If you’ve read the blog lately, you know that a lot of what I have been posting has been the political philosophy of my leftist idealism. This philosophy is based upon the notion that the top 3% wealthiest people of this country have hijacked the political power and influence of the people and that it will require a social revolution in order to restore a proper social balance. My politics are based upon this underlying notion. And the job of a leftist radical is to keep the government in check by putting outside pressure on the established system in order to create change. This mission is ongoing regardless of what party or what president is in office.
So, when I speak of a particular political figure, be it in vain or in agreement with, I do it only in the name of advancing the revolution. Part of being a radical is also being a pragmatist and not to copping out by giving yourself up to the populist movements of society. That is the reason why I have a deep distrust both for the conservative panderers who work to maintain the status quo and the liberal politically correct who only want to create symbolic change so that we’ll misinterpret the actual state of things.
I share many concepts with socialist and communist radicals, but I do not advocate either political institution. The reason why many left-leaning people today who support a “liberal” agenda are being demonized as socialists is because it is an easy way for conservatives to copout and deem those individuals who want to change the system as being dangerous. This way, they are able to scare enough people in the middle to maintain the power necessary to prevent change. If the middle remains complacent, then the balance of things stays the same and the status quo is preserved.
The reality is that revolutionaries like myself are not communists at all, but, rather, “Democraticists” that see the current condition of our democracy in a state of great inequality. The comparison to Communism only exists because most of the literature that a radical can find in relation to social revolution is that of the socialist and communist upheavals. This is not to say that every radical is a communist or a socialist, but that every radical is most likely schooled in the ideals of socialist thought as it relates to our current class, economic, and political system.
It is with these ideas that I encourage you, Friends of Freemont, to be weary of such copout tactics of both conservatives and liberals. Examples of such can clearly be seen this week in the NAACP’s discussion of possible Tea Party racism buttressed by the far right agenda of these political newcomers who continue to veil their greed for power with the idea that an unchanging Constitution will benefit everyone equally and the concept that organizing for the purpose of political change is a communistic ritual. Here, the liberals remain attached to the tactics of the past and are not thinking creatively to find new ways to affect the nature of the system. They are either too dumb to realize this or they are apathetic and comfortable with the continued state of things. By the same token, the Tea Party far right conservatives have no answers to our current social problems, but they find a threat in the possible upheaval of our social order. As such, they use scare tactics that are packaged with the unifying concepts of patriotism and pride. In this way, both sides are blurring our image of the social order and preventing us from advancing the revolutionary agenda.
And until we are able to recognize these realities and use our Democratic influence to change the current social structure, we will continue to be ruled by the powerful few and will eventually drown in our own apathy.
- Freemont Barrington
in order to find him some loyal house crackers.
(his new name yet to be determined).