Democratic Party.


So I put out to my readers - Have we really solved the race, gender issues? Is there a Säuberung (cleansing of ideas which do not support bourgeois apologists) against anyone who challenges the establishment politicos? Have we as a nation confronted the problems in our economic system? Would our society be worse off if we simply started to make two basic changes [1] promote social obligation which does not promote dependency, and [2] demand all workers be paid based on worth?


Mas Triste said...


The greatest thing the the United States has, that few others in the world has is:

An equal opportunity to succeed.

Our main obligation in this social contract is to allow those who are better or smarter to pass us by without holding them back.

Ed S. was having something of a similar discussion.

I had posed this question to him:

Suppose you had two people, one who has the aptitude to become a doctor and the other has the aptitude to be a good welder.

How would you distribute scholarship funding for these two people if you had $100,000?

Is 50/50 the "fairest" or the 90/10split that you know is likely to be the best decision?


BobbyWC said...


I am not being mean - what I am about to say applies equally to most people - I know for a fact you did not comprehend what I wrote because your question in an attempt to show why my argument is wrong, actually makes my argument.

You like most US Americans remain so the victim of Cold War BS propaganda that your comprehension stops the second you read socialism.

I have repeatedly said - "from each according to his ability to each according to his worth." My second question at the end asks is it not time we start paying workers based on their worth.

Your question proves to me your brain completely shut down the second you read socialism. I am not mad or trying to insult you. I am grateful for your post because it helps my readers to understand this issue.

It is the same way liberals shut out conservatives when they speak -and visa versa - they do not hear a word and quite often fail to hear valid arguments.

The presumption in your questions is doctors are worth more than welders. My point is pay based on worth, not some free market free for all which has no relationship to worth.

Now maybe you feel doctors have more worth, but I would say it is for society to decide. During WWII I wounder who had more worth doctors or the welders building the war machine?

Who has more worth to Amfels, the various ship dismantlers at the port and our local economy - doctors or welders? - at this time investing locally in the training of more welders will do a lot more for our economy than training another doctor. I am certain in some communities investment in more doctors is more important at this time.

It is about current worth - at some level it is subjective and at some level, such as my example with the welders - it is local -

Being the oppressive socialist that I am I believe that decision should me made at the local level based on the needs of the community and not by intellectuals trying to tell people what is in their best interests.

Again Kurgan, I am not trying to be personal - your question helped me to be able to develop this point - and for that I thank you- it was a good and helpful post

Again, Thanks

BObby WC

Mas Triste said...


I was agreeing with you.

Social justice at the expense o another, especially the expense of an opportunity to another is not justice.


Anonymous said...

By what mechanism do you envision local communities determining the worth of different professions and implementing payment according to that determined worth?

Patricia A.

BobbyWC said...

First let me apologize for the late approval of the postings - today was a family day at my home with my students and kids - cookout, basketball, sorting sea shells - I now have a portable basketball net and stand which rolls out of my garage.

The parents had their time with the kids until 7 and then it was 2 1/2 hours of math for the parents -(It is important to these low income children to see their parents study) while the kids colored, played freegames on my laptop, watch classic cartoons - Woody Woodpecker - or continued to play basketball.

I am so so tired - it was a lot more work than I ever could have imagined.

Anyway - Patricia first -

value is subjective - you read my example concerning the welders - I think reasonable minds can have a honest debate on the issue.

I have always said the highest paid workers should be sanitation workers - without them public health would fall apart - but that is where I put my sense of worth.

In the initial stages it would be a market place decision based in part on community standards. Cities and counties are large employers - so they could set the wage standards. The people through their elected officials would make the decision. I personally would pay law enforcement, firefighters, and sanitation workers more than is currently paid - but that is me.

In the market place - and here is the key - the market place will never pay based on true worth so long as we have the current union structure which mandates everyone gets paid the same whether they work or not, and corporations pay based on supply and demand instead of worth to the organization.

So how does this change? social obligations - like I said this is not the Book of Genesis - the process begins with socialization of the people to commit to social obligation - once focus on the best interest of the community becomes the majority philosophy, how we perceive worth will change -it will replace the market place approach which basically pitts workers against one another, and in times of surplus creates wage wars which hurt the workers.

Patricia I know my answer is not some mechanical formula but it cannot be - it must be a response from the people after the social norm changes from my interest to the community interest.

Patricia - thank you for the question - I hope your question and my long boring answer helped to clarify this for people.

Bottom line is - nothing changes until social obligation replaces personal desires.


Maybe I am not getting what you are saying - I am glad you agree with me - I just do not see it.

Now part of the problem may be with your use of "social contract." A contract is made between two entities at arms lengths who are more or less equals. One is not the creation of the other.

The government is a creation of the people - so therefore there is no social contract between the people and the government - the social contract is between the people

The relationship between the people and the goverment, in the US model, is one in trust - hence a social trust. In a trust you have someone who makes the trust for the benefit of another or themselves to be administored by a trustee. The people created a trust (Constitution) creating the government for the benefit of the people to be overseen by the government subject to the conditions of the trust - namely the constitution.

As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of independence, the creator of the trust can remove the trustee at any time the trustee is not carrying out the terms of the trust (Constitution) this was the legal foundation for the American Revolution - a legal foundation the Supreme Morons in Washington ruled was abolished and relinguished by the people in the Constitution - Texas v. White -

This was the result of the great tyrant Lincoln's illegal war on the South. The Supreme's reasoned that because the Constitution abolished the right of rebellion against a government which no longer serves it intended purpose, Texas never had a right to leave the Union and therefore it never did and technically confederate Texas never existed which meant US Texas post civil war had to pay White for the bonds he bought from confederate Texas.

I hope we learned something - I learned this much typing causes my left hand to swell huge - my carpal tunnel surgery is in May, assuming they do not cancel it to place a stent in my left clavian artery - it is amazing my body does not simply fall apart into dust as I walk

BObby WC

Mas Triste said...


Keep this post running and let me review the White v. Texas.

In the meantime...

Let me clarify. You said The government is a creation of the people - so therefore there is no social contract between the people and the government - the social contract is between the people .

BW, the government is the people.

The definition of revolution seems to be at issue.

Your assertions of the Jeffersonian influence into the Constitution are spot on. But your conclusion is diminished by the Madisonian stipulations that simultaneously stymie and placate the majority.

The majority do allow for the minority to “rebel” (Watts, Detroit, Boston, L.A.) while slowly adapting to the demands.

The majority is not the government; it is us.

This is what Madison envisioned

He wanted us to be protected from ourselves.

Just because the revolution does not occur in the way we think a revolution looks like, does not mean the tides are not changing.

The Warren court was not a revolution? The Reagan swing back into control and “Giuliani Time” wasn’t a revolution?

I don’ know, but I think we (you know, the people) influence change much more than we are given credit for.


BobbyWC said...


the government is a legal fiction - it is not the people - the people relinguished certain liberties to a government created by and for the people - the government administers the trust as created by the people - it is a trust not a contract.

the social relationship between the people is a social contract wherein the people agree to enter into a joint trust (constitution) for the benefit of the entire community

Anonymous said...

Until the Government steps in as in the case of the EEOC in the 70's and 80's.