RE: Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Judges:....Stranger in “Jerusalem”!

Read Article

Comments (23)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (23)

Dziko Kwame 10 years ago

It used to be "Prof Lungu, Tokyo, Japan" - if I am not mistaken.

For some time now, we see "Prof Lungu, USA".

I have read this article repeatedly and can not understand what Prof Lungu is trying to say.

Does Daniel P ...
read full comment

It used to be "Prof Lungu, Tokyo, Japan" - if I am not mistaken.

For some time now, we see "Prof Lungu, USA".

I have read this article repeatedly and can not understand what Prof Lungu is trying to say.

Does Daniel Pryce making the phrase "STRANGER IN JERUSALEM" imply anything "Christian" to the article that was published?

One would be keen on reading a cohesive article by the PROF LUNGU; an article that will be seen as having heads to tails; and not this disjointed pieces put together as an article.

Long live the intellectual discourse, long live Mother Ghana
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

Dziko Kwame,
What about Tokyo you do not understand?

You must be one of the lucky few who have lived in their village or town since they were born, and are still doing well, reading this essay on the internet!

Further ...
read full comment

Dziko Kwame,
What about Tokyo you do not understand?

You must be one of the lucky few who have lived in their village or town since they were born, and are still doing well, reading this essay on the internet!

Further, it might be a "Disjointed article!", but even they have meaning!

So, read it again!

Read it again, if only to make sure your are not one of the people of concern identified right at the top, in the chorus, as it were:

"...So, what frame of reference is the person in Ghana who did not attend college or high school...supposed to use to better understand these important matters of public policy...and nation building?..."
Frank 10 years ago

A total senseless and useless article with a meaningless caption.

A total senseless and useless article with a meaningless caption.
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

Frank,

YOUR: "...total senseless and useless article with a meaningless caption."

WE MUST SAY: That is what we started to think, of the original essay! Then we read the comment about socialism in Ghana!

Peace!

Frank,

YOUR: "...total senseless and useless article with a meaningless caption."

WE MUST SAY: That is what we started to think, of the original essay! Then we read the comment about socialism in Ghana!

Peace!
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Dear Prof. Lungu,

Well, I had to go back and read Pryce's essays with the comments under it.

In fact, I initially read Pryce's essay on Modernghana and did not find much in it to contemplate on.

The fact may be tha ...
read full comment

Dear Prof. Lungu,

Well, I had to go back and read Pryce's essays with the comments under it.

In fact, I initially read Pryce's essay on Modernghana and did not find much in it to contemplate on.

The fact may be that I harbored similar views, was personally intimate with the facts Anas "revealed" in his work even before I came to the US, and was aware of similar arguments made on Ghanaweb.

In other words Pryce's essay and its contents were merely a rehash of ideas already in the public domain. In fact there are alternative symbolic meanings--sociological, historical, philosophical--of the "wig" (and why judge's seats/chairs are normally higher in courtrooms) which Pryce did not explore (Well, this is a topic for another day). That is how much I can say about Pryce's essay.

And as for Karl Marx and religion, I can say that he (and his partner Engels) was preoccupied with other religions beyond Judaism and Christianity.

The two dealt with religion in general beyond their specific "infatuation" with Judaism and Judeo-Christianity. Islam/Koran was another. In fact they dealt with regions older than Judaism and Judeo-Christianity--which they called "Primitive Religion" in some instances.

Let me point on out possible influences of Buddha/Buddhism on Marx and some of his theories are ongoing. A few papers have been published in this area. Marx's/Engels "On Religion" and Ian Almond's "History of Islam In German Thought" (these two are good for starters). This is just by the way.

I have this interesting review by Bob Burrowes (DISASTER CAPITALISM: OUTSOURCING VIOLENCE AND EXPLOITATION--Kallimpong News, Sept. 23, 2015) for you:
........................................................................................................................................................
In his just-released book, 'Disaster Capitalism: Making a Killing out of Catastrophe', www.versobooks.com/books/1985-disaster-capitalism Antony Loewenstein offers us a superb description of the diminishing power of national governments and international organisations to exercise power in the modern world as multinational corporations consolidate their control over the political and economic life of the planet.

While ostensibly a book about how national governments increasingly abrogate their duty to provide 'public' services to their domestic constituencies by paying corporations to provide a privatized version of the same service – which is invariably inferior and exploitative, and often explicitly violent as well – the book's subtext is easy to read: in order to maximize corporate profits, major corporations are engaged in a struggle to wrest all power from ordinary people and those institutions that supposedly represent them. And the cost to ordinary people (including their own corporate employees) and the environment is irrelevant, from the corporate perspective.

Loewenstein spent five years researching this book so that he could report 'the ways in which our world is being sold to the highest bidder without public consent'. In my view, he does this job admirably.

Taking as his starting point the observation of famed future studies and limits to growth expert Professor Jørgen Randers that 'It is profitable to let the world go to hell', Loewenstein set out to describe precisely how this is happening. He went to Pakistan and Afghanistan to explore the world of 'private military companies', Greece to listen to refugees imprisoned in 'brutal' privatized detention centres, Haiti to investigate its 'occupation' by the United Nations and 'aid' organizations following the earthquake in 2010, and Bougainville to understand the dilemma faced by those who want progress without the price of further corporate environmental vandalism (for which they have paid heavily already).

Loewenstein also checked out the 'outsourced incarceration' that now ensures that the US rate of imprisonment far exceeds that in all other countries, the privatized asylum seeker detention centres in the UK which are the end product of 'a system that demonizes the vulnerable', and the equivalent centres in Australia which 'warehouse' many asylum seekers in appalling privatized detention centres, including those located on offshore islands.

It is easy and appropriate to be outraged by some of the details Loewenstein provides, like the 'three strike' laws in the United States 'that put people behind bars for life for stealing a chocolate bar', but it is obviously important to comprehend the nature of the systemic crisis in which we are being enveloped by 'disaster capitalism' if we are to have any chance of resisting it effectively. So what are it's key features?

In essence, predatory corporations (which usually keep a low profile) are financed by government money (that is, your taxes), supported by tax concessions and insulated from genuine accountability, political criticism and media scrutiny while being given enormous power to provide the infrastructure and labor to conduct a function, domestically or internationally, which has previously been performed by a government or international organization. If this happens at the expense of a nation truly exercising its independence, then too bad.

Moreover, because the corporate function is being performed 'solely to benefit international shareholders' which means that maximum profit is the primary aim, both the people who are supposedly being served by the corporation (citizens, refugees, prisoners...) and the corporation's own employees are invariably subjected to far greater levels of abuse, exploitation, violence and/or corruption than they would have experienced under a public service equivalent.

Loewenstein provides the evidence to demonstrate this fact in one case after another. The ones that I found most interesting are the use of mercenaries in Afghanistan which provided further evidence that US policy, and even its military strategy and tactics 'on the ground', is being progressively taken over by corporations, and the 'occupation' of Haiti, post-earthquake in 2010, by the UN and NGO 'aid' agencies which forced locals into the perpetual victimhood of corporate-skewed 'development'.

The use of private military companies (jargon for government-contracted companies that hire and deploy mercenary soldiers, 'intelligence' personnel, private security staff, construction teams, training personnel and provide base services such as food, laundry and maintenance) in Afghanistan has meant that there are far more US contractors than US soldiers in Afghanistan and 'troop withdrawal' means just that: troops not contractors. The occupation is far from over, Loewenstein notes.

Moreover, he asserts, the US mission in Afghanistan is 'intimately tied to these unaccountable forces'. As many of us have been observing for considerable time, with control of US government policy now largely in the hands of the US elite (a select group compared with the military-industrial complex of which departing president Eisenhower warned us in 1961), its controlling tentacles reach ever more deeply into US actions at all levels. This is reflected in the way that military tactics are often designed in response to the development of weapons (such as drones) rather than, as should be the case, policy and strategy determining the nature of the tactics and weapons (if any) designed and used. It's not so much that the corporate 'tail' is now wagging the government 'dog': the 'tail' is now bigger and more powerful than the 'dog' itself. In essence, the 'US government interest' means the 'US corporate interest'.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not the only 'horror story' in Loewenstein's book. I was particularly pained by his account of the multi-faceted violence that has been inflicted on Haiti since the devastating earthquake on 12 January 2010 that affected three million Haitians, killing more than 300,000. On 1 February 2010, US Ambassador Kenneth Merton headlined his cable 'The Gold Rush Is On' and went on to explain his excitement: 'As Haiti digs out from the earthquake, different companies are moving in to sell their concepts, products and services.' Merton's lack of compassion for those killed, injured or left homeless by the earthquake is breathtaking.

Tragically, it isn't just corporate exploitation of Haitians that exacerbated the adverse impact of the earthquake. The United Nations was horrific too. The evidence clearly pointed to its responsibility for a cholera epidemic shortly after the earthquake, which affected more than 700,000 people, killing 9,000. And given the responsibility of UN troops, allegedly present to enhance safety, for previous violence against Haitians, most Haitians simply regarded the presence of UN troops as 'another occupation' following the French colonization, which they overthrew in 1794, and the US occupation which led to the Duvalier dictatorships, that were resisted until their defeat in 1986.

But whatever damage the UN has done, it is the governments of the US, France and Canada, whose aid dollars via many corporations never reach those in need, NGOs like the Clinton Foundation, and the predatory corporations that truly know how to exploit a country. This is why the civil infrastructure in Port-au-Prince remains unrepaired nearly six years after the earthquake and the average city resident still lives in 'rubbish, filth, and squalor'. Somehow, the corporations that were given the aid money to rebuild Haiti or provide other services were able to absorb billions of dollars without doing much at all. Although, it should be noted, company profits have been healthy. Are they held accountable? Of course not. Disaster capitalism at its best.

So can we predict the outcome for Nepal following its earthquakes earlier this year? We certainly can. The corrupt diversion of aid funds to corporate bank accounts. And ordinary Nepalese will continue to suffer.

I could go on but you will be better off checking out the book yourself. Loewenstein writes well and he has fascinating material with which to hold your interest. By the way, his personal website if you want to keep track of his journalism is here. www.antonyloewenstein.com/ He has recently been doing research in South Sudan.

So is there anything I didn't like? Well, given my own passion for analysis and strategy, I would have liked to read more about Loewenstein's thoughts on why, precisely, this all happens and how we can get out of this mess. He is an astute observer of reality and hopefully, in future, he will be more forthcoming in making suggestions.

In the meantime, if you are interested in understanding why many individuals have a dysfunctional compulsion to make profits at the expense of human and environmental needs, my own analysis is briefly outlined in this article: 'Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War'. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1305/S00186/love-denied-the-psychology-of-materialism-violence-and-war.htm But there is much more detail explaining the psychological origins of violent and exploitative behaviours in 'Why Violence?' www.tinyurl.com/whyviolence

And if you are someone who does not outsource your own responsibility to play a role in ending the elite-driven violence and exploitation in our world, you might like to sign the online pledge of 'The People's Charter to Create a Nonviolent World'. www.thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com The Nonviolence Charter references other documents for action if you are so inclined.

Anyway, apart from this observation, the main reason why I think this is such a good book is because it gave me much new and carefully researched information that got me thinking, more deeply, about issues that I often ponder. There is a good chance that it will enlighten you too.
.......................................................................................................................................................
.
.. 10 years ago

AND YOUR POINT IS... SILLY1

AND YOUR POINT IS... SILLY1
Nsia 10 years ago

Hi point is, Ghana is not a socialist state as Daniel K Pryce,Ph.D wants us to believe. Democracy does not mean the practise of unbridled capitalism. Pryce is wrong. Fullstop!

Author: Daniel K. Pryce, Ph.D.
Date: 20 ...
read full comment

Hi point is, Ghana is not a socialist state as Daniel K Pryce,Ph.D wants us to believe. Democracy does not mean the practise of unbridled capitalism. Pryce is wrong. Fullstop!

Author: Daniel K. Pryce, Ph.D.
Date: 2015-09-22 12:02:49
Comment to:Re: Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Judges: Art Thou A

Very good point, Asiwome. Unfortunately, Ghana is a socialist state (some will raise their eyebrows immediately), although we may be fooled into thinking that our democracy means that we now believe in and practice capitalism.
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

"Very good point", Nsia!

Ghana is not a socialist state, nor was Ghana ever was!

In that context, even the statement by the traitor red bunch after the overthrow, the premier statement by the premier traitors (ankrah-k ...
read full comment

"Very good point", Nsia!

Ghana is not a socialist state, nor was Ghana ever was!

In that context, even the statement by the traitor red bunch after the overthrow, the premier statement by the premier traitors (ankrah-kotoka-afrifa-harlley, deku, nunoo), did not say that.

And as we infer in this retort, socialists do not destroy their forests, vegetation, and landscape, etc., by cutting, mining, and hauling them to overseas locations to be transformed into value for others to use, buy, and some, re-exported back to the same place.

Greetings, and thanks for the comment!
Godd 10 years ago

I am a bit taken aback at the rejoinder to Pryce's article of yesterday and some of the comments to the rejoinder.

To enable me post this comment, I went back to re-read Pryce's article.

In the first place, Pryce's art ...
read full comment

I am a bit taken aback at the rejoinder to Pryce's article of yesterday and some of the comments to the rejoinder.

To enable me post this comment, I went back to re-read Pryce's article.

In the first place, Pryce's article is NOT about socialism and/or capitalism and Ghana's position on that continuum. Indeed, if I read Pryce right, he didn't even mention this in passing (as an example of some other point he was making). I don't see how a rejoinder can be based on this point if the rejoinder is to Pryce's article of yesterday.

Pryce cannot be wrong or correct about the ideological state of Ghana because he simply didn't mention anything about that.

Prof Lungu takes issue with Pryce writing that he had been busy with "work, kids, the Lord's work...". Is that what Prof Lungu is equating with a capitalist mode of existence? C'mmon, even if it were so, (and this is far-fetched) that is far from being the main thrust of Pryce's work. A rejoinder that ends up being longer than the original article should properly concentrate on the main thrust of the original article, non on the non-essential peripheries. Pryce's ref to his work and life was purely to explain his long absence from ghanaweb. That was clear to long timers of ghanaweb like Prof Lungu.

Lungu's other gripe is directed at Pryce "daring" to use a religious metaphor. C'mmon, a metaphor is metaphor, even if it is a religious one. Even Marx, the arch secularist who was fond of reading the Old Testament, used religious metaphors. Some of Marx's followers even point out his debts to Judeo-Christian beliefs in his great theory.

Even that aside, Pryce's article did not try to preach a certain religious point of view. I guess Pryce was more attracted by the analogy itself than the purported religious significance of the Biblical quote. Personally, I thought the analogy was a bit contrived and found Pryce halfway through his piece trying to justify it. Pryce's article came when almost everybody has heard of the Aremeyaw "coup" and devoting so much space to the analogy was a little bit unnecessary, especially when Pryce's major point was his suggestion that cases tainted with corruption should be resurrected and restitution made - a point which has nothing to do with the lengthy Biblical analogy.

As for Pryce's religious faith, I don't personally share it but he has every right to hold it and to flaunt it even on the pages of ghanaweb if he wants to. I don't see any big deal in that.

And why shouldn't Pryce say Jerusalem? The particular story he was using happened in Jerusalem, why should he replace it with Mecca or Antoa or some Bhuddist city? "A stranger in Jerusalem" has become a common expression in the English language. Nobody says "Are you a stranger in Kumasi or Ho or wherever". It is just like the Muslim one of the mountain not coming to Muhammad. Everybody uses the metaphor that comes at hand to him. Pryce could also have used a Buddhist one or a Sikh one but he used the one that he was familiar with. What's the deal?
Nsia 10 years ago

You failed to read the small print. Pryce did say that in his response to Awinsome. This is for your perusal.

Author: Daniel K. Pryce, Ph.D.
Date: 2015-09-22 12:02:49
Comment to:Re: Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Judges: Art ...
read full comment

You failed to read the small print. Pryce did say that in his response to Awinsome. This is for your perusal.

Author: Daniel K. Pryce, Ph.D.
Date: 2015-09-22 12:02:49
Comment to:Re: Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Judges: Art Thou A

Very good point, Asiwome. Unfortunately, Ghana is a socialist state (some will raise their eyebrows immediately), although we may be fooled into thinking that our democracy means that we now believe in and practice capitalism.

Godd 10 years ago

That was in the comments section which you call "small print". Why should that warrant a full rejoinder? Why didn't Prof Lungu just react to it there and then but write a full article as if that is what Pryce set out to ponti ...
read full comment

That was in the comments section which you call "small print". Why should that warrant a full rejoinder? Why didn't Prof Lungu just react to it there and then but write a full article as if that is what Pryce set out to pontificate on?
Nsia 10 years ago

Well different people react differently. The fact remains the same. Pryce did say that! Too much vacuous statements comes from our so-called intellectuals. Unbridled capitalism is not the basis of democracy neither does socia ...
read full comment

Well different people react differently. The fact remains the same. Pryce did say that! Too much vacuous statements comes from our so-called intellectuals. Unbridled capitalism is not the basis of democracy neither does socialism abhors democracy. Countries like France,Sweden,Norway etc have proven that.
Godd 10 years ago

Ok, Nsiah, but the point is that Pryce's article was NOT about Ghana's place on the socialism-capitalism continuum. Why did Prof Lungu find it necessary to write a rejoinder to Pryce's comment? Rejoinders are written to artic ...
read full comment

Ok, Nsiah, but the point is that Pryce's article was NOT about Ghana's place on the socialism-capitalism continuum. Why did Prof Lungu find it necessary to write a rejoinder to Pryce's comment? Rejoinders are written to articles, not to comments in the "small print" that are attached to the main article.

As you can see, not many people commented on the Pryce article and even fewer read his comments. But more would have read (or browsed through) the main article.

If Prof Lungu wants to tell us about Ghana's place on the socialist-capitalist continuum, he can do so but a reaction to a minor comment (small print) of a writer who has written about something completely different is hardly the best way to do that.
Nsia 10 years ago

At the very top of this article you will see RE; that stands for Rejoinder. How long is a piece of string? you might call it a minor comment but such comment are uncalled- for. Just as people started calling Nkrumah a communi ...
read full comment

At the very top of this article you will see RE; that stands for Rejoinder. How long is a piece of string? you might call it a minor comment but such comment are uncalled- for. Just as people started calling Nkrumah a communist which is about as factual as I am an Eskimo. As Jimmy Carter, just pointed out recently.US is no longer a democracy but an Oligarchy. People like Pryce and co are so obsessed with US that anything that does not resonate with the US brand of capitalism is socialism.
Godd 10 years ago

... to an article. NOT to a comment!

"Re..." is said to originate from a Latin word indicating "again, back, anew, against"

So, if Prof Lungu is writing a re-joinder, it should properly be to a main article, not a "smal ...
read full comment

... to an article. NOT to a comment!

"Re..." is said to originate from a Latin word indicating "again, back, anew, against"

So, if Prof Lungu is writing a re-joinder, it should properly be to a main article, not a "small print" that not many people saw.

I maintain that the topic as to whether Ghana is a socialist state or not and Daniel maintaining that it is should properly belong to an independent article Prof Lungu writes, not a rejoinder to the article that Daniel wrote yesterday.

Nsia, note that I am not discussing whether Ghana is a socialist country or not.
Nsia 10 years ago

I have really enjoyed your civilized,mature and differential response in every conceivable way. CAUTION; The devil is always in the small print. Hahaha!!

I have really enjoyed your civilized,mature and differential response in every conceivable way. CAUTION; The devil is always in the small print. Hahaha!!
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

Nsia,
My latest comment tagged to Godd was also especially intended for you!

Thanks greatly for your voice!

Regards!!!!!!!!!!

Nsia,
My latest comment tagged to Godd was also especially intended for you!

Thanks greatly for your voice!

Regards!!!!!!!!!!
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

Godd/Nsia,
There are no formalities on this forum as far as we know. But, we will say that Ghanaweb has become a lot more reflective, lately. Policy matters do not engender a lot of hot air, we've found! (Good, they don't!). ...
read full comment

Godd/Nsia,
There are no formalities on this forum as far as we know. But, we will say that Ghanaweb has become a lot more reflective, lately. Policy matters do not engender a lot of hot air, we've found! (Good, they don't!).

To Godd,

By your several comments to our piece and Nsia’s comments, it is affirmed for us that a response to the Pryce comment on that page would have been a mighty waste of our time. In fact, we are not privy to how many people actually read that comment, or how many will read that comment in the future. But, in this age, a record is a record that is certainly an easily retrievable record. (We do not want to be too presumptuous on that point - that a comment is “minor” to an essay, a title, or vice versa).

So, if it is online, (on Ghanaweb, GhanHero.com, ModernGhana) wherever, whenever, whatever comments, articles, questions, are posted, we reserve the right to respond by a means of our own choosing, and at a time convenient for us. Therefore, again, if anyone cares, but missed the discourse on socialism and capitalism, they should please let us know: We can provide those people a list of articles that have covered that topic on Ghanaweb, in realistic, intellectually sound terms and form.

Or, they can write their own essays (on any subject, actually), and allow others to read and critique!
With all the confusion in governance and public policy, we will estimate that it is one of the biggest questions facing Ghanaians. How much of which, when, how, why! This is an important - no trivial question. In a sense, it is the Mount Afadjato-sized elephant in the “room” called Ghana.

From our perspective still, “Ghana is a socialist state as much as Ghana is also Muslim State, even just as Ghana is also an African Priest State!”.

Finally, we try to make our position on matters of importance to public policy and governance in Unitary Ghana known. We do that, freely, by way of original Essays, Rejoinders, and Retorts, unlimited. In that sense, depending fully on your perspective, you may decide which one of the latter two “Re”s fits. Hopefully, when you do, it will put some of your qualifiers (necessary!, main!, best!, minor!, etc.), in better context for all to see, and know.

But surely - Daniel Pryce also has freedom to believe and write what he wants, as you do too!

Thanks Nsia!

Thanks Godd!

Greetings!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Godd 10 years ago

As you saw, I didn't read the "small print" (actually, it's even less than that). If I had, my comment would have been different. I think Kwame Dziko also saw your piece as disjointed because he may have missed the point abou ...
read full comment

As you saw, I didn't read the "small print" (actually, it's even less than that). If I had, my comment would have been different. I think Kwame Dziko also saw your piece as disjointed because he may have missed the point about the idea expressed in the comment.

Anyway, your rejoinder also took on other points in the main article for which my comments will remain the same.

And, anyway again, I have a comment attached to your comment to K. B. Asante's piece calling for judges to be treated equally. But I can't seem to find that article again...
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

Godd,
There are a few other things in the Dr. Pryce essay we could have addressed in ours. We chose not to spend any more time. (See Francis Kwarteng's, above, for a treatment).

Further, who is it that said "RE:" is "Rejo ...
read full comment

Godd,
There are a few other things in the Dr. Pryce essay we could have addressed in ours. We chose not to spend any more time. (See Francis Kwarteng's, above, for a treatment).

Further, who is it that said "RE:" is "Rejoinder?

Although we are not the front office type, in business and in matters even online, technically "RE" means "Reference", as in, "In reference to..."

But, if you, Godd, wants it to be "Rejoinder", you sure can.

Others, however, may even look at it as a "Retort": Just sharp-edged/witty. But they must have capacity to understand the ideas, which are more than one (1))).

Thanks.

Prof Lungu 10 years ago

Readers,
On account of the importance of this subject, we will post the final paper, with graphics, at www.GhanaHero.com, in about 6 more hours, or sooner,

See it at www.GhanaHero.com/Visions

(See Under Prof Lungu Says ...
read full comment

Readers,
On account of the importance of this subject, we will post the final paper, with graphics, at www.GhanaHero.com, in about 6 more hours, or sooner,

See it at www.GhanaHero.com/Visions

(See Under Prof Lungu Says...)

Peace!
Prof Lungu 10 years ago

As we normally do, the final paper, with graphics....

www.ghanahero.com/Visions/

(See under Prof Lungu Says....):

PEACE!

As we normally do, the final paper, with graphics....

www.ghanahero.com/Visions/

(See under Prof Lungu Says....):

PEACE!
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Title: "Bernie Sanders Is Not A ‘Socialist.’ That Title Belongs To George W. Bush”

Author: H.A. Goodman.

Source: Huffington Post, Aug. 27, 2015).

The article fundamentally exposes the hypocrisy of Western cap ...
read full comment

Title: "Bernie Sanders Is Not A ‘Socialist.’ That Title Belongs To George W. Bush”

Author: H.A. Goodman.

Source: Huffington Post, Aug. 27, 2015).

The article fundamentally exposes the hypocrisy of Western capitalists and their free-market fundamentalists. Our leaders should know better and approach their political economies from the standpoint of pragmatism. Read on:

“When George W. Bush signed TARP legislation on October 3, 2008, the Republican president engaged in the definition of socialism.

“In reality, true socialism combines government and tax dollars with the ownership of private industry, as indicated by the following definition from Merriam-Webster:

“Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”

“Therefore, let's take a closer look at who called for "major industries" to be "owned" by the government, and who is working to prevent this debacle from once again taking place. Ironically, while the Wall Street bailouts began under George W. Bush, it's Bernie Sanders who's labeled a "socialist" for wanting to prevent yet another costly and devastating collapse.

“According to The New York Times, the U.S. government's "direct investments in financial institutions" totaled roughly $9 trillion by 2011, with initial "commitments" of around $12 trillion. Because of America's willingness to inject taxpayer money into struggling corporations, the U.S. government became an "investor," "insurer," and "lender" to Wall Street and other segments of the economy. Numerous corporations that were once owned by shareholders were eventually partially owned, for a brief time, by "We the People."

“After years of politicians, media and investors pumping billions into stock market and real estate bubbles, Wall Street eventually tanked and came begging for government stimulus in the form of Goldman Sachs Socialism.

“George W. Bush, not Bernie Sanders, is the real "socialist" of our generation, primarily because the economy collapsed under his tenure and as a result, the conservative president began an ongoing program of government stimulus into various industries. The 2008 financial collapse resulted in $29 trillion of federal bailout commitments, the partial nationalization of nine major banks, and the "means of production" (pertaining to some of the biggest corporations on the planet) partially owned by the U.S. government. Ultimately, the financial crisis cost the U.S. over $22 trillion and we're still feeling its repercussions today. This foray into the true definition of socialism began under Bush and continued with Obama, culminating with Citigroup ensuring that a 2014 spending bill allowed for future bailouts.

“When Clinton supporter Senator Claire McCaskill says, "I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he's a socialist," she also forgets to mention that Missouri banks received $641 million in TARP money.

“This is socialism.

“Not only do people confuse the definition of socialism, but they've also ignored the definition of hypocrisy.

“It seems that everyone from Senator McCaskill and Chris Matthews to people like Bill O'Reilly don't understand that modern American socialism begins with Bush signing TARP legislation on October 3, 2008. After George W. Bush signed this legislation, the U.S. government not only controlled certain Wall Street corporations that used to be controlled by shareholders, but Bush's decision also paved the way for bailing out the automotive industry. In 2008, a Republican administration prevented the free market from drowning in debt and government stimulus was the life preserver.

“While Republicans and Clinton supporters attack Bernie Sanders for being a "socialist," they conveniently forget that Vermont's Senator voted against the Wall Street bailouts. Sanders also predicted the eventual economic catastrophe in 1999, when he voted against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. He again echoed these same fears in 2003, when he blasted Alan Greenspan for Wall Street's excesses and America's growing wealth inequality.

“In reality, the "socialist" from Vermont voted against the partial nationalization of banks and corporations in 2008. Conversely, a Republican president initiated the $700 billion bailout bill, and President Obama continued with the rescue of Wall Street.

“In American politics, it's the free market enthusiasts who've willingly accepted the partial nationalization of corporations while simultaneously fighting any regulations that could have prevented this catastrophe. Those who oppose such recklessness are labeled as either socialists, or anti-business.

“In 1999, when Sanders voted against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, he can be seen in this video of his speech to Congress accurately predicting the eventual 2008 collapse. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Sanders favors a renewed Glass-Steagall Act and vows to break up the "Too Big To Fail" banks that were partially nationalized by the federal government. Ironically, even though he's fought to prevent government control of industry, Sanders is considered a socialist by the same people who eagerly bailed out these institutions.

“Like his vote against the Iraq War (where he predicted the dire consequences of removing Saddam Hussein and America engaging in the largest counterinsurgency war since Vietnam), Sanders foreshadowed an economic breakdown because he was able to see the writing on the wall. Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and every other candidate in 2016 didn't have the wisdom or foresight to warn against the impending catastrophe. As with Iraq, Sanders was on the right side of history.

“True, the Vermont Senator uses the phrase "democratic-socialist." However, that wording has an entirely different meaning from the political attack leveled against him by Senator Claire McCaskill and others. Conservative talk show hosts might equate free public college tuition with Stalin's gulags, or single-payer healthcare to Trotsky’s ghost, but these policy objectives are no more linked to socialism than the Social Security checks cashed by the average Tea Party member.

“After close to eight years of Republicans accusing President Obama of being a socialist (and far more egregious terms), it's striking that certain Democrats would accuse Bernie Sanders in the same manner when he's clearly stated the words, "democratic-socialist." Even then, within the context of its meaning, Sanders would be considered a staunch capitalist to democratic-socialists in Europe. Also, to many Republicans, all Democrats are socialists, so the phrase has lost its sting after years of overuse.

“Furthermore, Democrats have two choices in 2016. Bernie Sanders offers voters a genuine change from Republicans and mainstream Democrats when it comes to politicians catering to the "billionaire class." Or, there's Hillary Clinton's well-publicized ties to Wall Street and various investment banks. According to a POLITICO article titled "Why Wall Street Loves Hillary Clinton," the former Secretary of State's allegiance to big banks is something voters should take into account in 2016:

"I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve it," Clinton said to cheers. But then, awkwardly, she appeared to try to out-Warren Warren--and perhaps build a bridge too far to the left--by uttering words she clearly did not believe...
But here's the strange thing: Down on Wall Street they don't believe it for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president.

“To them, she's someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.

“According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I spoke to for this article, Clinton's rock-solid support on Wall Street is not anything that can be dislodged based on a few seemingly off-the-cuff comments in Boston calculated to protect her left flank.

“So, according to this POLITICO article, "the big bankers love Clinton" and "they badly want her to be president." This correlates to the fact that four of Clinton's top five donors since 1999 are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. Since 1999, these firms have helped Clinton raise $376, 309,659, therefore it's safe to say that if one or all of them risk bankruptcy, Hillary Clinton and others would come to their defense, arguing that a one-time foray into socialism (in the form of a bailout) is needed to prevent an economic collapse.

“Bernie Sanders isn't a "socialist." Those who'd eagerly inject billions of federal dollars into failed corporations are infinitely more "socialist" than the Vermont Senator. Furthermore, Vox has a wonderful conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders (where he explains the meaning of "democratic-socialist") that naysayers should watch, lest they continue their ignorant claims against Vermont's Senator.

“In reality, the heart of the Democratic Party has always been full of democratic-socialists, and FDR is a prime example. In 2016, Bernie Sanders could be our next democratic-socialist in the White House, which ironically would be a greater step away from the costly Goldman Sachs Socialism adopted by the Bush administration.”

SOURCE:

www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-is-not-a-socialist_b_8047266.html

23 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

RE: Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Judges:....Stranger in “Jerusalem”!

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (23)

Read Comments Comments (23)