Leninism's Return

Mark Schmitt argues that the center-right "Taking Back Our Fiscal Future" document discussed yesterday is the Stuart Butler's Leninist Strategy (PDF) for destroying Social Security in a new Popular Front phase.

Certainly the "centrist" elements of this team seem to be making a good run at being useful idiots. Why, if you're interested in balanced budgets, would you team up with folks like Butler who supported Bush's budget-busting tax cuts. The "balanced budgets are the most important thing in the world when Democrats are in power, but don't matter at all when there's a Republican President worldview" has a certain logic to it, but it's not one anyone who claims to be any sort of progressive ought to embrace.

Photo by Flickr user wordcat used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

"balanced budgets are the most important thing in the world when Democrats are in power, but don't matter at all when there's a Republican President worldview"

There is a certain logic to this worldview. It only really makes sense if you're a really rich investor, but in that context it really does make sense. I have a friend who is a professional investor and fabulously wealthy. His attitude is this: "I make money when the market goes up and when it goes down, it's when markets aren't moving that I can't make money." He doesn't really care at all about the health of our economy because someone's economy is always doing well and he can invest there. He recognizes the importance of fiscal responsibility for our economy, but he's a global trader, so it doesn't matter to him. But when the Republicans are in power, they lower his taxes, so he gets more money. And so what if it destroys our economy? That's not where his money is, anyway. In fact, it helps him because his liabilities are measured in US dollars while his assets are measured in more valuable currencies. He does have a heart, however, and votes Democrat. He does so because he can make even more money under Democratic rule, but he has to pay more taxes. So it's pretty much a wash for him. Except that he recognizes that it's actually in his Karmic interest to not hurt people. So he's a Democrat. But he'll make money whoever is elected. He always has.

Posted by fostert | July 10, 2008 7:01 PM

This stuff is so exasperating. I strongly disagree with the policies being proposed, but I can at least understand how a reasonable person could support them. The underlying framing, though, is just indefensible.

You basically have a bunch of well-off right-leaning types who'd rather have a smaller government than the one we have now. But since they know that's an unpopular stance, they wrap it in a bunch of psuedo-wonkery about how the US, the wealthiest country in the world, and one with a proportionally smaller government than pretty much any other rich country, is 'forced' to contract its welfare state.

If you want to make the case that doing so would mean higher growth, more freedom, whatever, I'll still disagree with you, but it's a case you can make.

But this technocratic end-around is deeply dishonest and deeply undemocratic. And shame, shame, shame on anyone from Brookings for signing on to this dreck.

Posted by bh | July 10, 2008 7:17 PM

C'mon Matt. You know if you're going to make an omelet you've got to break some eggs.

Posted by robert powell | July 10, 2008 7:40 PM

"And shame, shame, shame on anyone from Brookings for signing on to this dreck."

Amen, brother. I'm doing fine, but I have the money to do so. But if you don't have the money for international investments, you really don't want the Republicans in control. Instead, you want the local businesses to be prosperous. What good is a 1% tax cut when you get a 15% pay cut? I'm lucky, because everyone in the world wants what I can offer. And the UAE and Qatar are willing to pay me far more than what I'm paid here. But most Americans have to play with the American economy that's dealt to them. You'd think they'd vote to keep the table hot. I can go to any table I want, so it doesn't really matter to me. But I'd rather work here. So I'd rather see the American economy do well.

Posted by fostert | July 10, 2008 7:53 PM

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 10, 2008 7:59 PM

"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face" - Thomas Sowell

Posted by Mixner | July 10, 2008 8:34 PM

I didn't know Jonah had fans on this blog! Mixner, have you gotten your copy of 'Liberal Fascism' signed yet?

Posted by James Hare | July 10, 2008 8:43 PM

Sowell: Galbraith :: Rasho Nesterovic : Bill Russell

Posted by kth | July 10, 2008 8:52 PM

Sowell:Galbraith:: Ryan Leaf: Brett Favre

Posted by Waingro | July 10, 2008 10:43 PM

Mixner is a twit whose knee jerk hatred of liberals is his entire persona.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 10, 2008 11:44 PM

He doesn't really care at all about the health of our economy because someone's economy is always doing well and he can invest there.

lol, absurdity

Thank god your friend cares about people.

These left of center think tanks must be crazy or they might be hedging so as not to adopt a counter proposal that would make right of center cliques want to obstruct ALL of their proposal.

Perhaps an intelligent, college educated population that's driven to increasingly go local as opposed to global, is equipped with the knowledge to control their own capital for retirement. When they control their own capital they can invest it where they want and not where the government and pension funds want. And they inevitably will funnel that capital to global over local.

You all might be crazy, I might be too, but I won't fret for one second when you put your retirement capital where you want to put it.

The progressive movement shouldn't be trying to implement solutions they already tried a century ago, that failed. The concentration of capital in the hands of a government owned by corporations or run by the people has brought you the same ending. You should focus on how to put capital currently in control by the few -- be it Inc's, LLC's, or governments -- into the hands of the many. The more time you waste trying to reign in the wealthiest tax bracket the more time you give them to pay you lip service as they move their capital around the globe to hide it from you.

Remember fostert's friend. There are hundreds of thousands of people just like that.

Posted by Gabriel Sutherland | July 11, 2008 12:06 AM

Alright, I've got to ask: what if neither soldier standing otside the doors of AEHNH cares whether the other soldier tries something funny or not? Then they're guarding each other for no reason, kind of like the branches of our federal government.

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM

neither soldier standing outside the doors of AEHNH

That's "Lenin" in the Cyrillic alphabet. And they're honor guards--I doubt anyone would steal an 80-year old corpse . . .

Posted by rea | July 11, 2008 6:23 AM

From Frederick Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative":

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change 'orderly.' This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks.
. . .
Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened, rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."

Posted by DTM | July 11, 2008 7:48 AM

Leninism is much overused as a metaphor by people who really know very little about V.I. or his party.

For one thing, if the "Leninist" enemies of Social Security were entering a "Popular Front" phase, that would be cause for celebration. That strategy was not particularly successful, after all... the fascists won in Germany and Spain.

Following the link, I get this phrase from the right-wingers describing what they themselves identify as their own "Leninist" strategy:

"guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it"

Guerrilla warfare really has nothing much to do with Leninism, in classic form. Maybe they were thinking of Mao? I understand it may be hard to keep these various Communists straight, but really, one can do better than this.

(For those interested in real information on Leninism as a political strategy, I recommend Paul LeBlanc's book Leninism and the Revolutionary Party.)

Posted by Kalkin | July 11, 2008 2:38 PM

Kalkin that is a total misreading of what Butler and Germanis meant by 'Leninist'. It had nothing to do with guerilla warfare per se. Did you actually follow the link? Because they explain their point right in the opening paragraph:

Marx believed that capitalism was doomed by its inherent contradictions, and that it would inevitably collapse—to be replaced by the next stage on the ladder leading to the socialist Utopia. Lenin also believed that capitalism was doomed by its inherent contradictions, and would inevitably collapse. But just to be on the safe side, he sought to mobilize the working class, in alliance with other key elements in political society, both to hasten the collapse and to ensure that the result conformed with his interpretation of the proletarian state. Unlike many other socialists at the time, Lenin recognized that fundamental change is contingent both upon a movement’s ability to create a focused political coalition and upon its
success in isolating and weakening its opponents.
As we contemplate basic reform of the Social Security system, we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy.

Butler and Germanis then proceed to set forth the steps that would be needed to both combine and divide various parts of society to ensure that when the next crisis came (and I think they seriously believed it would) that they would have a replacement mechanism in place. But the whole thing has a lot more to do with Revolutionary Vanguardism than guerilla war.

By the way all progressives should read this particular piece. In it Butler and Germanis lay out what turned out to be one of the most successful marketing plans in history. About 90% of what people 'know' about Social Security is found as a talking point in Achieving a "Leninist" Strategy. In particular you could cut and paste from it and recreate pretty much every Bush/McCain speech on Social Security. These guys supplied the script and the Economic Right followed it to the letter with almost overwhelming success. Lenin as marketer. Cynical but very, very successful.

Posted by Bruce Webb | July 12, 2008 1:52 PM