Most Americans would likely be surprised to know that, according to a respected international poll taken in 2022, far more Chinese (83%) perceive China to be democratic than Americans (49%) perceive the US to be.
2022 년에 실시된 한 권위잇는 국제 여론 조사에 따르면, 미국인 (49 %)들이 미국을 민주적이다 생각하는 것 보다 훨씬 더 많은 중국인 (83 %)들이 중국을 민주주의로 인식한다고 나왓다..
이런 여론 조사를 보고 자유진영의 사람들은 말 하지요....
-짱꼴라들은 아직 민주주의 가 뭔지, 자유가 뭔지도 모른다...
-중국에서 여론 조사에 함부러 답 햇다간 쥐소 새도 모르게 처분된다..
그런데 기묘한 것은...
쥐도 새도 모르게 사라졋다는 사람들은 엉뚱한 곳에서 불쑥불쑥 말짱하게 튀어 나옵니다.
북한 탈북자들은 기본적으로 서너번 부활을 합니다......
예수가 이들을 보면 자신의 무능과 부활 사기질에 탄복을 할 일 입니다..
45년 해방이 되고 48년 정부가 수립되엇고 50년 한국전쟁이 일어낫습니다.
중국놈들이 자유가 뭔지 민주주의가 뭔지 좆도 모른다고 나발 거린 것이라면
한국인들은 도대체 딱 2년동안 어떻게 자유 민주주의를 공부 햇고, 어떻게 그것의 그 찬란한 아름다운 가치를 알아서니..
목숨을 걸고 그 자유 민주주의를 지키기 위해 싸웟다고 ..그리고 듣기 싫게 악악거리는 것일까요??
또,,,,말이 나와서 말이지..
미국인들은 자유가 무엇인지, 민주주의가 무엇인지 압니까??
영국놈들은 자유 민주주의가 뭔지 그리도 잘 알아서니...그리도 많은 식민지를 만들고 그리도 악질적인 착취를 햇답니까??
2023년, 21세기 대명천지에서는 자유가 먼지, 민주주의가 먼지 알아??....
처 먹은 뇌물이 뽀록나자 죶 같다며 입 앙당 처 물고 뛰어 내려 되진놈이 민주주의 투사냐??
이젠 해도 바꿧쓰니 ...이제는 저딴 미친개 지저 되는 소리 따윈 그만 지저 될 수 없나?
And while culture war rationales were amongst the choices available to Americans to explain the difference, they chose ‘corruption’ (78%), ‘corporate control of the political system’ (72%), and the ‘power of Big Tech’ (66%) as the leading explanations for the dearth of democracy in the US.
미국인들은 부패와 자본의 정치 지배, 빅택기업의 힘 등등을 미국 민주주의의 저해요인으로 보앗습니다.
한국의 민주주의라고 무슨 차이가 잇겟습니까??..
미국인들의 78%가 미국의 부패가 미국의 민주주의를 망가뜨리고 잇다고 대답햇습니다.
즉.....미국이 부패 국가라는 것인데...........
옴마야...이건 대체 뭔 개소리??
그렇다면 심심하면 미국을 들먹거리며 미국을 따라하지 못한 우리를 후진국, 아직도 먼 나라 따위로....한숨 쉬며 나발 거리고 잇는 그대들은 뭔 개 지뤌들 떨고 계섯던 것이야?
2007년 금융붕괴로 미국이 찍어 뿌린 돈이 3.5trillions~27trillions(측정 방법에 따라 달라짐)에 이른다..
어떤 방법으로 어떻게 측정 하던 간에....전대미문의 현기증 나는 돈을 찍어 뿌렷다는 것인데..
이 어마 어마한 금융사기질도 처벌 받은 사람 ...0 (2명이 처벌을 받긴 햇다...그런데 이는 교통법 위반)
이들 금융사기꾼들은 처벌은 커녕...오바마 정부가 뿌려준 돈으로 오히려 때돈을 긁엇다..
이게 나라야??
만약에 중국에서 저런일이 벌어졋다면,,,,중국공산당은 다그리 잡어다 다...사형시켯겟지..
니들은 이런 중국 공산당을 두고....비 인권, 비 민주주의...씨불거리며...저게 나라야??....침을 쳐 튀길것이고 응??
중국공산당이 그들을 잡어다 사형을 시킬때 그들이 무엇을 사형의 이유로 나발 거릴까??
-인민들에게 이루 말 할 수 없는 고통을 주엇다.........사형....땅땅땅..
(아으....우리나라 판결문 에서도 이런 판결 한번 들어 봣쓰면 좋겟써.....)
미국에서는 그짓 못 한놈이 빙쉰이고...중국에서는 그런짓 햇다간 바로 ....목 날라간다..
이것이 자유 민주주의와 공산당 전체주의의 차이랑다...........응???......이 씨발놈드라..
미국인들이 생각하고 잇는 미국의 부패란...바로 그런 것이다..
동 사무소에 가서 주민등록등본 하나 때는데 급행료를 내는 나라(젊은 쇗끼들은 이게 뭔 말인지 알아나 처 들으려나)라는 것이 아니고.......응??
미국인들 그 누구도..쩌 위에 잇는 놈들도 죄를 지엇다면 합중국 법 앞에 꼭 같은 처벌을 받는다고 생각 하는 찌지지들은 없당다..
이런 부패는 너무 구조화 되어 잇고 거대하기 때문에....민주주의 제도로는 도무지 어떻게 해볼 엄두도 나지 않고 ..
선거때 되면 그들이 만들어 놓은 줄에 맞춰 노예 쇗끼들 처럼 둘중 하나에 표나 찍어 주고...그리 그리 살어..
지들하고는 도무지 비교도 되지 않는 후질근한 아프리카 국가들이나 비교 함시롱,,,빙정거림시롱..
지들하고 비교 되는 중국 같은 나라는 열씸히 열쐼희 국가, 민족, 애국 씨불거러며 마녀 사냥 함시롱..
그리고 여론 조사 할때나 ....저리 씨불리는 것이니 미 정치권이 무엇을 두려워 하겟냐고??.....
노무현이 봐라....
5년 내내 삼성과 강남 죶만 존나 처 빨다 고향 내려가....야~~~ 기분 좋다.........고 취지거리며 서민 쇼질 몇번 해 주니.......
전국에 잇는 온갖 쥐쇗끼들이 다 내려와...우리 교주님 할렐루야.........지줘들 되니.....
무엇이 두려울까마 .....
이 찬란하게 아름 다운 민주주의 세상이......응??
대장동 사건은 민주화 이후의 부패가 민주화 이전과 별 차이가 없음을 보여 주엇지요.
그런데 대장동을 이재명이라는 대선 후보가 걸려 잇기 때문에 ,,,정치적인 목적으로 까 발겨진 것입니다.
대장동이 도처에 널려 잇을 것인데.....이런것은 감히 건들어 보지도 못 하는 것이지요..
이재명이 같은 것이 낑가 잇쓰면 재수 없어 터지는 것이고
삼성 x 파일 사건은...민주화 이후의 "자본의 정치 지배"가 어느정도인지를 보여준 전형적인 사건 이엇습니다..
월가가 미 정치권을 지배 하는 것 과는 또 다른 차원으로 삼성은 대한민국의 정치는 물론 언론, 여론, 문화, 지식등등
모든 것을 지배 햇지욤..
야가 미친것인지.,,,,,약을 처 먹은 것인지,,,,는 모르겟지만.....
개소리를 지저 되고 잇엇다는 것은 분명 하지요.
-바이든이 아니고 날리면 이다...응??
-정언경 유착이 아니고 도청이다......응???
-취지지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ
어쩜 두 쥐쇗끼때들 노는 꼬라가지는 그리도 꼭 같은지 모를일이야....
증말 소름이 끼쳐..
노무현교 쥐쇗끼들이 대체 무슨 낮짝으로 성열이와 거늬만 죽어라고 씹붜 되는지 모르겟습니다.
빙쉰질도 급수가 잇다더니..
빅택 기업의 힘??...
미국인들은 이 빅택 기업의 힘이...미국의 민주주의의 저해 요인으로 인식하고 잇지만,,
이것 중국에서는 아무 힘도 못썻지요??
중국 공산당이 빅택기업을 조지자..
월가과 주류 언론...그리고 미국의 개 조선놈들은 ....시진핑이 중국을 모택통 시절로 되 돌렷다고 ....열씸히 깽깽거렷습니다.......
지뤌질도 정도껏 떨어야..
중국 공산당이 요구 하는 것은 극단적으로 간단한 것이엿습니다.
지분 몇% 가지고 수십조, 수 백조에 달하는 기업의 주인 인냥 놀지 말라는 것입니다.
갖고 잇는 지분 만큼의 꼴깝만 떨라는 것이고...이는 자본주의 주식회사의 교과서적인 요구를 한 것입니다.
이재용이 삼성전자 주식 얼마나 갖고 잇지요??
이재용이 같은 놈들은 중국에서는 한국에서 처럼 깝치지 못 합니다...
그랫다간 바로 중국공산당으로 부터 전화 한통 받게 될 것입니다..
-야야 재용아...니 갖고 잇는 지분 만큼만 갖고 놀아라 ....응??
-책에 써진 되로 해.....깝치다 되지지 말고...
This deference to economic explanations of political outcomes wouldn’t surprise many Marxists. But it should be a wake-up call for committed liberals. The accusation since 2016 that liberal democracy is at risk from ‘fascists’ misses that a plurality of Americans believe that corporate and oligarchic power have already compromised ‘our democracy.’(이것을 미국이 처 하고 잇쓰니 기어코 꼭 같이 따라 하겟다고 쌩 지뤌을 떨고 잇는 년놈들이 조샌징 쥐쇗끼들입니당ㅇㅇㅇ) This isn’t to dispute claims of fascist intent. It is to state that many so accused are powerless, whereas corporate executives and oligarchs have the power to force corporate autocracy onto the US.
This problem of power has long been a blind spot for liberal theory. The will to act politically is necessary, but not sufficient, to affect political outcomes. Was economic power widely distributed, an argument could be made that the US is a Republic, a representative democracy. However, the US has spent the last five decades concentrating incomes, wealth, and with them power, in a remarkably small number of hands. An oligarchy isn’t a Republic.(한국도 꼭 같습니다.....권력은 이미 시장으로 넘어갓다고 노무현이란 쥐쇗끼들 계몽 운동 하듯이 씨불 거렷지요......진실로 이자는 개 쐣낍니다)
The Supreme Court ruling(s) that money is political speech undermines democracy in quite specific ways. In liberal theory, each eligible citizen has an equal say in political outcomes through their vote. Step one in the process of political abstraction was the creation of a Republic versus direct democracy. ‘Representative democracy’ begs the question of whose interests are being represented? Step two is the power to augment one’s vote via wildly mal-distributed wealth. Even if it were justly distributed, why should economic power determine political outcomes?
Readers will note the frame of isolated and self-reliant individuals coming to their own conclusions about world events and acting accordingly here. But this has almost no descriptive power with respect to how political decisions are made in the US. Eligible voters do elect representatives, but those elected represent the interests of corporate executives and oligarchs, not the people.
‘Capitalism’ ties the political ambitions of the rich to the wellbeing of the rest of us in the national mythology. After all, why would politicians meet with workers when they can meet with the owners and bosses who are imagined to represent the interests of workers.
Regardless of whether or not anyone actually believes that bosses represent the interests of workers, this is a convenient fiction for politicians who meet with employers. These are their campaign contributors as well. And capitalist logic is quite malleable here. Joe Biden claimed a ‘greater good’ when he forbade railway workers from striking in the US, even as the declining power of organized labor has immiserated industrial workers here for five decades now. The point: Democrats and Republicans have both claimed the side of ‘the people.’
Irrespective of whether or not you believe that politicians represent the interests of the American people, a large plurality of Americans apparently doesn’t, hence the poll results linked to above. What would a ‘legitimate’ political response from the people look like? Voters can in theory vote out politicians they deem corrupt. But how about when the entire system is failing? In what possible society that has wildly skewed income and wealth distribution might democracy be imagined to prevail? Hint: there is none.
In terms of theory, neoliberalism is ad hoc and opportunistic, versus the requirement of well-developed legal and social infrastructure to keep markets ‘free’ that is found in neoclassical economics. This presumptive belief in the power of ‘unfettered markets’ found amongst neoliberals is ideological, not analytical. For instance, supporters of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) claim that its ‘market mechanisms’ are ‘efficient.’ But this comes after the (globally inefficient) decision to keep the private insurance industry at the center of the American healthcare system.
In this way, capitalist economics is called ‘the queen of the social sciences’ because it pretends to address economic outcomes without accounting for earlier capitalist distribution. The feeding frenzy around the current American war against Russia illustrates that weapons makers create business for themselves by influencing foreign policy, and in so doing they make an outsized claim on Federal resources. In other words, power begets power. Existing wealth allows capitalists to crush economic competition, thereby ending capitalism as it exists in liberal theory.
Along this pathway, neoliberalism ties to European fascism of the twentieth century through the abandonment of rules-based economic relations in favor of serving the will of corporate executives and oligarchs. This is the very definition of autocracy. And while this is a very old criticism of capitalist power relations, it needs to be revisited given the virtual control that capital, broadly considered, now has over the governments of the West. Given five decades of planned deindustrialization, what can the US make except weapons?
In this way, the classical liberal problems of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ depend on separate and distinct analyses lest capitalism be understood to undermine democracy. Simply put, why would rule by Northrup Grumman and Goldman Sachs constitute a state of freedom? How is having the CEOs of munitions makers meet secretly with leading politicians prior to the launch of a war that they will benefit from ‘good for democracy?’ The answer, ‘planning,’ requires the suspension of disbelief that those paying to get politicians elected don’t control them.
The response from officialdom regarding rising popular discontent has been to censor and otherwise shut down dissident voices using the ruse of Right-wing ‘disinformation.’ In fact, every Left-wing journalist I know of has complained about their work being censored through its reach being limited, yours truly included. This isn’t a case of ‘fascists’ acting to control political outcomes unless you consider the integrated corporate-state to be fascist. Here is my explanation of the relationship between liberalism and fascism. The tie comes through the economic power of capital.
The Twitter Files, the review of the three-letter agency’s gaming of Twitter to affect political outcomes inside the US and out, has been treated by those friendly to the effort as a legitimate response to the Right-wing politics of the age. If so, why not advertise the roles of the CIA, FBI, and NSA in not just censoring constitutionally protected speech, but also for using state propaganda to craft political outcomes. If what they are doing has the consent of the American people, why hide it? Lest this come as a shock, the CIA and FBI are promoting their own, not ‘American,’ interests.
By inserting Federal agencies between the American people and ‘freedom,’ these agencies have been turned into the ‘enemy of open societies’ that overseas critics have long accused them of being. Not only is legitimate and constitutionally protected dissent being suppressed, but an ‘official’ version of correct belief, as has been determined by agents of the Federal government, is being put forward in its place. That this ‘correct belief’ matches the rhetoric of the urban bourgeois who constitute the PMC (Professional-Managerial Class) suggests a connection.
During the Cold War, the Federal government of the US turned itself into a lite version of what American liberals imagined Soviet ‘totalitarianism’ to be. At the time, the Soviet model of economic development was working and the commitment to democracy inside the US had been placed behind national security concerns by American leaders. In the current epoch, China’s economic success is likely imagined in official circles to be a product of state control over information flow. Magical thinking can be influential when it can’t be countered.
As Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin certainly know— and Joe Biden almost certainly doesn’t, China has been engaged in an export-led growth strategy that featured state investment through captive banks in the ‘private’ economy of China. Cleverly, the Chinese copied what worked about Western economic development without being dragged down the rabbit hole of capitalist ideology. Does this make China capitalist? Thankfully, no. As I wrote here a decade ago, the relative economic success of China should have ended capitalism as it is understood, forever.
Re: Twitter, one group of people, let’s call them representatives of Federal government agencies, knew that Twitter was being ‘managed’ to affect their desired political outcomes. Another group, let’s call them employees of Twitter, saw little to gain from crossing these Federal agencies. And Twitter received payment from said government agencies for facilitating their political subterfuge. The only people unaware of the subterfuge were Twitter users and the journalists who regularly use Twitter to locate straw persons for their reporting.
As regards censorship, the rich in the West have long had the capacity to amplify or repress political views through both Gramscian hegemony(그람시가 말한 문화의 힘) and control of the media. The liberal conception of ‘free speech’ as a right has always been blind to the de facto power to censor held by capital. Had the doyen of the Washington Post not allowed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to report on the Watergate break-in and its aftermath, it likely wouldn’t have been reported on.
How ‘free’ is the free press when media owners get to determine what gets reported and what doesn’t?
Here again, concentrated economic power determines political outcomes, in contrast to liberal theory that posits that voters decide. The flip side of ‘preventing Right-wing disinformation’ is that even more nefarious actors have been given the power to ‘manage’ public discourse for their own benefit. What’s more, ‘disinformation’ ties political outcomes to internet chatter rather than to the schemes and wants of corporate executives and oligarchs. While some Americans have been convinced that the American war against Russia is legitimate, what plausible outcome makes it a good idea? Hint: there is none.
‘Freedom’ was understood to be a challenging concept before its cartoon version was recovered during the last large scale American slaughter in Iraq. The Freudian concept of hiddenness in the human psyche— the subconscious, is central to the psychology used in American state propaganda to control the population. Hidden desires are the wedge used to induce people to buy things they don’t need and can’t afford, be it ‘a brand-new Chevrolet’ or cynical misdirection regarding a war that weapons makers want to launch.
Of consequence here is that ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ refer to differing political frames presumed to explain power by referencing ideology, whereas the ‘management’ of the US by a permanent bureaucracy that supports a more-or-less permanent oligarchy describes actual political economy. The impermanence of electoral outcomes rests atop an active, permanent, state. Whether this is a ‘deep state,’ or just well-placed political opportunists, means little relative to its capacity to undermine so-called democracy.
In history, before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas was hired by the Reagan administration to throw tens of thousands of class-action lawsuits into the trash without review. On the one hand, Thomas was a political actor placed in a position of authority inside the Federal government to undermine the will of Congress (which makes laws). On the other hand, he was placed there by representatives of powerful constituencies to affect political outcomes for them. Who benefited? Hint: it wasn’t the people who had their lawsuits alleging discrimination thrown in the trash. It was capital that benefited.
In liberal theory, citizens are able to change the form and function of the state through elections. In reality, the permanent state now determines the contours of elections. Leading the way, Democrats re-invented the ‘smoke-filled room’ whereby party insiders decide the roster of candidates away from the rank-and-file. In the US, this contest for power has already been won. Capital always and everywhere gets its way. As ‘the Squad’ (미 민주당의 자칭 진보를 표방하는 의원들) demonstrates on a daily basis, electing ‘progressives’ does nothing to alter the distribution of power.
This is to make the point that the political contest in the US is between power and not-power, not between Democrats and Republicans. The ‘architecture’ of this relationship is that voters elect political leaders who, once elected, work with their donors to do the donors’ bidding, not that of the voters. While there are differences between the parties, capital pulls the strings of both. This makes the current fantasy that Republicans will lead a revolution to restore democracy delusional. Should they regain power, they will go ‘full Biden,’ meaning doing the bidding of power.
Missing from most liberal accounts is that the US is an empire. Large, powerful, US-based corporations have been put forward to act as the avant-garde of American state power abroad. This geopolitical role is generally portrayed as event based inside the US. For instance, in order to invade Iraq in 2003, the CIA invented the pretext of WMDs (the ‘event’), even though Iraq’s ‘missing’ WMDs had been supplied to it by the US, and no new WMDs were found. Through state-capitalist dependencies, the Federal government needed ‘private’ contractors to arm the military, rebuild Iraq, and to exploit Iraq’s oil and gas bounty.
The tally so far is that capital controls political power inside the US, empire represents the reach of US-backed capital internationally, and the American electoral system exists to promote the illusion that politics exists separate and distinct from the power of capital to determine political outcomes inside the US. The American people intuitively understand this, as well as the power of capital to crush ‘democracy,’ as evidenced by the poll results linked above (first paragraph). The primary impediment to democracy is capital.
The Marxist response has long been that liberalism is the ethos of capitalism written as a theory of ‘the world.’ Liberalism lacks descriptive power because it emerges from logical deduction, from first principles regarding theories of what it means to be human. There is no society without economic relations. But liberalism posits ‘freedom’ as an absence of coercive state power, excluding economic power as a factor. But as the Twitter Files revealed, the corporate-state has no intention of leaving political outcomes to ‘the people.’
The Marxist solution, the elimination of income and wealth disparities through full social participation for all, fits the liberal democratic ideal while placing economic relations at the center of conceptions of freedom and democracy. ‘Democracy,’ where the bosses and politicians decide and the results are presented to us, isn’t working for most of the planet. But the problem isn’t with democracy. Until you can tell your boss, landlord, banker, etc. to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine without fear of economic retribution, you aren’t free.
Socialism is democratic. In fact, it is the only plausible route to democracy.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.