That sentence buried deep in the bowels of this excretable Marxist manifesto tells us volumes about these neo-Marxist climate change schemes.
Nathan Bedford announces another maxim: equity (equality) is the enemy of growth. In fact, equity (equality) is the enemy both of growth and of prosperity.
The converse is also true: inequality promotes growth and prosperity.
Inequality of wealth in and of itself is not a threat to a healthy society providing (note the italics) opportunity is relatively equal. In other words, the American experience, perhaps aided by the presence of the frontier, where every mother believed that her son could be president, resulted in the world's most prosperous nation but the South American experience, where opportunity was virtually eliminated for majority Indians and mestizos by monopoly white ownership of land, results in chronic poverty, misery, huge wealth differential, chronic revolutions, resorts to Marxist governments, tyranny and, of course, demands for redistribution of wealth.
One produces a virtuous circle, the other produces dystopia.
But how does an ambitious neo-Marxist obtain power in prosperous, relatively capitalist Western Europe and America?
One method, as we have seen, is to play the race card. Another method we are witnessing now involves apocalyptic visions of universal misery if capitalism is not surrendered to Big Brother in order to avoid catastrophic global warming. Andrew Yang adds a third, a dystopic vision of a world of grotesque wealth disparity brought on by technology.
This article advances a de-growth movement. The giveaway: all of these approaches generate a threat which they solve only by big government that betray the Marxist motivation. For example, if reducing carbon emissions would eliminate the problems of climate change an obvious solution is to advance nuclear power stations but this solution is anathema because it does not produce political power, only electrical power.
Steve Bannon and Elizabeth Warren propose different populist remedies for what they see as growing inequality running in favor of elites and against "the people." Warren thinks that the elites who operate as megacorporations need to be controlled by big government on behalf of the little people. Steve Bannon wants to undo government missteps involving immigration, endless fruitless wars, and crony capitalism to open up the doors of opportunity. A distinct difference between these two seems to be that Warren wants big government as a permanent institution and Bannon wants to use government on a much more limited basis, to undo what government has done, to open the doors of opportunity which big government has shut.
These two paradigms will be at war with each other in the 2020 election with two twists. Warren will add the race card and Trump will articulate the Bannon vision in his own unique style which will galvanize the electorate to a new way of thinking and voting-just as he did in 2016. In other words Trump will advance Bannon's populist message but in his own words according to the Trump brand.
Equality of opportunity is really an application of individual liberty. Equality of wealth is really a collectivist nightmare because at the end of the day it means only a platoon change of elites with even more power but it is a seductive piece of election bait for immigrants who have never lived in an opportunity culture or for graduates of the American public school system who have been conditioned not to believe the evidence of their own eyes.
