Clear your social calendar folks, on April 15–the day us little folks sweat over getting their tax returns in–venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, who you may know better for his “Uber for Jetliners” fame, will be hosting a humble little shindig for Goldwater Girl Hillary Clinton. While Shervin is hosting the soiree, the real celebrities raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign will be George and Amal Clooney, who are big supporters of the Hill.
It is one of those affairs where, if you have to ask the price, you can’t afford it; but since everybody but EVERYBODY with a net worth over $10 Mill will be there, we will let you in on the ticket prices anyhow. For the top tier tickets, which includes sitting at the head table with former Walmart Board Member Hillary and Hollywood royalty, it is a mere $353,400 a ticket, and that includes Slick Willie as well as Slick Hillary, so you see it is a bargain indeed–why its like having your own Goldman Sachs speech event!
Now for the hoi polloi who can only come up with $100 grand per person, why they will let you into the “Host Reception” which still features the Clintons and the Clooneys. It is economy class but, what the hey, some of the glamour may yet rub off on you
But lest you think this is just for the One Percenters, the Clintons –always thinking of the little people,–will for a mere $30,000 cash in hand, will let you have your photo taken with Her Majesty Hillary. After which the bouncers will grab you by the scruff of the neck and eject you out the back door, and please don’t scuff the steps as you tumble down them.
Now, in all fairness, all this is perfectly legitimate and legal and both billionaire Pishevar and the Clooneys are no doubt sincere and dedicated in their support of Hillary Clinton. Unlike the vote rigging in Arizona, or the insider sabotage in Massachusetts, or the odd discrepancies in exit polls vs recorded vote in a number of Hillary’s wins, this is all on the up and up and legal.
But compare this with the Sanders fundraisers: $27 from a housewife here, $10 from a college graduate up to their ears in student loan debt, smaller change from a kid’s piggy bank. The populist and plebian nature of the Sanders campaign contrasts sharply with that of Hillary’s diligent courting of Wall Street and the Billionaire Class. Oh, by the way, Queen Hillary still won’t reveal the text of her speeches made before Bear Stearns and other Bankster Wall Street firms.
Now, interestingly, the money she is raising from all these well-heeled West Coast types does not go directly into her campaign coffers–she has plenty of special interest and PAC money for that. No, Ms. PAC Woman will be giving the largesse from this exclusive tea party to The Hillary Victory Fund, which will in turn dole out money to the DNC and assorted state party groups, ostensibly to help get a full slate of Dems elected to Congress this fall. This is indeed a worthy goal; but if you don’t think that all that money going to party stalwarts isn’t going to grease the palms of “Super Delegates” to assure they vote for Hillary, regardless of what their state’s voters want–well, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And you won’t have to pay $353,400 for it.
As for the Bay Area party-goers, no doubt a few precious minutes with Bill and Hill may be worth the price of admission to some without any quid pro quo, but what do you want to bet that, having kissed the Godfather & Godmother’s rings, once they assume the throne in the White House, these millionaire and billionaire acolytes will be coming around for favors? Hey, Yo! I got an offer youse can’t refuse!
George and Amal Clooney have been sincere and dedicated supporters of human rights and more recently of the refugee rights of those who have been forced to flee the horrific war in Syria. This is not to question their honesty or sincerity: but are they aware that it was none other than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who goaded President Obama to directly intervene in Syria with the goal of regime change to start with? Or that her other hawkish interventionist policies as both Senator and Secretary have been equally disastrous? And we won’t even get into her covert support of murder squads in Central America. America and Obama are far better off with Kerry as Secretary of State, although the damage hawkish Hillary has done can’t be undone.
Much of the blame for the refugee crisis can be laid directly at the perfectly pedicured feet of Wall Street Hillary. Her blunders as Secretary of State have been carefully overlooked by the mainstream media, since she touts her foreign affairs expertise as her main claim to fame; yet her record in that sphere is awful, even without the GOP fabricating lies about it.
For more on this exclusive Billionaire Bonanza, read the Gawker article or see the Secular Talk spot on it.
“Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold”
It still remains to be seen whether the presidential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders in 2016 was just an outlier or the beginning of a major sea-change in American politics. Regardless, it would be good at this juncture to reflect on Socialism and its role in American history.
While the history of American Socialism is not exactly a deep secret, most Americans, even academics, have a very poor understanding of what it is and was. Whatever one may think of it as a political and economic movement, the chances are you are wrong in your assumptions, good or bad. At best, most know that Bernie Sanders is far from being the first socialist to appear on the American scene; but how far back does Socialist, much less Communist, economic behavior go?
—–Think it was members of the American Communist Party in the 1930’s? They were outspoken, militant and slavishly devoted to Joe Stalin, and most people during the Cold War associated them with disloyalty and treason; but no, they were hardly the first or only ones to advocate some kind of socialist solution.
—–How About the Socialists active during Gilded Age and the early 1900’s? Well, there were a bunch of folks active in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; they were instrumental in the early labor movement and as mayors of cities and congressmen they had a spotless reputation for honesty and good government; but no they were not the first. But when Woodrow Wilson, pseudo-Progressive and friend of the second Klu Klux Klan lied us into World War, the Socialist opposed him and their political rights were brutally and unconstitutionally suppressed, Guess again.
—–How About the Civil War Era, were they the first? You’re getting warmer. There were a whole bunch of people who espoused some kind of Socialism and were active in Abolitionism as well. To a man they volunteered to fight for the Union and helped rescue our nation from disunion, disloyalty and slavery; but no, they weren’t the first, not by a longshot.
—–How About the Early decades of the Nineteenth Century, were there Socialists around during the Early Republic? Yes, there were and in addition to those espousing political ideas, many organized communes were established as bold social and intellectual experiments, reminiscent of the Hippie communes of the 1960’s. But no, sorry no brass ring; they weren’t the first.
OK. If you’re still with me, let me clue you in: not only is Socialism as American as apple pie and Thanksgiving Turkey, its origins in America go back to the very English first settlements–assuming, of course, we don’t include Native Americans, who lived successfully lived in communities without private property going back to the Mesolithic Era here. It was, in fact, the early settlers of New England who first practiced Socialism, folk whom you may know as the Pilgrims.
Actually, there were two groups of early settlers in New England, the ones we call Pilgrims (although they didn’t use that name) and the Puritans; the Plymouth Bay Colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony respectively. According to my family’s genealogists we claim ancestors in both groups, although the lineage is a bit convoluted. Regardless, these early settlers are usually held up as models of the Protestant Work Ethic and cited as positive role models for the Capitalist Way, which is a popular lie you no doubt were told in grammar school.
Protestants they were, and pretty austere ones at that, but they also did something modern Bible thumpers rarely seem to do; they read all the passages of the Bible, not just the ones that were convenient or suited some media evangelist’s get rich quick gospel. If you get deeply into both the Old and New Testaments, you will find quite a bit there that does not jibe too well with modern notions of Capitalism and big business. The Bible has things like, oh, a progressive income tax (OT), or, say, passages where it tells you to give all your possessions to the poor and follow Jesus (NT); stuff like that.
Eventually, of course, Mammon won out over Jehovah with the Puritans and they became prosperous smugglers, merchants, manufacturers, whalers, transporters of slaves and assorted other activities that made one filthy rich but are not particularly good for the soul.
If you travel through New England, you will still find at least one vestige of the region’s socialist roots. Just about every little town or village has a “commons” and, of course, the Boston Commons is well known to residents of Beantown. Originally, every community’s land was held in “common” and distributed according to the town Elders’ dictates.
Across the state line in New York, the center of town is usually called the village “green” (as in “Tavern on the Green”) which is short for Bowling Green. Of course, the Dutch in New Amsterdam were fond of their bowling and would play Nine-Pins in the town square whenever weather allowed while quaffing the product of a nearby inn or tavern. In Puritan New England, such merriment was strictly forbidden; hard work and prayer substituted for singing, dancing and gaming, although alcohol was still allowed in moderation.
When the Pilgrims first arrived in 1620, they did not have an easy time of it. They did not arrive off the New England until November of that year, far too late for growing any crops and that first winter nearly half of the 102 colonists died. Of more interest for our concern was the fact that, at first, everything that the colony produced was pooled together and held in the “common storehouse” at one end of the Plymouth settlement. This system was in force for the first couple of years, partly out of necessity: the colony was facing starvation for first few seasons, and more indigent immigrants arrived by boat from England, but the extra mouths to feed were not accompanied by enough supplies to provide for them. The Plymouth colonists at one point were reduced to stealing parched corn from a local Indian tribe to avoid starving.
This communal system did not sit well with some of the more able bodied males in the colony, many of whom had migrated in hopes of making their fortune in the New World and not for religious reasons (they were called “the Strangers” by the more religious) and had no desire to provide for other men’s wives and children. Governor Bradford and the English backers of the enterprise abolished the system of the common storehouse in 1623 and land was divided among settlers to farm individually. However, the colony still retained communal title to the land even though it was farmed separately, and all the tools were still held in collectively and doled out as needed. Moreover, meadowlands for the grazing of livestock were still managed in common, plus fishing, hunting and fowling rights were held in common as well, so the concept of private property and ownership still remained a weak one for some years.
The story of the early days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, (begun by the Puritans, a different religious sect than the Congregationalist Pilgrims), was not dissimilar to that of the Plymouth colony, save that they were even more austere and, well, more puritanical. Moreover, the Puritan colony was planned from the start as a theocracy; in theory, not man, but God, ruled the Puritan communities. This Utopian society was intended to be an example to the world–as Governor Winthrop put it, “as a city upon a hill”–and it was to be organized along socialist–albeit Biblical socialist–lines. While initially centrally planned and organized by the Puritan leaders in England, as the colony grew, each new unit was set up as an individual community, semi-autonomous, and socialistic in its economic organization.
Each new township established by the Puritan elders had about six to ten square miles of land, effectively some 30 to 40 thousand acres, and each resident of a township had access to the community’s common pasturage. There was no particular ideology at work here, however, it was just the best way to organize a Godly community and, in many cases, they were simply continuing the traditional open field system they’d known in the Old Country, itself was a holdover from the middle ages. The main difference was that they were working the fields in common for their own benefit, not for some oppressive lord or noble.
As time went on, and austere virtue began giving way to unelightened self-interest and greed, regulating the fair and proper use of the common lands of the New England communities became more and more bothersome for beleaguered town elders having to discipline those who took more than their fair share.
In the end, the fact that most of the land in New England was ill suited to intensive farming probably had more influence in the breakdown of Puritan agrarian socialism than the economic superiority of “Capitalism” (which didn’t yet exist) or any other economic theory.
Many frugal Yankees found that building ships and transporting goods across the open seas was far more rewarding than the backbreaking work of being a Jabez Stone style farmer in a rock filled field. Moreover, it became a firm tenet of Puritan belief that material wealth was Jehovah’s way of rewarding the virtuous–and by the end of the seventeenth century, Yankee merchants had become very virtuous indeed.
But while greed ultimately triumphed over virtue in the Puritan heart, it should never be forgotten that the edifice of their later prosperity was firmly rooted in the solid foundations which Puritan Socialism laid. Indeed, the “City on a Hill” that is America owes farmore to early American Socialism in all its forms than most historians and popular pundits are still willing to concede.