NYology: Bob Herbert

We have Kremlinology, now for NYology. Usually New York Times columnist Bob Herbert comes off as a standard loyal Democrat, sort of a reference point.

Today he has a column that rings Lyndon LaRouche bells.(1) One might try comparing with a Lyndon LaRouche column.(2)

There are two things we agree with LaRouche about — his relatively good stand within the Democratic Party on Iran, opposing the attacks. The other is that he is right that the type of politics the Democrats represent has historically paved the way to fascism via corporatism. And like MIM, LaRouche is correct that corporatists don’t care about party labels.

Even now when it is clearer than ever there is no Amerikan proletariat, dogmatic social-fascists cling to their gradualist entitlement dogmas. This clears the way for the Disneyization of politics — corporatism. LaRouche combats this trend through an odd array of stories and by offering similar packages through other means.

At this time, there is an additional economic question. As former auto titans bite the dust, how does one tackle large-scale economic projects becomes the question. Sure the renewable energy sector can wait for start-up money, but if even the gigantic auto companies could not do their job, it seems private sector initiatives probably are not up to the infrastructure gap, an even bigger problem of more widely understood parameters, unlike the renewable energy sector.

We’re inclined to agree with LaRouche on this one question, that once the corporatist ball is rolling, whether it is started by Obama or anyone else who thinks he is not a fascist, the easiest way to keep it rolling within U.$. cultural limits could very well be fascism. 

The problem is we do not have the socialist culture of large scale projects to draw on in the united $tates. LaRouche says FDR did some, but it is the FDR Democrats also most confused about corporatism. Rohaytn and LaRouche are both working in the same narrow niche where there is no progressive vehicle and the result is likely to be the same whichever wins the infrastructure argument over corporatism.

A handful of sociologists in the Racist Crap Party circles deserves some scrutiny along these lines, with their ideas about advancing social-democracy through mob tactics or expanded government payrolls. Clearly all these folks are just lost and making desperate excuses for having no proletariat.

It’s supposed to be about taking the risk of taking on the army and police and then the risk of living with the consequences of running your own businesses. If there is no class already doing that at least in some ineffectual or misguided way, mob tactics, lynching, backstabbing and corporatism are not the forward march of history. Even in a time when there was a proletariat fighting in the streets of Germany Stalin said there was such a thing as “social-fascism.” He turned out right. Some people still don’t get it, but that’s the decadence of imperialism.

Fear of small risks links countless fascist racist projects together — lynching, children seeing Janet Jackson’s breasts and terrorists under every bed for example. Hollywood has historically capitalized on such fears while missing the big things we should really fear. Corporatism is the economics of the capitalist slide into decadence, the period of time when the entrepreneurial drive is vastly overhadowed by sanitized corporatist politics. In U.$. history, there is no excusing the genocide against indigenous people, but in the Wild West, even white people had a sense of risk and the 2nd Amendment meant something even as a counterweight against white tyranny against whites. The economic concentration of power since the days of individual farmers receives reinforcement from mothers with children who enter politics and demand, what else, but child-safe politics. For this we need the antidote of revolutionary feminism and for the class politics we need a fully internationalist outlook. Rather than spending all our time beating our heads against the walls in an insane asylum, we should look for outside help. Amerikans simply do not have the answers within their existing economic and social culture. We won’t be able to fix things overnight, but we can maneuver for faster outside help. We should reduce the risks of mostly Amerikan men fighting abroad, but when they come back it should be on account of a politics of risk, not so Disney can inform them how to help children not to chomp on the wrong toys. True, Disney is a private enterprise, not directly state-capitalized. Likewise, the auto companies were private initiatives. It just goes to show that the underlying problem is decadence. If infrastructure corporatism arises, it will defend itself via Disneyization and do an even better and larger job than Disney.


1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24herbert.html?_r=1

2. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3512rohatyn_treason.html

%d bloggers like this: