Secret Securitization is the New “Mode of Production”—the Key to the Modern Economy—the vehicle for the change in “mode of production” which the Communists have been waiting for, planning, for 165 years since 1848


Writing today from Mantoloking, Ocean County, New Jersey

My thanks to Savvy-Gal Michelle for alerting me to the latest monstrosity to be handed down by a California District Court of Appeal.  The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (based 601 West Santa Ana Boulevard in Santa Ana, Orange County, California 92701) has “certified” its May 17, 2013, opinion in Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (G046121)(Super.Ct.30-2011-00438159) “for publication” and hence for precedential value and citation as “the law of the land” of the People’s Republic of California (available on-line at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm?Courts=G and attached here: Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA).

To say I am surprised would be a lie.  To say that I am angry and deeply troubled by this country’s seemingly inexorable March Towards Pure (Marxist) Communism would also be a lie.  The Jenkins opinion does nothing new except to build upon outrageous judicial statements of the “lack of rights” of the people of California to know or even ask with whom they are dealing with, over the past two years.  Among the most pernicious of these decisions are Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 (2011) and Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 205 Cal.App.4th 1495 (2012).   (Gomes v. Countrywide, 121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011).

The repeated and practical crux of it all is articulated in these two paragraphs from Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase:

“Importantly, the provisions setting forth California‘s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme (§§ 2924-2924k) ― ̳cover every aspect of [the] exercise of [a] power of sale contained in a deed of trust.‘ ̳The purposes of this comprehensive scheme are threefold: (1) to provide the [beneficiary-creditor] with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting [trustor-debtor]; (2) to protect the [trustor- debtor] from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.‘‖ (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.) ―Significantly, ̳[n]onjudicial foreclosure is less expensive and more quickly concluded than judicial foreclosure, since there is no oversight by a court, ―[n]either appraisal nor judicial determination of fair value is required,‖ and the debtor has no postsale right of redemption.‘‖ (Id. at p. 1155.)

Although a defaulting debtor is free to pursue a judicial action for ―misconduct arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when [such a claim is] not inconsistent with the policies behind the statutes‖ (California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1070, italics added), due to the ― ̳exhaustive nature‘‖ of this scheme, California appellate courts have refused to read any additional requirements into the nonjudicial foreclosure statute.‖ (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154, fn. omitted.) As one appellate court stated: ―It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive and exhaustive statutory scheme regulating nonjudicial foreclosures to incorporate another unrelated cure provision into statutory nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.‖ (Moeller, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 834.)”

The secrecy (and non-accountability) afforded by this approach to non-judicial foreclosure in California is appropriate to the essentially clandestine nature of securitization, which I think we can now safely call “Securitization” the new post-capitalist mode of production to be used for transforming ownership of all private property into government-sponsored corporate-collective ownership “in common.”   Under securitization with rapid foreclosure, no one ever really owns property, but everyone owes a debt to everyone else in society.  I think this really is the communist formula: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the Critique of the Gotha program was published 27 years after the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and a mere 8 years before Marx’ death in 1883 (Marx died on 14 March of same year as Richard Wagner, who died one month earlier on 13 February).  The slogan “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in “The organization of work”.  At that time, in May of 1875, it was probably unforeseeable how perfectly the concept of securitization of private property would lead to and fit with communism, but it seems clear that Marx would have applauded the “genius” of securitization as a tool to abolish private property.

However, the complete paragraph included as part of Karl Marx’ May 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program is particularly relevant to the path down which 20th Century and now 21st Century Corporate Communism have led us.  Offering perhaps Marx’s most detailed pronouncement on programmatic matters of revolutionary strategy, the document discusses the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” (whose name we now know to be “Barack Hussein Obama” the period of transition from capitalism to communism (almost over as of 2013), proletarian internationalism (*which we have come to call “Corporate Globalism”), and the party of the working class (which we have learned to accept as divided, in the USA between Democratic and Republican “factions” or “flavors” or “Labor” and “Conservative” in Great Britain).

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

(“Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”) As Karl Marx here prophesized, Corporate Communism (in Western Europe and North America, at any rate) aims to bring down the “division of labor” in society and “therewith” abolish “the antithesis between mental and physical labor.”  

Of course, this is one boundary that can never really be crossed—someone or something (robots?) will always have to do physical labor—and once robots are capable of doing all our physical labor, they may well see fit to do away with us and become non-consuming communists themselves (as so many science fiction scenarios have already envisioned).  

In the meantime, it is counties like China, Vietnam, Korea, Bangladesh and India where the consequences of the Corporate abolition of the “division of labor” in society have taken root.  SLAVE LABOR of the masses of billions of Asians to serve the tiny elite of the Communist Party and its allies is the modern reality of East, Southeast, and Southern Asia generally.    

Communism fulfills the dreams of (for the rich and developed nations) abolishing the antithesis between manual and physical labor. But for the rest of the world, the lavish and leisurely life of the beneficiaries of communism in the first world visits all the most nightmarish scenarios of inequality—inequality of wealth, inequality of physical labor, inequality of leisure time, inequality of environmental quality and comfort—it goes on, on the original populations who were slaughtered into conformity with “Communism Triumphant” before Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger first sold America’s soul to the PRC.  

But in spite of this disconformity of reality, the west is constantly emulating the “eusocial” life of the East.  Even in that bastion of “Capitalism” known as “Corporate TV advertising and Corporate Culture) icons of modern American life from the red -T-shirts of Bank of America Employees to the round (quasi-Asiatic) expression and look of the Progressive Insurance Girl, who announces triumph after triumph of the workers’ progress and program….consciously emulate, import, and trans-substantiate the spirit of Maoism into America.

What is the answer? the antidote? Only full understanding of where we are in history and cultural evolution will permit us to make a choice.  We are not lost in a yellow wood finding a place where two roads diverge.  We are on a superhighway towards world-wide slavery and self-destruction, and we will have to drive over the grassy median (i.e. violate the traffic laws) to get off.

One way to cross this divide is to challenge securitization directly, as one litigant has chosen to Carrie It Forward in the Middle District of Florida.  Carrie Lynn Luft’s May 13 2013 FINAL Draft Second Amended Complaint with CLASS ACTION for Predatory Lending & Securitization

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s