Lying down with dogs and Marxists holding elections

Daily Caller: "After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders"

In fact, even though Sanders won the N.H. primary with 60 percent of the Democrat vote, Hillary Clinton was allocated two delegates more than he was.

... thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.

New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.

Neither Sanders nor Clinton can possibly be surprised by this and I hardly see how Sanders could think it "unfair," nor could Hillary were the delegate count the other way round.

Hillary: "You know I stabbed you in the back and robbed you blind on delegates, right?
Sanders: "Of course I know. You are cheating better than I am. But just wait."

Way back in 1980 a Marxist writer explained how elections work - and are supposed to work - in a bourgeoisie country (and the USA is definitely that). After delineating the tedium and manufactured excitement of the primaries and delegate counting and national political conventions and all the rest of American politics, writer Paul Saba explains how the elections were "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State":

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore.

In Marxist theory the whole point of elections is to give the proles the illusion that they have a say in the outcome and how the country is run. But they don't and they shouldn't. At least, not by the bourgeois world view.

What Marxists should do about this was debated quite a bit before the Russian Revolution. On the one hand, a faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the industrial plant), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be hled and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

The competing view, held by the Russian Bolsheviks, was that they were the "vanguard of the revolution" and that therefore Marx's instruction of the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat -- meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

In Marxism-Leninism, true communism was a state in which material production was so great that all human needs were met without shortage. Greed would therefore disappear and the inherent but capitalist-suppressed natural nobility of men and women would emerge. They would be transformed into true communists - altruists who worked each day for the good of the people, not for crass, selfish profit. 

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

So Soviet elections - and those of every other socialist country ever -- were a complete sham and were supposed to be a sham. The education and political training of the general proletariat was not quite complete and if we let them have a real say in matters, they will only enchain themselves once again. So for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fourth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution.

Since the Democrat party is utterly dominated by a Marxist world view, it's no surprise that the system is (a) rigged like this, and (b) Sanders knows it is and says so. But don't think for a minute that he thinks it is unfair.

When you lie down with dogs don't be surprised that you get up with fleas. And when socialists hold elections, don't be surprised that they are the most crooked elections ever.

Here is an explanation of the competing Marxist view of elections, but this view did not prevail:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxists_elections.shtml

Update: That US elections are rigged has long been a staple of Leftist thought, but now is very solidly established on the far right as well. FOFB just today. Funny how this summarizes what Marxist Saba said 36 years ago.

Update: Heh!