Why The Right Loves a Disaster
Moody’s, the credit-rating agency, claims the key to solving the United States’ economic woes is slashing spending on Social Security. The National Assn. of Manufacturers says the fix is for the federal government to adopt the organization’s wish-list of new tax cuts. For Investor’s Business Daily, it is oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, “perhaps the most important stimulus of all.”
But of all the cynical scrambles to package pro-business cash grabs as “economic stimulus,” the prize has to go to Lawrence B. Lindsey, formerly President Bush’s assistant for economic policy and his advisor during the 2001 recession. Lindsey’s plan is to solve a crisis set off by bad lending by extending lots more questionable credit. “One of the easiest things to do would be to allow manufacturers and retailers” — notably Wal-Mart — “to open their own financial institutions, through which they could borrow and lend money,” he wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal.
Never mind that that an increasing number of Americans are defaulting on their credit card payments, raiding their 401(k) accounts and losing their homes. If Lindsey had his way, Wal-Mart, rather than lose sales, could just loan out money to keep its customers shopping, effectively turning the big-box chain into an old-style company store to which Americans can owe their souls.
If this kind of crisis opportunism feels familiar, it’s because it is. Over the last four years, I have been researching a little-explored area of economic history: the way that crises have paved the way for the march of the right-wing economic revolution across the globe. A crisis hits, panic spreads and the ideologues fill the breach, rapidly reengineering societies in the interests of large corporate players. It’s a maneuver I call “disaster capitalism.”
Sometimes the enabling national disasters have been physical blows to countries: wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters. More often they have been economic crises: debt spirals, hyperinflation, currency shocks, recessions.
More than a decade ago, economist Dani Rodrik, then at Columbia University, studied the circumstances in which governments adopted free-trade policies. His findings were striking: “No significant case of trade reform in a developing country in the 1980s took place outside the context of a serious economic crisis.” The 1990s proved him right in dramatic fashion. In Russia, an economic meltdown set the stage for fire-sale privatizations. Next, the Asian crisis in 1997-98 cracked open the “Asian tigers” to a frenzy of foreign takeovers, a process the New York Times dubbed “the world’s biggest going-out-of-business sale.”
To be sure, desperate countries will generally do what it takes to get a bailout. An atmosphere of panic also frees the hands of politicians to quickly push through radical changes that would otherwise be too unpopular, such as privatization of essential services, weakening of worker protections and free-trade deals. In a crisis, debate and democratic process can be handily dismissed as unaffordable luxuries.
Do the free-market policies packaged as emergency cures actually fix the crises at hand? For the ideologues involved, that has mattered little. What matters is that, as a political tactic, disaster capitalism works. It was the late free-market economist Milton Friedman, writing in the preface to the 1982 reissue of his manifesto, “Capitalism and Freedom,” who articulated the strategy most succinctly. “Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
A decade later, John Williamson, a key advisor to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (and who coined the phrase “the Washington consensus”), went even further. He asked a conference of top-level policymakers “whether it could conceivably make sense to think of deliberately provoking a crisis so as to remove the political logjam to reform.”
Again and again, the Bush administration has seized on crises to break logjams blocking the more radical pieces of its economic agenda. First, a recession provided the excuse for sweeping tax cuts. Next, the “war on terror” ushered in an era of unprecedented military and homeland security privatization. After Hurricane Katrina, the administration handed out tax holidays, rolled back labor standards, closed public housing projects and helped turn New Orleans into a laboratory for charter schools — all in the name of disaster “reconstruction.”
Given this track record, Washington lobbyists had every reason to believe that the current recession fears would provoke a new round of corporate gift-giving. Yet it seems that the public is getting wise to the tactics of disaster capitalism. Sure, the proposed $150-billion economic stimulus package is little more than a dressed-up tax cut, including a new batch of “incentives” to business. But the Democrats nixed the more ambitious GOP attempt to leverage the crisis to lock in the Bush tax cuts and go after Social Security. For the time being, it seems that a crisis created by a dogged refusal to regulate markets will not be “fixed” by giving Wall Street more public money with which to gamble.
Yet while managing (barely) to hold the line, the House Democrats appear to have given up on extending unemployment benefits and increasing funding for food stamps and Medicaid as part of the stimulus package. More important, they are failing utterly to use the crisis to propose alternative solutions to a status quo marked by serial crises, whether environmental, social or economic.
The problem is not a lack of ideas “alive and available” — to borrow Friedman’s phrase. There are plenty available, from single-payer healthcare to legislating a living wage. Hundreds of thousands of jobs can be created by rebuilding the ailing public infrastructure and making it more friendly to public transit and renewable energy. Need start-up funds? Close the loophole that lets billionaire hedge fund managers pay 15% capital gains instead of 35% income tax, and adopt a long-proposed tax on international currency trading. The bonus? A less volatile, crisis-prone market.
The way we respond to crises is always highly political, a lesson progressives appear to have forgotten. There’s a historical irony to that: Crises have ushered in some of America’s great progressive policies. Most notably, after the dramatic market failure of 1929, the left was ready and waiting with its ideas — full employment, huge public works, mass union drives. The Social Security system that Moody’s is so eager to dismantle was a direct response to the Depression.
Every crisis is an opportunity; someone will exploit it. The question we face is this: Will the current turmoil become an excuse to transfer yet more public wealth into private hands, to wipe out the last vestiges of the welfare state, all in the name of economic growth? Or will this latest failure of unfettered markets be the catalyst that is needed to revive a spirit of public interest, to get serious about the pressing crises of our time, from gaping inequality to global warming to failing infrastructure?
The disaster capitalists have held the reins for three decades. The time has come, once again, for disaster populism.
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which will be published in September.Visit Naomi’s website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com .
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
What a gift this woman is to the progressive cause. Articulate, beautiful, thank you Naomi, for shining the light on the greed and cold heart of the right.
They are ready with their “ideas”. We must be even more forceful with ours.
“Close the loophole that lets billionaire hedge fund managers pay 15% capital gains instead of 35% income tax”
Now isn’t that an interesting idea?
Taxes should be based on ability to pay. It makes no sense to tax investment income at rates lower than earned income. Why should investors get a tax “discount”?
It’s time to eliminate lower capital gains rates. Income is income.
“the House Democrats appear to have given up… ”
Republicans - disaster capitalism
Democrats - disaster capitulation
actually it’s just time to get rid of the income tax altogether abd replace it with a consumption tax so it can’t be gamed. Taxing income is regressive.
The Repug’s are packing 44’s while the Dem’s are shooting blanks. It’s a good old fashioned turkey shoot. Bang we have a Repug disaster, then bang, we have an empty Dem retort. It’s the DLC’s Gucci pop gun festival. At least in the old Dem Party we had real men packing real heat, union men. Today in the Dem party we have girley men packing pop guns. Pound that keyboard, we’ll show’em.
I’m directly at odds with illumineer. Taxing consumption is regressive and it can be gamed as easily as the income tax. How? Tax the things the poor spend their money on, like used clothing, and exempt the things the rich buy, like yachts.
militantliberal believes the stock propaganda so is hopeless.
“Yet it seems that the public is getting wise to the tactics of disaster capitalism.”
And that is because of Naomi! Thank you for your superb work bringing this issue into the mainstream dialogue.
I always look forward to your articles.
You my girl!
I think one of her est comments was saying that progressives need to want to see their goals achieved as much or more than the other side wants their goals.
Its obvious truth.
illumineer,
Ever hear of a sin tax? Now picture THAT on a national level. Of course a consumption tax can be gamed.
Income tax wasn’t supposed to be gamed, but clearly it is. Example: Income tax is ‘gamed’ to favor married heterosexuals and those who breed the most get the best breaks.
That is gaming.
A consumption tax would be progressive, just like progressive income tax. A regressive tax is one that affects lower income earners more than higher income earners. For example, a 40 cent increase in gasoline taxes is more likely to be felt by lower rather than higher wage earners. A consumption tax (sales tax) would be fairer in more respects than an income tax. It cannot be “gamed” as easily because there would be fewer exemptions. As, for example, there would be no tax on used items…only new. Don’t expect a “fair tax” like this anytime soon, because the PTB like the system just the way it is.
One idea for an economic stimulus package might be raising the minimum wage to say, 11.00 an hour. Gee, do you think people might spend it? And WE the People don’t have to borrow the money to finance it. As you may know, the big corps are sitting on piles of cash currently. Why not force their hand?
Naomi hits much of the nail on the head. As long as this country has a trade defecit and a budget defecit we are in big trouble. More progressive tax structure and a more progressive foreign policy is crucial to recovery.
Shock Doctrine gave me a new insight into the right-wing’s vision by connecting the dots between disasters and “freemarket” (crony) capitalism.
The Republican party is a strange coalition of religious and economic fundamentalists. The public has long been aware of the danger posed by the religious fruitcakes but it is the economic nutjobs like Grover Nordquist that we really should be keeping our eyes on.
Heh folks, this ain’t rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a leash before and we can do it again - it’s spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
90% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
53% tax on unearned income.
50+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
35% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
Glass-Steagall Act restored.
Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
Elimination of Corporate Super-Citizenship by Statute.
Pots & Pans in the STREETS TIME. Shut it down. Ain’t no Dem gonna save you from the Boogey Man now. The Monsters are treating us like ever 3rd world country we ever destroyed. We are on the Menu now, not the diners anymore. As others have learned before us, we can only save ourselves. Or not at all.
Pieces of 8.
Disaster populism has been dealt a harsh blow by the corporate media assassination of Dennis Kucinich, and the eminent demise of John Edwards. I watch the financial news shows every day and root for total economic collapse…which should show America what the Chicago School/ neoliberal/neoconservative/free trade/deregulation/
privatization/corporatism agenda of Milt Friedman has done for our economic and social health. Amerika’s economic house of cards is falling and good riddance to Reagonomics. Today’s neocon…tomorrow’s bacon.
“Yet while managing (barely) to hold the line, the House Democrats appear to have given up on extending unemployment benefits and increasing funding for food stamps and Medicaid as part of the stimulus package.”
Well, then, that’s not holding the line. Unemployment benefits expire, and increasing numbers of people need assistance like food stamps, and yet those darn poor people continue to live!
What this country needs is a good hard 1930’s style depression to wake up all the idiots that aren’t paying attention to who is screwing them in the ass.
One easy and quick fix. Stop the Militarie occupation in Iraq, then baam its fixed.
If searching for a prime model, I don’t think one needs to go beyond Lebanon, 2006
The callous destruction of the country’s infrastructure by Israel in 2006 (with the US President and both the
House and Senate’s full support -including both of the (D) presidential candidates) was pitted as an
attack against Hezbollah. Hezbollah did not control the Beirut’s airport, yet it was bombed. Not even a dairy
facility was safe from bombardments.
One is told the invasion was thwarted. If we look at the Summer, 2006 as an example of an Israeli land force
attempting to enter Lebanon, then perhaps Israel lost a major defeat. But, if I skew the mirror ever so slight,
I see 100s of thousands of cluster munitions planted in Southern Lebanese farmlands. And most importantly,
I see a new flux of US reconstruction dollars flooding Lebanon. Is this the example of “true” American influence.
France’s new leader seems to think it is good.
Tom Joad is right. The only way to get the gleefully uninformed American public to realize what has happened to them, and continues to happen, is for a full scale economic collapse to take place. The problem with that is that we are just as likely to wind up with a Christian version of Joseph Stalin as president, with a compliant congress, as we are to elect a contemporary version of FDR. There is only one god in the United States: money. Much of the middle class has indifferently but obediently been bending over and grabbing their ankles for the past seven years because the popes and cardinals of capitalism have been telling them it’s God’s will and that God and money are one and the same. They’ll all have to wind up in the street with their thumbs all the way up their backsides for even a possibility of real change to take place. Don’t bet on it, however. We’re going the way of every empire in history - walking heedless and half-assed into catastrophe.
Read what might well be called the “Afterword” to Naomi’s brilliant book: “Say Goodbye to Hegemony”
TAX STIMULUS EXPOSED
Nothing could be more clear than the real intent of this token tax stimulus package. It is a diversion tactic to forestall desperately needed reforms to the real and unprecedented threats to our economy, our environment, and our security. They include our dependance on foreign oil; trade imbalances; ownerships (and eventual control) of our infrastructure by foreign countries; and our degrading environment fueled by this administrations war against science.
Unless Americans compel this defaulting legislator to force meaningful and urgent reforms on to this reckless unelected zealot and his supporting interests–and prevent such outrageous abuses from future administrations–they will have only themselves to blame for our inevetible demise.
Isn’t Marxism a doctrinal reaction to capitalism that proposes disaster socialism of sorts?
It does seem that class struggle is coming to a head again as inequities in and between countries are on the rise while the world’s GDP is at heady new heights.
Perhaps the key is not the economy at all but rather the norms of socialization that favor leading families in nations of whatever political stripe, affluence, or culture who strive to enhance or preserve their power. The same families of and or nations who deny the genocide in their past or present while struggling up the class ladder of competitive nest building.
The former Soviet Union is often described as having been a form of state capitalism, where leading families enjoyed a privileged life style. What went wrong with the slogan, “from each according to their ability to each according to their need’?
Throughout history/herstory have not leading families come to power through entitlement, war, inheritance, mostly at the expense of the expendable other?
At the other extreme are some aboriginal communities where families gained prestige and power by being the most generous members. Is this an aberration of a sort of the ‘social animal’?
Why do societies devote so much attention to bling whether it is cows, beads, or ipods?
Does the mating game and holding up the mirror play into all of this? What is the relationship of politics to narcissism? Do we like or dislike the traits in others that we like or dislike in ourselves?
How does this apply to the presidential contest? If economic (competitive nest building) concerns are at the forefront would it not be rational to vote for the politician that is pro war if our economy depends on war for prosperity? But hey could you not spin this as a gender issue? Are men not more into their macho toys, tending to prefer football and virtual war games over the fair sexes preferences?
Can gender issues be political!? Is there any context remaining in liberal, conservative, right or left? Is a pro war economy left or right? How many meaningless isms can you throw into the stew? Perhaps pundits of all stripes continue to make statements with these vague words and purport to have actually said something, since a bearing on truth may be tough in even the most objective pursuits.
‘Disaster populism’ sounds fine as we hear there are lots of hopeful ideas out there but what will it take for them to come to action (besides the disaster)?
Excellent article Naomi: You are correct the nazi party in this country (republicans since WWII and since 1980 many democrats) has always hated the idea of SS. The brutality of this hideous bush/nazi administration has been remarkable. With the help of the trillion dollar propaganda machine enabling the WMD’s War Mongering Dirtbags ,.aka MSM the bush administration constantly confuses, cover ups and lies about the real issues. Since all about 99% of America listens to the WMD’s how can the truth get out? The right wing nutjobs have even gone as far to suggest the WMD’s are liberal. The insanity of this situation is totally mind-blowing to every aware and concerned American.
We are now living in stalag 13, where bush plays likable idiot Sergeant Schulz and cheney plays the colonel. The only problem is this is not a TV sitcom and the innocent people of Iraq and Afghanistan know this all too well as do many Americans. These tortuous blood thirsty thieving Nazis are attempting and laying the ground work by destroying everything good and decent America once stood for. Frankly as long as the WMD’s are the voice of these vile war criminals while refusing to report the truth I see little hope for once was a noble and beautiful idea of a country.
Thank you once again for all you do to bring forth the truth, it is an honor.
Not ‘Disaster Populism’ but ‘Franklinian Democracy’ is what’s needed to correct the out-of-control course of our nation.
Ben Franklin is credited with the expression ‘Do well by doing good’. This is the ethic needed to counteract disaster capitalism.
Industry can be built around this ethic - since 2002 my company, DoughNation Services LLC,has proven it can be done. I believe it is the healthiest principle on which to base an economic model.
Six years ago I founded DoughNation Services LLC (www.doughnationservices.com) in Portland, Oregon. We embody ‘doing well by doing good - and we believe this is the ethic America’s Founders meant for the foundation for a great American nation.
DoughNation represents an entirely new industry, and it’s entirely built around ‘doing well by doing good’. We provide pickup, tax deduction documentation and delivery for donations of personal goods. Most of our clients actually gain more in their documented deductions than they pay for our services.
In addition, we provide wonderful expanded services that clear the entire home thrugh donation, recycling and disposal.
Lately we’ve begun teaming with local nonprofits focused on workforce development to provide work experience to program participants, and our strategy sessions focus all the time of how much farther we can extend our benefit.
So, I invite you all to consider ‘Franklinian Democracy’ as a place for us to start correcting our national course.
Lucky Lefty: Right on!!! So simple. So easy. So sensible. Of course that means it won’t happen…….
Robert: You’re right at one level. The current stimulas package is just a diversion. “They” are just trying to get us to believe that what has worked before will work again. But of course it won’t. It’s just more lipstick on the pig that is going to slaughter.
Even though it is going to be extremely painful, I too am looking forward to the economic depression that is coming. The sooner the better. I believe that people with hungry bellies will automatically start acting in their own interest and not that of the richfilth. I believe they will figure out that the last depression was brought on by the robber barons, unregulated financial markets, and the concentration of wealth, just as it is today. And I believe the people will look to what worked to get us out of the last depression as well. We really don’t need another FDR. We already have the roadmap that he left behind. We just need a united American mob.
I have a great deal of hope in my heart that “we the people” will pull through this disaster and be better off because of it. We the people can only reclaim our country and constitution by all going in the same direction together to force out the evil that is strangleing us all.
I love the pen-name , Tom Joad . For those Americans not old enough to have lived through the Great Depression ( which is most of us ) I strongly recommend reading again or for the first time , John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath . In the long narrative , the reader only guesses that the Joad family survived hardships that out-number what most Americans are suffering today.It’s fiction but with Steinbeck inserting his non-narrative commentaries liberally-scattered throughout the book , it’s very plain to the reader that the perpetuation if not the cause of the wide-spread suffering in the depression was attributable to uncontrolled capitalism .
Upton Sinclair excoriated , among others , the meat-packing plants in America at the beginning of the 20th. century in his novel , The Jungle .Again , it was a scathing indictment of laissez-faire capitalism .
In 1850 (+or-) Harriet Beecher Stowe awakened many Americans to the evils of slavery with her fictional Uncle Tom’s Cabin . The single novel along with many Quakers who had been wide awake all along was the catalyst for a snow-balling Abolitionist Movement that probably led to the Civil War , Emancipation and the end of slavery.
Humans haven’t changed that much in ten-thousand years (+or-)of recorded history : One woman or one man can and will be the spark to set off a social revolution for benevolence or malevolence ( Adolf Hitler )
KIM BREAS: Good luck to you. You sound like a very decent idealistic person who knows how to gain from sound ecology, what’s more viable that recycling in a nation that has too much of everything, but does not put enough effort behind a more just basis for distribution. You are on the right track!
with the abolitionist movement spawning all
progressive movements in this country since.
Saturday, January 26, 2008 Perhpas Mr Chavez has an idea here:
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged his Latin American allies on Saturday to begin withdrawing billions of dollars in international reserves from U.S. banks, warning of a looming U.S. economic crisis.
Chavez made the suggestion as he hosted a summit aimed at boosting Latin American integration and countering U.S. influence.
“We should start to bring our reserves here,” Chavez said. “Why does that money have to be in the north? … You can’t put all your eggs in one basket.”
Tom Joad - so right! And, Ronald White - “The Grapes of Wrath” is my favorite American novel. We may all be facing our own personal Grapes of Wrath in the coming months and years. Rebel Farmer, you are right on! Hungry bellies will start a growling that may finally wake up the sleeping populace. I keep hearing the Crosby, Stills and Nash song in my head: “Long Time Gone.”
“But you know, the darkest hour is always just before the dawn.”
Somehow, there’s just got to be a dawn, and it can’t come soon enough!
“Speak out, you got to speak out against the madness,
You got to speak your mind if you dare.”
Satya
And don’t forget Jack London. He did more than write books that Disney made into movies. He researched and wrote about the human costs of the industrial revolution. Today’s fight is just part of the same dance.
We need a Constitutional Amendment. People should not have to be second class citizens to all-powerful corporations and their agents.
Well, here’s a wild idea from out of left field:
1. Stop punting billions of dollars into the war machine (and mercenary legions in Iraq).
2. Use some hefty portion of the money to bail out Americans who are stuck in the muck: (e.g.)people who can’t pay their mortgages and people facing near-bankruptcy because (even with health insurance) they cannot pay their bills. Once these folks are no longer skating on the edge, maybe they can go out and buy the goods and services that form the neo-cons vision of what the economy needs.
3. Use some hefty portion of the money to establish a green WPA: put Americans back to work repairing our crumbling infrastructure and implementing greener technologies.
4. Use some hefty portion of the money to repair and refurbish our crumbling schools so that MAYBE, just MAYBE, children will manage to acquire enough education and motivation to find a place in the working world rather than be marginalized, abandoned, and imprisoned.
None of it will happen, of course. But WHY THE HELL NOT?
To illumineer:
You said “actually it’s just time to get rid of the income tax altogether abd replace it with a consumption tax so it can’t be gamed. Taxing income is regressive.”
Either you are kidding or completely ignorant or a public relations man
for big Money/business entity
Peoples in the Third World are waiting for the leadership of the American People to start a revolution which might also help to alleviate their sufferings.
As long as the system of exploitation is strong and functioning in the rich north any hope of real change and any attempt at revolution in the poor countries is doomed from the start. This has been proven over and again in the last century.
Either their revolutionary initiatives were crushed by native reactionary forces supported by the rich North or their revolution-bred governments were slowly bled to death by international conspiracy of the rich North.
We need the American People to take the lead.
Naomi - no one is going to ever BE a disaster populism leader because our populist leadership (or potential leadership) keeps getting blown away! How many plane crashes in Missouri and Minnesota, and motorcade assassinations have been right wingers, AEI - Chamber of Commerce, neo-con types?
It also wouldn’t hurt to have a level playing field, to give some power to the people who get their hands dirty actually DOING work. But noooo! We aren’t allowed any collective power. The workers are paying taxes, to support University labor studies programs that produce labor consultants to work with people to teach them how to avoid a union in their work force, to lower the workers own standard of living.
“9-11″ should be leaping off the page to all readers. It is the 9-11 strategy.
“Crisis opportunism” “disaster capitalism” “could it conceivably make sense to think of deliberately provoking a crisis so as to remove the political logjam to reform.”
“A crisis hits, panic spreads and the ideologues fill the breach, rapidly reengineering societies in the interests of large corporate players.”
“If this kind of crisis opportunism feels familiar, it’s because it is.” Naomi says.
If we believe in a morally upright America we had all better get involved in holding power accountable. Impeach the Bush/Cheney cabal…reopen 9-11 investigations, and get politics back to a foundation of truth
John R. Hall,
My feelings also. A close friend asked me the definition of ‘neo-liberalism’ a few years ago. I told him in plain simple English…”five for six”…like the loansharks in the old days would say. “I’ll lend you five bucks, you pay me back six bucks.” (20% interest-as long as you are on time with the payment) In Milton Friedman’s plan, start cutting social benefits and meaningful programs for the poor and working-class in order to make the payments to the International Monetary Fund or World Bank.
LuckyLefty,
I like your tax percentages ratings.
Empire pie,
In a way, the old Soviet Union was corrupt, but nowhere near as much as the United States. Socialism, like real anarchy has been tried, mostly by small groups of people. Native cultures around the world have lived a communal existence for thousands of years, so this type of ‘arrangement is not only possible, it has been proved quite workable. The trouble starts, when greed and/or ego manifests in one or more individuals, initiating the beginning of the downfall of the community. ( that is a different subject but akin to your comment. )
For those who spin the capitalist propaganda that socialism hampers creativity and the urge for innovation and self-fulfillment, I disagree. The concept of greed, selfishness, and materialism and money accumulation has been ingrained in the collective consciousness of so-called civilization for so long that it is excepted as gospel.
Why does a tiny minority of the population spend so much time on the internet exchanging ideas and methods we think may solve so many unnecessary problems when the vast majority don’t care enough?
Tom Joad,
You are propably right, but the dumbed down American people will blame it on everybody BUT the ruling elite who are giving us a screwing. The General Strike to “change” this country for the better is long overdue. Will it happen?
Ronald White,
All important books which helped “change” America for the better. Good post.
Sung425,
Because he is doing the right thing for his country and fellow human beings, Mr. Chavez is demonized in the United States by both Dems and Repubs. I wish him well and he is leading South American away from the money lenders and into a hemispheric cooperative on a grand scale.
pograndma,
Jack London was a man of the people and gave away so much of his earnings from his writing. One of my favorite authors.
worddancer,
Four wonderful points for solving problems. You are so right!
“None of it will happen, of course. But WHY THE HELL NOT?”
Apathy, lethargy, fear, complacency, selfishness, ignorance, …dinner’s ready. I gotta go.
Naomi is a class act and a friend of my hero, Arundhati Roy.
Keep up the good work!
TigerDon
Cambridge
No exeter will change this tide, but fortunately, those in power have iniatiated their own self destruction…DC’S coke-heads of today, are the coat tails of tomorrow.
TigerDon - Wow, that is great company - Naomi and Arundhati. They are both great and insightful human beings. Thank God for their intelligence and humanity. I’m afraid that the post above yours begs for more of the same that we have now. Hopefully, those are becoming fewer and far between. More of the same is a nightmare. Naomi tells the truth, and without voices like hers and Arundhati’s we have little hope. (Cambridge is one of my favorite places on Earth.) Peace,
Satya
Tax all transfers to tax havens at 35%. There is only one reason for a company to be based in a tax haven and that is to avoid tax. Tax havens hide up to 40% of capital in the world.
This would require a world wide approach so that money couldn’t be laundered through compliant governments in the grip of multi-nationals.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Karl Marx
worddancer, you’re totally correct. I often wonder what the hell it’s going to take to get a green WPA project going. Do we really have to wait until after another Great Depression? It seems to me the people have the will for this, while the government and the corporations that control them do not. I say we have to do it from the ground up. Start a business/non-profit that helps people get off grid, or produce their own food, etc. It really is up to us.
welshTerrier2 January 27th, 2008 12:02 pm
…Taxes should be based on ability to pay. It makes no sense to tax investment income at rates lower than earned income. Why should investors get a tax “discount”?
I agree, it’s illogical to value capital over the labor it takes to create it. How can it ever be more than a loosing proposition for anyone than the rich. Only when the rich begin to feel endangered do they give up a morsel of fairness to the “lower” classes. Sad greed governs all in a purely capitalistic society.
The key is cash flow, want to start a revolution? Starve the beast… let the head die and keep what you have, possession is 9/10th. Stop paying the bill or at least the interest. Let them come and try to take it away from you if your standing shoulder to shoulder with your community and nieghbors. It does not require any blood, and if done on a global scale would be non-violent. Mass debt elimination for all at the expense of the few! Security in numbers, we win… it would take less than 90 days to bring the top 1% to their knees and the barginning table. Collective barginning on a planetary level.
Where’s that list of demands?
Out in the oil-territories the global corporatist Empire used Bush’s “shock and awe” of actual bombs to overpower and loot.
But here at home the corporatist Empire uses ‘only’ the tyranny of ‘debt bombs’ dropped on our human economy to shock and awe the rubes into wasting their voting power.
In an Empire, there are the torturable and the untorturable — although, over time, the two merge.
If we don’t think carefully before wasting our precious right to vote in 2008. If we don’t use our remaining voting power to turn out both faux parties of this corporatist Empire behind the facade of this ‘Vichy American’ government, then we will soon all be Iraqis.
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned decades ago, “Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home.”
I’ll bet many millions of Germans wished they had considered that before their last vote, when they were promised increased ‘living space’ by a candidate.
Let’s hope average Americans consider that before giving their precious votes again to corporatist Empire for the false promise of consumer trinkets, entertainment, and cheap gas.
Empires can never deliver on their implied promises, even if they were not lying — which they always are. Because Empire by its very nature is an unsustainable Ponzi economy — a hierarchy, that needs an expanding in-flow of funds and life, but creates the appearance of wealth only by temporarily hiding the negative externality costs of death and destruction.
word-dance: You seem to be the only on this vein. I couldn’t agree with you more. The war machine is the heart of the problem. The attitude of Americans towards war and the world is the source of the war machine. That needs to change. The waste is absolutely horrendous.
another powerful piece from klein.
Thank you.
I have,(regretfully), to agree. The Dems’ fervor in fighting for the little guy has been, “like a one-legged guy in a butt-kicking contest.”
I don’t believe what the government said about 911, what would I know I’m just a dumb engineer who melted metal in his backyard for fun. I don’t believe what the government says about boogey men wearing turbans out to get us. I don’t believe anything the government will do about the economy will help since they always ignore trade policy (notice they always talk around the policy not about it).
I believe Naomi Klein. I haven’t read your book Naomi, I don’t want to know more than I have already drawn conclusions about, I want to see positive change and that doesn’t seem to be coming.
I recently finished Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” … a truly remarkable book. If you haven’t read it, make damned sure you do. While you’re at it, pick up a copy of Chalmers Johnson’s “The Sorrows of Empire” or “Nemesis.” You’ll be armed and dangerous.
I’ve read all the comments made in this thread and have a few reactions to what seem to be the main themes.
First, taxation. As stated way back near the beginning of this thread’s comments, I think the “capital gains discount” should be eliminated. A “fair” tax system should be based on ability to pay. The argument for special capital gains rates is that they encourage investment in businesses that then create jobs. If jobs were truly the objective, corporations would not be exploiting the WTO and NAFTA to ship American jobs to cheaper labor markets. Investment gains made on companies participating in this treasonous conduct should be taxed at 100%! The “jobs” argument is a smokescreen.
If we really wanted to give tax “discounts” to income we value, how about taxing certain income from certain occupations at lower rates? Perhaps we should tax those who work with the elderly or teach children or provide medical care to the poor at lower rates. Of all the groups to give a tax discount to, investors should rank at the bottom of the heap.
Taxes should not only be based on income but they should be based on wealth as well. Someone earning $100K in a year but with nothing saved cannot afford to pay as much in taxes as someone with the same income but with millions and millions in the bank. Certain wealth should be excluded from taxation (e.g. a primary residence up to some value). The idea of a consumption tax is total garbage. Spending is not necessarily indicative of ability to pay.
The next theme I saw in this thread was numerous discussions of capitalism and socialism. I believe progressives in this country are making a huge mistake by raising this issue. I think it makes our struggle much tougher than it needs to be.
In my view, the near-term objective should be “political parity” and not an effort to achieve “economic parity.” If the former is achieved, the latter will follow. Capitalism is deeply ingrained in the American psyche and generations of propaganda against socialism (coupled with the Soviet Union bogey man) should relegate this struggle to the longer term.
The good news is that the idea of democracy is also deeply ingrained in the American psyche. The following simple statement of progressive values should be well received as a rallying cry from a much broader audience than socialism is likely to achieve anytime soon:
“Every adult American citizen should have equal access to and influence on their government. Any policy or law that lessens that equality should be changed or eliminated.”
This would include such measures as:
1. elimination of private campaign contributions
2. elimination of paid lobbyists
3. free and equal access to broadcast media for all candidates qualifying for the ballot.
4. a recognition, contrary to court rulings, that money does not equal free speech.
The underlying theme of this campaign would be that democracy is not a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder. To have democracy, we cannot allow money to equal power. We do not need to defeat capitalism (although I agree we should) to put an end to the corporate agenda in the halls of the people’s government. A system of government that allows the wealthiest a greater control over national policy should be called an aristocracy; not a democracy. A democracy campaign might readily appeal to a broad political spectrum. There’s no reason this has to be seen as a left versus right issue.
To empower each citizen with equal political power honors the best ideals of America. This should enable anti-empire, anti-corporatists to broaden their base to “liberal” Democrats, centrist Democrats and perhaps even a few rational Republicans. To lead with socialism as a primary theme will leave progressives isolated from the mainstream. The cause is just but for now it’s a path to nowhere. The bottom line? Join the “political parity” bandwagon; leave economic justice for “round two.”
Ms. Klein’s Shock Doctrine should be mandatory reading for all college kids and anyone else with a a brain. It gives a powerful new perspective on the history of modern capitalism. According to this thesis, the key feature of capitalism is that it continually strives to be free of any humanizing restraint, and in fact, demands brutality and violence for its very existence. Maybe this isn’t so new; Marx pretty accurately described the dynamics 150 years ago. What is new is Klein’s contemporary analysis and her marvelous ability to spell it out in popular prose. It is a very important book; a revolutionary book for our times.
welshTerrier2, I have no problem with what you are advocating in a “democracy revolution”, the problem is, we are already too deep in the $hit! The electorate that has been systematically dumbed-down by the corporate media must be able to be reached with the message and stirred to action.
Which of the corporate multi-media conglomerates is going to spread the message of democratic revolution? Hell, most of the sheeple are programed to vote against their own best interests every time they get a chance. Most of them need nothing short of an intervention and cult-deprogramming before they can be functioning, thinking, reasoning people again (if they ever were to start with)!
Give the monkeys excrement that smells like bananas, so they will not upset our golden egg-laying geese.
I still take offence to the term ’sheeple’.
American people, as in “We the People” are NOT stupid.
What the SHEEPLE seem most narcotized against is truth.
Wasn’t suppression the answer to those [who happened, at that time, to be Jew and Roman bastards who murdered [if he was indeed real] Jesus??
STOP sheepling us! Dummies!
Naomi, please remind your audience that they are NOT sheeple.
“after the dramatic market failure of 1929, the left was ready and waiting with its ideas — full employment, huge public works, mass union drives.”
we’ve been ready and waiting again. the left has great ideas however we’ve been blacklisted for the most part. a ‘green wpa’ as one poster put it is a common dream instead of a war machine. I’d add universal health care too.
My adversity here undecided
after my last entry chided
must think of the blessings
of left and right
divided.
1 Eliminate “rights of personhood” for corporations
2 Universal health care
3 Minimum wage increase to $10 per hour with annual cola’s tied directly to inflation measured by the prices of food and fuel
4 Flat tax, per STATE. Individual states can determine their own tax structures.
5 Shrink the size of the federal government by returning control to individual states.
6 Eliminate social security as a federal program.
7 Repudiate NAFTA, CAFTA et al.
8 Pass the equal rights amendment, repeal the defence of marriage act, patriot act, no child left behind etc.
9 Instant Run Off Voting.
10 Publically financed campaigns
When government is of appropriate size, individuals have more effective imput. States should be handling there own education, retirement, healthcare etc. People need to take responsibility for their government. That is nearly impossible under the current structure.
There you have it folks…..pat’s ten point societal stimulus package. Stay tuned for a economic stimulus package.
But first I must go and participate in my personal financial stimulus program….time for work.
Have a nice day and fasten your seatbelts……..
Mordechai Shiblikov, “Tom Joad” and Peaceman seem to support the same idea, summed up by Mordechai, who writes: “The only way to get the gleefully uninformed American public to realize what has happened to them, and continues to happen, is for a full scale economic collapse to take place.” Peaceman weighs in as well and describes the populace unflatteringly as “dumbed down American people (who) will blame it on everybody BUT the ruling elite who are giving us a screwing.”
A few thoughts:
If you understand what Klein is saying and she says it all in this article (but it’s definitely worth reading her book) it is a “crisis” like “full scale economic collapse” that the neo-liberals are waiting for. A population beset by such catastrophe is neither “dumb” nor “gleefuly uninformed” but essentially terrorized. Consequently they will be ripe and ready to accept all the privitization schemes that will take away the last remnents of the social safety net. Such calls for collapse as a way to “enlighten” the public fit right into their scenario.
Indeed the current meltdown suits the proponents of Crisis Capitalism quite nicely and they will be ready. As the first paragraph of Klein’s article states, they are already starting to make their proposals. This “Shock Doctrine” is no fluke and its architects (i.e. Friedman) are not dopes. This doctrine was developed precisely as a strategy to overcome traditional left-wing arguments and tactics.
So if praying for an apocalyptic economic meltdown that will “heighten the contradictions” (in old left Stalinist parlance) and ignite a worker’s revolution seems foolhardy in light of these well planned countermeasures, just what are we to believe is the appropriate reaction?
Klein points us towards it when she states: “The way we respond to crises is always highly political, a lesson progressives appear to have forgotten. There’s a historical irony to that: Crises have ushered in some of America’s great progressive policies. Most notably, after the dramatic market failure of 1929, the left was ready and waiting with its ideas — full employment, huge public works, mass union drives. The Social Security system that Moody’s is so eager to dismantle was a direct response to the Depression.”
But this left was not sitting out the dance waiting for the house to burn down (well the hard core Marxist-Leninists were). This progressive left was engaged in politics, pressuring political leadership, running for and winning office, speaking out on street corners and at town and family gatherings. Most importantly however, they were believers in, defenders of and sought solidarity with the American public and didn’t denounce them contemptibly as “gleefully uninformed” or “dumbed down” — mainly because no meaningful democratic change can happen without them (Duh!).
So why is the left so ill equipped to meet this challenge? Because the only thing they hold in more contempt than the American people is the Democratic party and no serious change will happen without both of them. (That combination accomplished what Klein mentions in her last paragraph) I know how much you all hate the Democratic party but it is the only option for change at least for the foreseeable future and given the current state of economic and political crisis, the foreseable future may be the only future we have.
I wish Klein or someonme of her caliber would look into this aspect of the left’s impotence. There are calls here for solidarity as often as there are denunciations of Americans for being stupid. I don’t believe they are stupid so much as they live in a constant state of crisis. They are in debt, not because they don’t know better but because American propaganda gives them hope. They are distracted by TV, not because they are dumbed down but because the media arm of American politics keeps them afraid to go outside. They are freaked at losing their home not becasue they failed to read the fine print but because everyone told them not to.
Show some compassion. It’s the right that lacks that. It’s outrageous to condemn a population this beseiged by psychological terror for being terrorized. Read Klein’s book. It’s all there. A hopeless and fearful popualation is a essential to the implementation of Shock Doctrine and critical to its perpetuation is a population divided amongst itself. We meet all the criteria.
The power of the Democratic Party does not rest at the top but at the bottom, it only seems so in our super-star, media circus view of politics. Our actions will make change. Not some character with a good speech writer. Our beliefs will make change. Not some ground swell of poll results.
It will rest with US and our ACTIONS.
The biggest disaster of all and how it will be used to build fascist state.
Tim Flannery, in his book “The Weather Makers” see three possible outcome for the future of humanity: 1) Earth life support system is destroyed and humans enter dark age, civilization is destroyed, 2) Humans act promptly now, and climate change is stopped 3) “ Emissions are reduced sufficiently to avoid outright disaster, but serious damage to Earth’s ecosystem results. With world climate on a knife edge, Critzen’s vision of inernationally-agreed-upon-geoengineering projects becomes mandatory. Civilization will hover on the brink for decades or centuries, during which period the carbon cycle will need to be strictly controlled, by large and small geoengineering project alike.
Under this final scenario humans would have no choice but to establish an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control, something that could easily grow from the Kyoto Protocol…
… Inevitably , one day some commissioner will suggest that their work would be more effectively done were they to concentrate on the root cause of the issue - the total number of people on the planet. And with such a move the Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army, and control over every person and every inch of our planet. As horrific as such an outcome is, if we delay action to combat the climate crisis, the carbon dictatorship may become essential for our survival.”
Interestingly, author is not alone in his views. Read for example opinion of Noam Chomsky from his book”Understanding Power”. On page 388 he writes: “ For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the green-house effect has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from nor or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover - with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there just are no other alternatives around right now.”
Yes fascist state. Is that the reason our government is delaying action to fight global warming?
If only the left could exploit disasters (what we used to call “crises”) the way the right can! Well, they used to be able to… See: http://counterpunch.com/feldman01082008.html
A wonderful exchange of ideas, how do so many viewpoints seem so right until you read the next one. I have always felt the impetus for a better world has to come from each of us trying to do the best each day with what we have to offer and to treat all beings on this earth with respect (excepting the real destructive nut jobs). Maybe a good result of the genome project would be to eliminate our overly agggressive genes for other more successful survival genes, such as …. It sure would be nice if our culture were to admire our teachers more so than our sports heros and the violence so ingrained in our lives starting from day one. How to get out of this quagmire and the impetus to do so may only come from a meltdown of what is place at this time-how scary this seems. We really need a few inspiring leaders to move us out of this apathy.
Peace, Jonathan? Shouldn’t we first give the consumers of IRAQ’S POPPIES (sticky bricks)…a little season to capitalize first!
Hey, Ron Paul folks. It seems like you always come in here with the big answer to all problems…the answer everyone has missed except you. In a way it’s good, cause you’re the only non-libs that seem to stop in.
The thing about the shock doctrine is that it’s demoralizing. One can’t believe how the movers and shakers are once again only stupidly concerned about a buck, and blithely unconcerned about blowback. You ask yourself, are these really my leaders?
An interesting thing is how advertising also reacts to disasters. Less time for the SUV age? Buy another one right away before it’s over! And I like this surfing ad with the whales. Finally surfing on the tube every night at prime time (along with this unprecedented first, though, funny how the whale included is part of a population that may soon be knocked out of existence by the new variety/omnipresense of Naval sonar).
“‘The president’s effort to use a White House agency to override a court order is very dangerous in our legal system, highly illegal, and completely unjustified,’ says Mr. Kendall.” 1/25 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0125/p02s03-uspo.html
The gaming potential for consumption tax(es) is glaringly blatant IMO. The only way I see to make it work…
1)Devise an efficient means to assess the need of individual families for gas, water, and kilowatts.
2)Institute a chit system for purchase of same. You buy the chits at the bank, but when you’re outta chits…you pay much, much more for additional chits.
3)Added workers required by gas stations, Post Offices, and banks…would be paid by the U.S. Government. [more jobs!]
I admire the grass roots nature of consumptionite arguments, but just the same, without the details worked out, I also view their presence here or wherever as…just the same as political ads/propaganda in the rest of electronic media.
Sovereign Funds
What might be the role of the foreign sovereign funds in US politics? How much power do nations like China, and Saudi Arabia have in our policies because of their wealth?
I am concerned because the US has so much debt that is being held in China by that government and now our national and personal debt is so high and we have the sub prime crisis in mortgages. The stock market is going down and we may be headed into a recession that could be very long..(but then again maybe not…)
In any case our political system is now open to lobbyists from large corporations and those corporations are selling shares to Chinese sovereign funds.
While the US policy is to put large amounts of money into its military the real war may be in the economic system. The US with all its debts and a political system that uses large amounts of money to fund expensive campaigns, may be vulnerable to foreign interests that own large portions of US corporations.
The US won against Russia intiially I believe by emphasizng a build up in the military, which Russia tried to equal but was financially unable to compete. Could China be doing the same thing to us? Are we weakening ourselves economically and making it more difficult for us to compete internationally by putting so much money into a military build up?
The products sold by China in the US are at such low costs it is impossible for US manufacturers to compete. Even the costs of the raw materials are higher than the finished products sold by China. Could China be raising large amounts of dollars to weaken the US in an economic war?
And this article in the Economist will expalin how the Shock Doctrine of using economic problems to gain leverage is now being used against Wall Street. The republicans and the people who think the world is run on capitalism are too smart by half. Without a strong government that is well run a nation like America is at risk to foreign sovereign wealth funds. SWF
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533866
The invasion of the sovereign-wealth funds
Jan 17th 2008
“BEN BERNANKE once spoke of dropping money from helicopters, if necessary, to save an economy in distress. The chairman of the Federal Reserve probably did not envisage that choppers bearing the insignia of oil-rich Gulf states and cash-rich Asian countries would hover over Wall Street. Yet just such a squadron has flown to the rescue of capitalism’s finest.
On January 15th the governments of Singapore, Kuwait and South Korea provided much of a $21 billion lifeline to Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, two banks that have lost fortunes in America’s credit crisis. It was not the first time either had tapped the surplus savings of developing countries, known as sovereign-wealth funds, that have proliferated in recent years thanks to bumper oil prices and surging Asian exports. Since the subprime-mortgage fiasco unfolded last year, such funds have gambled almost $69 billion on recapitalising the rich world’s biggest investment banks (far more than usually goes the other way in an emerging-markets crisis). With as much as $2.9 trillion to invest (see article), the funds’ horizons go beyond finance to telecoms and technology companies, casino operators, even aerospace. But it is in banking where they have arrived most spectacularly. They have deftly played the role of saviour just when Western banks have been exposed as the Achilles heel of the global financial system.”
more at the link
Not a bad premise in the article, but I remain somewhat concerned that the figureheads of the “neo-left” which are most vocal in media still pass on a few outdated memes:
* We can protest our way out of trouble.
* Just contact your congressperson and will be well.
Klein’s other article here on CD basically suggested that we should write our congresspersons to tell them to hold themselves in contempt. I mean, at some point a dysfunctional relationship wants divorce.
* Despite overwhelming axis realignment to rich vs. poor, powerful vs. powerless, the “left” figureheads still insist on the metaphorical left/right axis instead. Why?
Our goal should be to find the populist mainstream, not trapped in the old divisive baggage, co-dependency on the very politicians who are gumming up the works. We should all follow Vermont’s leadership. Grassroots, bottom-up assertion of power.
earthbound: what would you suggest?
What I’ve been saying for quite some time already: we need a world-wide social revolution to put an end to this devastating greed. Question is: where to find an honest and decent leader.
Walt wrote: “If you understand what Klein is saying and she says it all in this article (but it’s definitely worth reading her book) it is a “crisis” like “full scale economic collapse” that the neo-liberals are waiting for. A population beset by such catastrophe is neither “dumb” nor “gleefuly uninformed” but essentially terrorized. Consequently they will be ripe and ready to accept all the privitization schemes that will take away the last remnents of the social safety net. Such calls for collapse as a way to “enlighten” the public fit right into their scenario.”
Walt, I too like Mordechai Shiblikov, Tom Joad, and Peaceman
believe that a collapse is upon us, and I too state and enjoy the cynical remarks regarding the twinkle bunny world view of Americans. The idea that the gleefully uninformed are suffering from home grown governmental and corporate terrorism I find beyond my ability to get my arms around. I have to laugh a little at the idea of Americans being such helpless and hapless people. Americans have made a conscious choice to place the hard work of citizenship well down the list, while elevating the importance of money and comfort. American’s are now realizing the fruits of their labor, an affluent dystopia. So please forgive me if I stick a verbal pitchfork in them now and then. I enjoy hearing an occasional scream permeate the comfort zone. It reminds them that all is not well in la la land.
The more important aspect of your writing, “it is a “crisis” like “full scale economic collapse” that the neo-liberals are waiting for” is fundamentally correct. We must do what we can to avoid the crisis. The real question is how? There are some attempts here to answer that question but by comparison to the velocity of negative events and trends those answers seem weak and ill suited for the short term challenge. Like a well known Paki whose name I cannot spell recently said, “We are between a rock and a hard surface.”
Paul Bramscher,
I am sure you are aware of the history of the left label — from the seating arrangements in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791. And the left label came to be associated with the goals of the French Revolution, particularly regarding equality. And if the left stands for equality, the right stands for inequality, though in the USA with the rhetoric at its founding implying equality, the inequality must be justified by utilitarian arguments.
And virtually everyone agrees that equality must extend to political equality on the surface (one person — one vote, though the left holds this must mean real equality — no campaign contributions), and on other issues different subgroups of the left hold different standards of equality.
However, in the US, the left label has been increasingly shifted to a focus on gender equality or racial equality, with the aid of the corporate oligarchy, as such focus is much less threatening than, and can even serve as distractions to, a focus on wealth, quality of life, or political power equality.
So if your attempt to shift the left-right dichotomy to top-down is meant to refocus attention on economic equality, good luck to you, but I am not sure that the label shift would make that much difference.
A report in the UK has just revealed that the least satisfied people are the rich, they believe that they are not getting enough money. This at a time when the divide between rich and poor is at it’s greatest for over a century. Just like the US, we have the top earners being allowed tax evasion scams, whilst we at the bottom can see 30% dissolve before we see any money. Why are the populace content to see this situation? How can we make them more aware, so that the majority can reclaim some sort of dignity. My wages have not gone up for six years, but we have had house price escalation, fuel rises, hiked transport costs. I am spending 18% of my wages just getting to work. We don’t eat out any more, and we do not have any outstanding loans (except the mortgage) or credit cards.
I should add that I am earning just above the average wage. What has gone wrong with the World, when well educated semi professional people struggle to make ends meet?
Walt,
Thanks for the commentary and I do appreciate Klein’s message in the ‘Shock Doctrine.’ I’ll try and clarify the meaning in my references to the general public. A wordsmith I’m not, but here it goes.
American people are not stupid…they are creative, can build and repair things, and when pressed, come up with achievable solutions to problems. This is one of the reasons we were ‘on top in the world’ and admired around the world, for awhile, anyway.
But when I use the term, ‘dumbed down’ or ‘willful ignorance’ in reference to the vast majority, and remember,Walt, 50+1 is a majority, but in my opinion, for those two terms, that majority is higher. And here is why I say these things and disagree about “the population neither dumb nor gleefully uninformed, but essentially terrorized.”
Every citizen of this country ( and every other country on Earth ) should be informed of important or pertinent current events that can change the direction of laws, rules, and regulations for the betterment of society or for the detriment of society. We the People are society, and if I’m informed, and you’re informed, and the overwhelming majority are informed, dictators and tyrants have a hard time ‘conning’ us, or ‘terrorizing’ us for their benefit and our enslavement. But when ballgames, fishing trips, reality shows, and tv takes priority over reading (Naomi’s books for example) and discussions with family and friends, neighbors and co-workers, or attend the many lectures around the country on the chain of events enacted by The Bush Republican Crime Family and Democratic Collaborators, what is one to say? The information is available in books, magazines, progressive radio and tv stations for all who want the information of what has been happening to our once great country. That is why I call it, ‘willful ignorance.’ We can fill these pages with examples, Walt.
The Left was much more organized in the 30’s and FDR was wise enough as well as compassionate to impliment programs to help the common people, otherwise we can only speculate on what may have occured. I encourage all who are reading my post to read books and see the two hour film of George Seldes, one of the greatest journalists in American History.
I’ve marched in demonstrations, called my Congressman and two Senators, wrote letters, sent numerous emails, called progressive talk radio stations, spoke at some of the lectures I’ve attended, read books, magazines, watch progressive tv shows and guess what? The panorama is getting darker in this country. My conclusion, Walt, is a general shut-down of the country (a general strike) by working people. Union, non-union, skilled, un-skilled, blue-collar, white-collar, no-collar, professional, and non=professional. All folks who need to earn money. I know people are struggling and all that, but if we don’t make the sacrifice and run the money and power-mad ruling-elite out of town, and restore democracy and rescind and make null and void every piece of legislation that this administration has signed and put through since 2001, then welcome to the return of fuedalism and the rule of the king.
Peace an Harmony all over the planet.
kivals,
Then why not use the word “equality”?
Left/right are terms that have long divided any sort of populist movement from gaining momentum for a couple of chief reasons:
1. There are different “levels” of language, starting with onomatopoeia, to clean-cut dualisms (yes/no, black/white), to empirical/quantifiable/verifiable (numbers, scientific statements, etc.) to feelings and metaphors.
Being so far removed from objectivity, left/right and other metaphors are subject to the most slippery sorts of redefinitions, vilifications, etc. There is NO sensible reason to frame politics as poetry. Let’s start talking hardcore ideals and drop the left/right thing.
2. “Left” (as with “right”) has picked up quite a bit of BAD baggage over the decades. In many people’s eyes, left means Stalin, it means total government (which few of us trust today) control, it means loss of personal freedom, subjugation to the State, high taxes (on all, not just the wealthy), lots of rules (on all, not just the wealthy), etc. It may also mean the usual money siphon/pump from public tax dollars to well-connected private vendors. Whether any of this is true or not, the term (since it is metaphor, and not clearly spoken/objectively stated values) has picked up these negative connotations. They can be slipped under the door. You can get well-meaning people to advocate for, frankly, stupid ideas — as opposed to equally (if not more) stupid ideas which have been added to the “right”. Let’s drop the left/right bullshit already and move to objective values.
3. Populist Realpolitik. The fact of the matter is that it might not matter if Jesus Christ came to earth and celebrated “left” politics — by simply calling it “left” you’ll lose 25-50+% of the lower- and middle-class citizenry. Pockets of people who cherish working-class values, etc. but who have been hoodwinked so long against their own issues that we need to abandon the waste of time in redefining dead metaphors, and cut straight to the heart of the issues. Rich vs. poor, powerful vs. powerless, Autocracy/Plutocracy vs. grassroots/self-emergent power, etc.
4. As I’ve indicated elsewhere, Bush more than anyone has demonstrated how useless capitalist/socialist, conservative/liberal labels are. Again, American “capitalists” rely on “communist” China labor and government cooperation, the “communist” Chinese rely on “capitalist” consumers. Bush is hardly a good ol’ fiscal conservative who believes in small government. There is no more left and right, perhaps never was — other than two sides of an aisle.
The left/right thing is a joke, probably the single greatest stumbling block to a unified progressive populist reclamation of its own Western governments.
Paul Bramscher,
Good point that in the political battles over the decades the right saddled the term “left” with a myriad of distasteful connotations. However, over time the term has developed great inertia and changing that label to redirect the course of debate is a monumental task. The Green Party apparently tries to tie leftist ideals regarding equality with environmental concerns, and apparently labeled itself based on the environmental issues because the “left” label has been so tarnished, but it has not been that successful.
Your suggestion that the term “equality” should be substituted for “the left” has some merit, but it seems to be too broad and the equality would have to be defined, while the opposition would quickly muddy the water with speculations about its implications.
I would prefer to see more efforts to attack the right’s preposterous assertions of a “free market” or arguments concerning “personal freedom,” which are nonsensical on their face, as I argued the other day that the more “freedom” one gives to economic elites (more freedom from the government) the less “freedom” the non-elites have (less freedom from the actions of the economic elites).
Modern problems call for modern solutions.
1. Lazar guillotines
2. Hybrid trumbels
3. Add any other solutions
Paul, there are huge differences between someone that calls themselves a, for instance, “libertarian” and someone who considers themselves, say, an anarchist. They both have a distrust of government but not an equal mistrust of centralized private power and have vast differences on capitals role in society. How do you articulate the huge, huge difference in ideological foundation without sounding so…20th century? The differences do exist and they are fundamental. The problem with the “left”, from my perspective, is that many mass movements, built up after years of work by regular people, have seen their ideals and rhetoric monopolized by elites who don’t believe in the rhetoric they espoused (“all power to the soviets” was the slogan used by the Bolsheviks. The idea was that the workers councils could take the roll of the traditional state. Meanwhile, from the beginning, the Bolsheviks had plans to make the soviets mere instruments of the state and the state managers), ruining whatever chance the ideas had to work as theoretically proposed. What is deemed “left” by the media, and who represents the “left” in the media, is a watered down version of the status quo. The rhetoric sounds nice and empowering but does little to change the problems of the system, which comes off sounding like the elites who call themselves “left” know how to run people’s lives better than regular people do themselves. So, to the public, you have elitist state socialism or “limousine liberalism”. The elite media savages what passes for the left and no one who truly is left is there to defend the attacks.
There are huge ideological differences between the left and the right but I agree that there are common ideals that can unify people. The problem would be in the future, when the common ideals have been reached. The “right” has an ideological objection to democracy, they believe in the democracy of the market, while the left believes in people democratically controlling their lives and has an ideological distrust of private power, thinking that capitalism and democracy are not compatible. The left wants to further democratize economics while the right thinks that pure capitalism is democratizing. I don’t know what the middle ground would be, outside of letting different regions run their affairs different according to the wishes of the local inhabitants, which then leads to problems of centralized federal power vs. states and local municipalities. Saying that the left/right dichotomy is a distraction sounds nice, but it ignores fundamental differences in how people see the world, economics, social relations, basic rights, etc.
I’m pressed for time So I’ll be brief. Emma Goldman saw the dangers in ‘centalized authority’ and maybe had the most ‘democratic’ and ‘egalitarian’ system of communal governance. We all agree, no system is perfect, but as the saying goes, “practice leads to perfection.” Goldman returned to Russia and was in disagreement with the authorian Soviets. She traveled to Spain and saw the constant quarreling among the ‘left’ as the fascists on the right were ‘united’ and swept across Spain under Franco’s brutal command. Have any of you read Emma’s stuff? And Paul, did you ever obtain the book I recommended?
My best to you all.
Grant,
You wrote:
“I don’t know what the middle ground would be, outside of letting different regions run their affairs different according to the wishes of the local inhabitants, which then leads to problems of centralized federal power vs. states and local municipalities.”
You might want to read about the discussions in the Federalist Papers with regard to similar issues. James Madison argued somewhat successfully that with local democracy it is inevitable that local power elites soon dominate the system so that in quick order it becomes democratic in name only. He was apparently the first to claim, apparently using a form of statistical reasoning, that a large democracy was preferable and more stable because over a large area there would always be too many elites for one elite or one small group of elites to dominate.
I would add that part of the reason the left is so weak today is that there are innumerable dimensions of equality, and those who focus on one particular dimension usually do so at the expense of others. An obvious example is that of the rhetoric of the supporters of the current Dem candidates: Hillary-gender, Obama-race, Edwards-economic class. And the corporatocracy is always willing to focus on the non-economic dimensions and even encourage action on such fronts as focus on those dimensions poses no serious threat to the current elites.
I’ve read a lot about the Federalist Papers and agree with you that they tackle some of these issue. The problem with using those debates as an example for today is that in the time that the Federalist Papers was being debated there was nothing like the modern corporation, outside of the state institutions like the East India Trading Company. It’s the same problem I have with people quoting Adam Smith while trying to justify “free market” policies. Smith argued forcible against private monopolies and the interests who own them, said that the more concentrated private power is the more distorted the market would be, said that huge differences in wealth were “a tax upon the general public” or something similar, said that profits tended to rise in the countries “going quickest to ruin”. All of that is lost because people look superficially to his ideas and don’t take into account the rise of corporate power. His, and similar, ideas don’t work nearly as well as a result.
The same is true of the Federal Papers. The Federalists have been proven wrong, and they’ve been proven wrong as a result of the rise of private power. A decentralized system, like market relations, only works as it’s theoretically supposed to if the people are relatively equal. If you have a decentralized system along with huge differences in wealth and power, with “enlightened self interest”, with capital given a huge advantage over labor, you leave people to fend for themselves against powerful interests and the end result will be no different if those people were made to defend themselves against a powerful state.
I agree with you that the left tends to focus their energies on specific issues, and tends to splinter off. The reason for this is that many on the “left” don’t fundamentally disagree with the economic arrangement. They talk about things like economic justice but agree, generally, with the power structure and the dominant economic ideas, they just think they need superficial change. So they call for economic justice but back policies that make that impossible, basically calling for imperialism in which the rewards are simply shared more equally, instead of monopolized by domestic elites. If there were a fundamental agreement that radical change needed to happen I think you’d see less splintering off. That’s what I see as the difference between the modern “left” and the “left” of the 20th century. There is no unifying alternative to the status quo. If the economy were to collapse that could come about, but a dictatorship of the current entrenched interests seems much more likely. There is no democratic infrastructure to fill the power vacuum
Kivals,
Not my idea to substitute the term “equality” for “left”. That was your sentiment. My point is that “left” and “right” are mere subjective or referential metaphors, largely devoid of any objective meaning, quantifiable or methodological content, etc. The reference an aggregate and wholly nebulous set of terms which nobody can agree on. My point is that we abandon that whole practice. Let’s use far more objective language.
Grant,
People have been hoodwinked. I’m certainly not ignoring that! It was Bush himself who broke the spell. His administration showed us all, better than any other, what a joke “right” or “conservative” is. Fiscal responsibility? Small government?
Believe me, I’m not trying to change the world here. I’m predicting the future, gazing into my crystal ball again. And I predict that it is all but guaranteed that “left” and “right” will be losing their semantic “charm” on people in the years ahead. Cold War vestiges. We’ll need to be a little more clear about what we’re talking about. No more politics-as-metaphorical-poetry. Objective, quantifiable or direct statements only.
Hell, I’ll just take honest vs. dishonest at this point, if we must stick with dualisms.
I think we agree, coming from different directions. I agree that the labels, or the semantics, are dated a bit. I agree that people should focus on articulating their stances and try to avoid those labels (to help their own argument if anything) I just think that the terms “left” and “right” do stand for differences in outlook on the world, economics and social relations that are the same now as it was in the past. So I think the semantics should change, the underlying ideas that the labels represent however aren’t going anywhere.
kivals, Paul and others - excellent exchange.
All constituencies for social justice, e.g. women’s rights, racial equality, gay rights, abolition of poverty, health care as a right rather than a privilege, or any other cause you can name, are all dependent on one single thing to effect change: POWER.
All progress is dependent on gaining sufficient power to institute change. The only possible source of this power is a true union of the American people to reclaim their government from the well-funded, powerful interests that control it. And the only possible way to form a union, i.e. a movement, of the American people is to educate them and rally them toward a common cause.
If we choose certain esoteric arguments as our founding principles, e.g. opposing “free market” capitalism, I think we’re dead before we even begin. If we engage in socialism versus capitalism debates, we can gain no traction. If you accept the premise that the route to power is via a mobilized citizenry, it’s inconceivable that we will see millions taking to the streets to protest “the concept” of free market capitalism. Even many so-called “liberal” Democrats seem to believe that the theories of Milton Friedman are somehow beyond question. They make arguments like “if we don’t give American businesses a free hand in maximizing profits, they won’t be able to compete with their global competitors.” The argument, of course, is nonsense. The fact that such attitudes are widely held, however, is not nonsense at all. It makes building broad, powerful coalitions almost impossible. That’s exactly where we are today. We have marginalized third parties like the Greens and the Social Democrats who have no meaningful vehicle to build a viable movement and find common ground with the much greater masses in the Democratic Party. It shouldn’t be this way, but it is.
As to other movements, I think kivals summed up my view very nicely:
“part of the reason the left is so weak today is that there are innumerable dimensions of equality, and those who focus on one particular dimension usually do so at the expense of others.”
All “special interest” constituencies that fail to focus on restoring political power to people and fail to politically disempower corporations do more harm than good. Their causes are just but they serve to divide rather than unify. It kills me to see hundreds of cheering women at Hillary rallies so proud that they finally have a chance to campaign for a female presidential candidate. Has Hillary ever seen a military appropriation she didn’t like? Has she acknowledged that women, and men too, suffer when our national treasure is exploited for greedy commercial pursuits?
All of the special interest constituencies have merit. We should fight to put people before profits; we should have equality for all including women, blacks, gays and all other oppressed peoples. We should guaranteed quality health care to all. We should throw everything we have against global warming.
Until the people control the levers of government, these progressive movements are little more than feel good social clubs. Any progress they might make is illusory. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and as power continues to centralize in the hands of fewer and fewer people, our entire civilization is threatened. There is very little value to being “equally oppressed.”
For many years now, polls of the American people have shown that they believe corporations have a disproportionate influence on national policy. I think most Americans deeply believe in the ideals of democracy. I think it would be an easy sell to heighten their awareness about how corporate influence in Washington is un-democratic. The focus need not be anti-commerce; it need not be anti-capitalism; it need not even be that corporations are evil. The mantra should be that corporations by their nature seek only profits and that they should not be able to influence or control national policy. By definition, the objectives of corporations are selfish. The power to direct government should rest with the American people.
The agenda should be to look at all institutions of power and ensure that no person, and certainly no corporation, can exert more power than any other citizen. Democracy cannot be viewed as a market in which the wealthy and powerful have every right to gain control. Democracy, by definition, demands a level playing field of political power and influence. So, we ask questions like: “Do you believe it’s appropriate for Lockheed-Martin to have more control over defense policy than you do as a citizen?” We ask “Should health care policies be influenced by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies or should the American people decide what is best for the country?” We ask “Should all presidential candidates meeting ballot access requirements be allowed to participate in all public, televised debates or should private media corporations get to decide which candidates we voters can hear from?”
Whatever laws interfere with the “one person one vote” mantra should be changed or eliminated. In the end, perhaps this is ultimately reduced to “eliminating corporate personhood” or putting an end to “equivocating money with free speech.” This jargon, however, is not helpful and distracts from the objective of creating “political parity” for all citizens. We have more than 200 years of pro-democracy propaganda behind us; it’s time we put it to use.
A consumption tax is truly unfair. The poor spend everything on necessities (food, clothing, shelter)…therefore would be taxed on their total income.
The rest of us who seldom buy anything but save everything would pay a very low percentage of our income.
Now is that Progressive or what?
I disagree that we can’t say that corporations and capitalism are evil, and it isn’t irrational or extreme to say so. I’m not comparing capitalism to Nazism or Communism. However, we are able to say with little reservation that the systems described as communism and Nazism are evil. Why? Not because it’s accepted at face value but because we do a logical investigation on how the systems have worked in practice and, once the facts are gathered, we make a moral judgment. Why can we not do the same with capitalism? Because it’s the system that brought US, our YOUR country, a higher standard of living? Are we going to look at this objectively or subjectively?
If we look at capitalism objectively we’ll see some things that are immoral, and we’d conclude that if the same effects happened as a result of another system. Capitalism, more principally financial capitalism, allows the developed world to consume on average SIX TIMES more resources per capita that the poorer countries. Realizing that resources in the world are finite, that means there is a direct correlation between the wealth of the developed world and the poverty of the developing world. If the difference in consumption decreases explain how capitalism will bring it about, realizing that the capitalist countries believe in “enlightened self interest”. Is it in their enlightened self interest to essentially fund the development of their competitors in the poorer countries, especially when the natural resources coveted by capitalists are IN the poorer countries? No, we shouldn’t expect that either. Capitalism is incapable of taking into account ecological information within the pricing mechanism (it can at best take into account a fraction of the costs), which allows richer countries and individuals to make profits while ignoring costs that are socialized by poorer countries and individuals. Capitalism ignores ecological information in national indices like GNP and GDP, which again passes costs along to those who didn’t create them in the first place. Capitalism, being the theory of those who own capital, gives no natural rights to those who don’t own capital. Look at the theoretical foundation of capitalism if you doubt. They say, as a result of the “subjectivist theory of value”, that nothing has any value (that would include the commons, human rights and anything that you or I don’t want to own or consume) unless someone has a commercial demand for it. Capitalism is the driving force behind the military industry in which there is now a profit motive in war, our economy actually depends on the war industry to stay alive (according to Chalmers Johnson we’re set to spend about 1.1 TRILLION dollars on the military, all expenses taken into account). Capitalism within healthcare is the driving force behind the denial of service as a result of the profit motive. As a matter of fact that is the economic rational of HMO’s. In the end, capitalism believes in “enlightened” self interest and thinks that this self interest leads to progress. It doesn’t lead to me, for instance, polluting your water because it would be cheaper to pay a fine and a small fee in court if I get you sick, thus socializing the cost I made. So, as I said above, saying that capitalism is immoral is perfectly rational and objective. Economic libertarians go to great lengths to explain that it isn’t a moral system because it ascribes no rights to those who don’t own capital, other than the fact that they should accept the terms of the capitalist or starve. Once you think about things like economic and social justice you realize that the means to that end are not possible in capitalism. The system that could bring that about might have some things in common with capitalism but wouldn’t be capitalism.
Corporations are no better. The corporation is a decades old institution which has gained power not by us democratically giving it rights but by elites in government (paid off by these interests) giving them increased rights as time has gone by. The heads of the corporation have “limited liability” (give me the justification for that in a world of diminishing natural resources). Do you or I have that right? Can I destroy your front yard then claim “limited liability”? They are able to socialize as many costs as possible, the system is basically designed to do this. The investors of corporations get to monopolize the work of others, without putting forth any effort themselves. An investor can sit on their a$$ in New York, own a stock of a company in Rio and make a profit off of the Brazilian worker without so much as clicking a mouse on a computer. The corporation is an outdated institution, created in a time that has long passed. Put it this way, what would you call a person who acted as corporations are allowed to act (thanks to corporate law created by elites) and what would you think if their justifications for acting that way are the justifications underlying corporate behavior?
Please don’t assume because you sit in the middle of opposing ideologies that you are the most rational and that you don’t make excuses for indefensible actions and logic. I’m not saying that systems other than capitalism are necessarily any more moral or just. I am saying that systems do exist however that are, and those systems have a chance to achieve many of the benefits of capitalism without a lot of the costs associa