Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Capitalism, Sarah Palin-Style
The following was adapted from a speech on May 2, 2009 at The Progressive’s
100th anniversary conference and originally printed in The
Progressive magazine, August 2009 issue:
We are in a progressive moment, a moment when the ground is shifting beneath our feet, and anything is possible. What we considered unimaginable about what could be said and hoped for a year ago is now possible. At a time like this, it is absolutely critical that we be as clear as we possibly can be about what it is that we want because we might just get it.
So the stakes are high.
I usually talk about the bailout in speeches these days. We all need to understand it because it is a robbery in progress, the greatest heist in monetary history. But today I'd like to take a different approach: What if the bailout actually works, what if the financial sector is saved and the economy returns to the course it was on before the crisis struck? Is that what we want? And what would that world look like?
The answer is that it would look like Sarah Palin. Hear me out, this is not a joke. I don't think we have given sufficient consideration to the meaning of the Palin moment. Think about it: Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as Vice Presidential candidate on August 29 at a McCain campaign rally, to much fanfare. Exactly two weeks later, on September 14, Lehman Brothers collapsed, triggering the global financial meltdown.
So in a way, Palin was the last clear expression of capitalism-as-usual before everything went south. That's quite helpful because she showed us-in that plainspoken, down-homey way of hers-the trajectory the U.S. economy was on before its current meltdown. By offering us this glimpse of a future, one narrowly avoided, Palin provides us with an opportunity to ask a core question: Do we want to go there? Do we want to save that pre-crisis system, get it back to where it was last September? Or do we want to use this crisis, and the electoral mandate for serious change delivered by the last election, to radically transform that system? We need to get clear on our answer now because we haven't had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity, or we lose it.
So what was Sarah Palin telling us about capitalism-as-usual before she was so rudely interrupted by the meltdown? Let's first recall that before she came along, the U.S. public, at long last, was starting to come to grips with the urgency of the climate crisis, with the fact that our economic activity is at war with the planet, that radical change is needed immediately. We were actually having that conversation: Polar bears were on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And then in walked Sarah Palin. The core of her message was this: Those environmentalists, those liberals, those do-gooders are all wrong. You don't have to change anything. You don't have to rethink anything. Keep driving your gas-guzzling car, keep going to Wal-Mart and shop all you want. The reason for that is a magical place called Alaska. Just come up here and take all you want. "Americans," she said at the Republican National Convention, "we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska, we've got lots of both."
And the crowd at the convention responded by chanting and chanting: "Drill, baby, drill."
Watching that scene on television, with that weird creepy mixture of sex and oil and jingoism, I remember thinking: "Wow, the RNC has turned into a rally in favor of screwing Planet Earth." Literally.
But what Palin was saying is what is built into the very DNA of capitalism: the idea that the world has no limits. She was saying that there is no such thing as consequences, or real-world deficits. Because there will always be another frontier, another Alaska, another bubble. Just move on and discover it. Tomorrow will never come.
This is the most comforting and dangerous lie that there is: the lie that perpetual, unending growth is possible on our finite planet. And we have to remember that this message was incredibly popular in those first two weeks, before Lehman collapsed. Despite Bush's record, Palin and McCain were pulling ahead. And if it weren't for the financial crisis, and for the fact that Obama started connecting with working class voters by putting deregulation and trickle-down economics on trial, they might have actually won.
The President tells us he wants to look forward, not backwards. But in order to confront the lie of perpetual growth and limitless abundance that is at the center of both the ecological and financial crises, we have to look backwards. And we have to look way backwards, not just to the past eight years of Bush and Cheney, but to the very founding of this country, to the whole idea of the settler state.
Modern capitalism was born with the so-called discovery of the Americas. It was the pillage of the incredible natural resources of the Americas that generated the excess capital that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Early explorers spoke of this land as a New Jerusalem, a land of such bottomless abundance, there for the taking, so vast that the pillage would never have to end. This mythology is in our biblical stories-of floods and fresh starts, of raptures and rescues-and it is at the center of the American Dream of constant reinvention. What this myth tells us is that we don't have to live with our pasts, with the consequences of our actions. We can always escape, start over.
These stories were always dangerous, of course, to the people who were already living on the "discovered" lands, to the people who worked them through forced labor. But now the planet itself is telling us that we cannot afford these stories of endless new beginnings anymore. That is why it is so significant that at the very moment when some kind of human survival instinct kicked in, and we seemed finally to be coming to grips with the Earth's natural limits, along came Palin, the new and shiny incarnation of the colonial frontierswoman, saying: Come on up to Alaska. There is always more. Don't think, just take.
This is not about Sarah Palin. It's about the meaning of that myth of constant "discovery," and what it tells us about the economic system that they're spending trillions of dollars to save. What it tells us is that capitalism, left to its own devices, will push us past the point from which the climate can recover. And capitalism will avoid a serious accounting-whether of its financial debts or its ecological debts-at all costs. Because there's always more. A new quick fix. A new frontier.
That message was selling, as it always does. It was only when the stock market crashed that people said, "Maybe Sarah Palin isn't a great idea this time around. Let's go with the smart guy to ride out the crisis."
I almost feel like we've been given a last chance, some kind of a reprieve. I try not to be apocalyptic, but the global warming science I read is scary. This economic crisis, as awful as it is, pulled us back from that ecological precipice that we were about to drive over with Sarah Palin and gave us a tiny bit of time and space to change course. And I think it's significant that when the crisis hit, there was almost a sense of relief, as if people knew they were living beyond their means and had gotten caught. We suddenly had permission to do things together other than shop, and that spoke to something deep.
But we are not free from the myth. The willful blindness to consequences that Sarah Palin represents so well is embedded in the way Washington is responding to the financial crisis. There is just an absolute refusal to look at how bad it is. Washington would prefer to throw trillions of dollars into a black hole rather than find out how deep the hole actually is. That's how willful the desire is not to know.
And we see lots of other signs of the old logic returning. Wall Street salaries are almost back to 2007 levels. There's a certain kind of electricity in the claims that the stock market is rebounding. "Can we stop feeling guilty yet?" you can practically hear the cable commentators asking. "Is the bubble back yet?"
And they may well be right. This crisis isn't going to kill capitalism or even change it substantively. Without huge popular pressure for structural reform, the crisis will prove to have been nothing more than a very wrenching adjustment. The result will be even greater inequality than before the crisis. Because the millions of people losing their jobs and their homes aren't all going to be getting them back, not by a long shot. And manufacturing capacity is very difficult to rebuild once it's auctioned off.
It's appropriate that we call this a "bailout." Financial markets are being bailed out to keep the ship of finance capitalism from sinking, but what is being scooped out is not water. It's people. It's people who are being thrown overboard in the name of "stabilization." The result will be a vessel that is leaner and meaner. Much meaner. Because great inequality-the super rich living side by side with the economically desperate-requires a hardening of the hearts. We need to believe ourselves superior to those who are excluded in order to get through the day. So this is the system that is being saved: the same old one, only meaner.
And the question that we face is: Should our job be to bail out this ship, the biggest pirate ship that ever was, or to sink it and replace it with a sturdier vessel, one with space for everyone? One that doesn't require these ritual purges, during which we throw our friends and our neighbors overboard to save the people in first class. One that understands that the Earth doesn't have the capacity for all of us to live better and better.
But it does have the capacity, as Bolivian President Evo Morales said recently at the U.N., "for all of us to live well."
Because make no mistake: Capitalism will be back. And the same message will return, though there may be someone new selling that message: You don't need to change. Keep consuming all you want. There's plenty more. Drill, baby, drill. Maybe there will be some technological fix that will make all our problems disappear.
And that is why we need to be absolutely clear right now.
Capitalism can survive this crisis. But the world can't survive another capitalist comeback.
- Posted in




76 Comments so far
Show AllThe first time this article was posted here, I suggested that capitalist incentives can play a useful role if properly regulated, confined to their proper marketplace milieu and barred from overriding commonweal considerations in the political processes of goverance.
Since that caution about disposing of the baby with the bathwater was almost univerally rejected, however, I shan't repeat my grievous error.
Oh, do. I agree with it, and probably so does Klein. What we all object to is financial capitalism: the collaboration of Wall Street and Washington to hollow out the country in favor of the well connected.
Once again we see that the free market is, eventually, a closed market: where information is hidden from the little guys so that the insiders can rip them off. An open market requires gov't regulation and, more importantly, enforcement, forcing information to be shared with even the smallest investor. A bubble is the ultimate in a closed market: Goldmann Sachs and a few other savvy banksters hatch a rumour mill that the 'next big thing' is over there. They invest, then the large investors invest, then the less-well connected, then the even less well-connected. Until finally the market is opened to the little guy, who jumps in as Goldmann etal get out and sell short. Musical chairs, only they play the music and at a pitch that can't be heard by the small investor. Helps to own the financial media. Now that they own Congress they'll be playing a different game, and they won't need to be as tricky about ripping people off. They'll let Congress explain why its 'necessary'.
Obviously, eliminating abuses while retaining benefits is never a simple matter and, equally obvious, the many conflicts between capitalism and true democracy are no exception. As usual, the devil is in the details, especially methodological details. But such legal fictions as "corporate personhood" and "money as speech" clearly lie near the heart of it.
Bottom line: the antidote to 'one dollar, one vote' capitalism was supposed to be 'one man, one vote' democracy. Along with zero private funding of candidates and prevention of other kickbacks, I perscribe much larger progressive taxation. To some degree, we'll never get money out of politics, and it'll always reduce the number of voices being heard. But, give the money back to the people, and those voices can remain diverse and representative of a true democracy.
We on the far-left promote localism which, among many other things, prohibits concentration of media ownership. Localist media is independent, can be trusted, can be pressured to remain trustworthy and loyal to the local community, loyal to the people. Localism best leverages the energy of the people to serve their own better interests.
I think free markets are the best way of producing and distributing consumer goods. The government does not need to be in control of what shoes people wear.
But markets don't work at all for land use or health care. Since most of our crucial economic decisions concern land use in some way, we need much less free marketing and more planning.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET.
MARKETS ARE ARBITRARY HUMAN CREATIONS,
and as such, is regulated by some human entity.
Right now, they are regulated by the corporations
and the corporate owned government.
How is that possibly good?
I was going to say something similar, but then I thought GreenDragon was probably speaking of "free markets" in the theoretical context where truely competitive entrepreneurship and the alleged benefits thereof actually exist. That's certainly not the case at present. One of capitalism's many contradictions is the tendency for its singular dedication to the "bottom line" to overwhelm the very benefits that it claims for itself.
It's possible to create a free market, in the same way athletic games are free, that is, the games are free from rigging, and so "the best man wins" on a "level playing field". If athletic games were not free in this sense, they would not be interesting, and nobody would play. The markets may be "refereed" in the same way, with similar value delivered. The rules would be set carefully and enforced rigorously. This is conceptually simple, and holds great potential in creating industrial efficiency, to minimize resource consumption, to deliver best value. This is the ultimate goal of any economic system, though the term value can be defined as anything. Lefties think of sustainability and equity, while righties think of growth and accumulation. The righties version is unsustainable. Not only is the USA's economy unsustainable in this way, it's also highly corrupt with rigging of the game, manipulation of perceptions, enslavement of everyone involved.
Obviously we must now go with the lefties' idea of value. Value isn't defined by the structure of economic systems. Value is a human conviction, taught, cultivated, to serve human needs. It is quite a challenge however to figure out the full costs of production, which is required to deliver best value. The full costs include environmental and social impacts that are controversial but the controversy can be greatly reduced, just not so easily. Reduce the controversy by rejecting the divide/conquer red herring issues played up in the elite media. Embrace environmental and social responsibility and help determine the full costs of various activities. In this way, each citizen contributes to "refereeing the markets", and production will be manipulated accordingly into something sustainable, equitable. The key manipulation is a limit on private enterprise size to something like ten man-powers.
There is no such thing as a true "level playing field" in sports. The concept of a "level" playing field in sports is a myth.
For example, suppose you are an athlete from the US, or western Europe. You train in high tech world class facilities. You have access to expert coaches. You eat quality nutritious food. Or, you are a Chinese athlete, with your training entirely paid for by the Chinese government, allowing you to train 40 hours a week, with food, living expenses, training expenses, coaching all paid for by the Chinese government.
In contrast, suppose you an an athlete from a very poor country. You train with old, rusty outdated equipment. You have to work multiple jobs to support your athletic career. You might have to coach yourself.
Or, if you restrict yourself to American or European pro sports such as baseball or soccer. Teams from big markets, from areas with large affluent populations, resulting in large affluent fanbases, have a huge advantage over teams from areas with small / less affluent populations.
"Level Playing Field" is a nasty way that people who have advantages continue to put down those who don't have the advantages.
Reminds me of a right-wing professor, born white and privileged, who would say, "I don't believe in 'luck', I make my OWN luck."
Too Late!
RV and subsequent posters:
You are very confused.
You do not understand the difference between MARKETS and CAPITALISM.
We've had markets for time immemorial (just felt like saying it that way),
and what you like is how markets work.
But MARKETS are not the invention of Capitalism, although the apologists for Capitalism pretend that somehow they are.
"Capitalist incentives" are deviations from the very human historical market incentives. They are a cancerous aberration.
Hope this helps.
You're certainly right about prevalent semantic confusion. In fact, it's contageous. To some extent one is forced to adopt inexact terminology in order to participate in the discussion.
I <3 Naomi Klein
Thank you for posting the entire speech!
Agreed...!
Thanks CD staff for becoming a subscriber to The Progressive...!
We are like patients reading the same issue in the waiting room...!
Reduce... Reuse... Recycle... Information can and should be free...!
How ironic that both political parties extol their own morality while embracing an economic philosophy that does not rest upon an ethical platform! The world is infinite and the market rules. By contrast, socialism insists that, as a society, we will not advance unless the poor, the ill, the elderly, the very young go along, too. There is enough for everyone if all work is valued and compensated fairly and if a few are not allowed to monopolize what belongs to us all.
And how ironic that both parties seize the concept of private property to insure that people will not have to make concessions for the ecological health of our planet! Let's call it what it is: arrogant selfishness. If Ayn Rand had lived a little longer, she would have seen where unreconstructed individualism leads--to a planet with fouled water and air, threatened with disease and ruined hopes.
" The result will be a vessel that is leaner and meaner. Much meaner. Because great inequality-the super rich living side by side with the economically desperate-requires a hardening of the hearts. We need to believe ourselves superior to those who are excluded in order to get through the day. So this is the system that is being saved: the same old one, only meaner."
"And that is why we need to be absolutely clear right now.
Capitalism can survive this crisis. But the world can't survive another capitalist comeback."
**************
The above is why Naomi Klein is more than some cute Jewish girl from Toronto who fills out a skirt nicely. The ability to see beyond the mundane details and grasp the bigger picture--the metaphor of it all--is her great strength.
Just think what kind of a stem winder of a keynote speech she could have given the Democrats in Denver had she been allowed to do so. Well we can dream anyway.
Poet
My favorite analogy in this piece: "It's appropriate that we call this a "bailout." Financial markets are being bailed out to keep the ship of finance capitalism from sinking, but what is being scooped out is not water. It's people. "
Her statement applies as well to healthcare 'reform'. In both cases, a common denominator: a government of, by, and for the corporation. DC: a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate, inc.
you mean it isn't "morning in America" anymore?... how rude!
No, I'm afraid it's more like "Winter in America" (courtesy of Gil Scott Heron)
From the Indians who welcomed the pilgrims
And to the buffalo who once ruled the plains
Like the vultures circling beneath the dark clouds
Looking for the rain
Looking for the rain
Just like the cities staggered on the coastline
Living in a nation that just can't stand much more
Like the forest buried beneath the highway
Never had a chance to grow
Never had a chance to grow
And now it's winter
Winter in America
Yes and all of the healers have been killed
Or sent away, yeah
But the people know, the people know
It's winter
Winter in America
And ain't nobody fighting
'Cause nobody knows what to say
Save your soul, Lord knows
From Winter in America
The Constitution
A noble piece of paper
With free society
Struggled but it died in vain
And now Democracy is ragtime on the corner
Hoping for some rain
Looks like it's hoping
Hoping for some rain
And I see the robins
Perched in barren treetops
Watching last-ditch racists marching across the floor
But just like the peace sign that vanished in our dreams
Never had a chance to grow
Never had a chance to grow
And now it's winter
It's winter in America
And all of the healers have been killed
Or been betrayed
Yeah, but the people know, people know
It's winter, Lord knows
It's winter in America
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows what to save
Save your souls
From Winter in America
Poet
"This ain't really life/
Ain't really life/
Ain't really nothin' but a movie...""
"Because the millions of people losing their jobs and their homes aren't all going to be getting them back, not by a long shot. And manufacturing capacity is very difficult to rebuild once it's auctioned off."
This almost puts the arrow in the bull, but not quite...one should not need a job to have a home...one should not need a job, period...the modern home, like the modern food-delivery system, is ridiculous, ludicrous in excess...manufacturing is a euphemism for killing the planet...economy is a mirage enabling denial...
"Let's first recall that before she came along, the U.S. public, at long last, was starting to come to grips with the urgency of the climate crisis, with the fact that our economic activity is at war with the planet, that radical change is needed immediately."
Again, so close, but falling short of the obvious conclusion, as her 'radical change' is undefined...let me define just how radical the change must be: we cannot afford economic activity...any...this truth will not go away, it will only grow larger and larger...there is no way to combine money (exclusionary ownership) and the natural world...
Each individual must reclaim their own responsibility for their sustenance, and their well-being...we are one physical body, this planet and us and every other living thing...all industry and chemical alteration of the natural environment must cease...we must let go of our homocentric delusion and humbly rejoin the ranks of the myriad animals...that is how radical the change must be, and Ms. Klein's reluctance to go there indicates she is aware of how difficult a challenge that will be...so much so that she cannot utter the words, for fear of violent reaction, and loss of tenuous credibility...this is the same road Krugman walks...anything short of a return to the ways of the wild, however, is compromise leading to annihilation of the living world...
This world we have created ~ electronic, industrialized, computerized, synthesized, anesthetized, monetized ~ is not the real world...it is the anti-world...we must destroy the anti-world, and return to the real world...
That is how radical the change must be...
You may fight to the death to keep your lifestyle, but the death may be not only mine, or my neighbor's, or that of the citizen of the country around the globe, but your own, as well, as a result of your lifestyle...ironic...
Ah, but your chosen lifestyle, that of industrialization, IS imposed upon everyone, even those who might not wish it to be...again, the First Law of Thermodynamics...nothing comes from nothing...toxicity, slavery, theft and murder circle the globe, affecting all...that is the whole point...you will, one day, be a victim of your own behavior...are you unable to see that industrialized consumption is ecocidal?
http://www.chernobylee.com/blog/2009/03/chernobyl-radiation-harming-an.php
Chernobyl Radiation Harming Animals
A recent study by Anders Moller and Timothy Mousseau published in the latest issue of Royal Society Biology Letters indicates continuous exposure to low doses of radiation has been harmful to animals living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Mousseau is the directory of the Chernobyl Research Initiative at the University of South Carolina.
The report, titled “Reduced abundance of insects and spiders to radiation at Chernobyl 20 years after the accident,” determined that insect, bird and other animal populations have dramatically diminished since the April 1986 accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.
The three year study included population censuses of invertebrates at more than 700 sites near Chernobyl. At each site, researchers measured radiation levels and counted bumblebees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies and spider webs.
The insect study was inspired by prior work with birds, when researchers noticed a decline in grasshopper populations and lowered fruit production.
The current study is also analyzing wolf, fox, rabbit, squirrel and other animal populations. Scientists are not ready to release findings about these animals, but the insect study and previous bird surveys indicate that many species are either absent or in very low numbers in the Chernobyl region.
The downward population trend appears to be due to:
Accumulation of radiation in some species over many generations through ingestion of contaminated dirt, water and food
As one animal or insect population declines, another might take its place. This new “replacement” species may also become contaminated, thus reducing its later survival rates.
These recent studies suggest that as a result of the above processes, the Chernobyl ecosystem has never fully recovered and remains in distress. Further, these studies have identified mutations in many different species of birds, plants, animals and humans.
BRAVO!
I'm so tired of the "everything will be all right, things will adapt" bullhocky. It's such a lie.
Your attitude is what allows children to attend school under billions of gallons of sludge behind a dam and to fall victim to imperialistic bombs.
Yes everyone and everything will eventually die but the best use of your life is to live simply so others may simply live.
If all your toys and accumulations every make you totally happy please tell me.
You can never be satiated by something that can't make you happy.
All one does is get frustrated and then make others unhappy in response.
Amen. How about a stimulus package that allocates ten acres of land, some basic farm implements, and a Wendell Berry library to anyone that wants one?
What About Us Living Beings
"Doesn't matter."
"What matters?"
"Wall Street."
"And the United States of America?"
"Wall Street's enforcer."
"The answer being?"
"We rise up en masse."
"And then what sort of world?"
"It'll be up to us."
"Anything else?"
"Yes we can."
Rise up in mass: every time someone proposes the "storm the barricades" approach I can't help but remember Symbionese Liberation Army and the Branch Dividians (not that those groups weren't deluded as all get out; I'm not saying anything good about them but am pointing to their outcome as a likelihood). Maybe some people doubt that the Powers That Be would use all the technological resources at their fingertips to quell any uprising, but I don't. I think they'd use nukes on the masses if they thought they had to -- and probably blame Islamofascist terrorists if there was anybody left to make excuses to.
What hope we have lies in propaganda for our side, communication devices. The Shah of Iran was brought down with cassettes, texting and twittering are trying to do the same thing in today's Iran. But it's not the devices, it's the content.
Of course, I have no idea what sort of content would start real "change we can believe in" -- if I did, I'd be putting it out there. It isn't much to pin one's hopes on, but I'm not someone with a lot of hopes looking for places to pin.
Nonviolent mass uprisings, that is. with anyone advocating violence, until proven otherwise, assumed to be an agent provacateur. And it doesn't matter, so long as it's answered, whether the call goes out by way of radio, TV, Email, Twitter or word of mouth. As for the SLA & the Branch Dividians, these were localized groups or cults, not mass uprisings capable of overthrowing the oppressor, as per what's happening right now in Honduras and Iran.
What has occured over the last thirty years is the establishment of an oligarcy: financial, insurance, banking, oil and military-industrial complex.
Our government is their money-making machine.
The trouble with the inevitable expansion of economic inequality is not that it produces a "hardening of the hearts." In realistic terms, it produces an increasingly robust police state, a growing privatized prison system, privatized and expanding contracted mercenary and police forces, privatized and delimited welfare operations, etc.
Thus the oligarchs attempt to both increase their capital accumulation while controlling the larger and larger amounts of citizens who are losing access to the resources they need to survive.
I've always held that the Patriot Act was a deceit to enable the oligarchy to label popular opposition to it as "terrorism". We've seen it already in the unwarranted arrests of street protestors in NYC during the convention, the infiltration of peace and environmental activist groups by FBI, CIA and military plants, the employment of military and mercenary forces in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. When the inequality becomes so egregious, and the dispossessed so desperate that they begin to storm the gated communities of the entitled, there will be blood on the streets and the prisons will be overflowing.
"America is a mistake, a giant mistake!"
Sigmund Freud
He was just jealous because America was bigger than Austria, including the cigars.
Only in America do we value the worth of a man by the size of his cigar.
THIS IS THE ANSWER
I am proposing a new tax that will solve everything - - I call it the Asset Tax - - which is really confiscation. Here's how it works: All assets (total) worth over $10,000,000 (not income), the federal government will take 50%. Thus if all your property, estates, planes, yachts, jewelry, art, money is valued at $100,000,000, the feds will take half of anything over 10 million, which is: 100,000,000 - 10,000,000 = 90,000,000, divided by 2 = 45,000,000 you will have to liquidate to pay your asset tax. Furthermore, this being a free country, you can leave the country, relinquish your citizenship and passport and pay 50% of your assets and won't be allowed to re-enter the country but being a compassionate country you may reclaim your citizenship and re-enter the country by paying 50% of your assets. The percentages can be adjusted as needed and also how often this tax is levied.
Unfortunately, regardless of the nature of any proposal for rebalancing the socio-economic environment, it cannot possibly succeed without first addressing the systemic barriers currently in place for the protection of the established corporatocracy. Those barriers are huge and, as an outgrowth of purposefully enhanced and expanding fear, are growing more intractable every day.
I want to inject some thoughts about whether capitalism, the free market, or in fact the money system, itself, can ever be successful. As long as the distribution of products from our economy is unequal, there will always be those who wield power over others.
The economy produces everything we need and want by means of people working together, either by cooperation or coercion. But the products are not distributed fairly. Since there are many who cannot work, we realize they must be cared for in our own group, but we ignore "outsiders."
The best way to distribute goods and services is equal to everyone within the community.
Perfect socio-economic equality is simply not a realistic or attainable goal, all the idealistic rhetoric about all being created equal notwithstanding. The best that can be hoped for is some kind of truly level playing field and strict limitations on unfair advantages. That, in turns, requires a system where the commonweal is capable, as neccessary, of overriding private gain rather than vice versa.
Keep the capitalism, tax the rich. Its what the Greatest Generation did: 1930s to 1980s. The present mess stems from Reagan and his tax cuts, supply-side nonsense, primarily. Progressive taxation is the way to keep this kind of mess from happening.
I 100% agree with you. Let the capitalists steal all they want. Just tax the shit out of them and give it all back to the victims. Maybe it isn't a perfect system but it beats the hell out of what we got right now.
exactly --- the economic engine needs a capitalistic generator and a socialistic distributor as in much of Europe.
"We are in a progressive moment, a moment when the ground is shifting beneath our feet, and anything is possible. What we considered unimaginable about what could be said and hoped for a year ago is now possible. At a time like this, it is absolutely critical that we be as clear as we possibly can be about what it is that we want because we might just get it."
Did she get hit on the head? Is she on drugs? Is this Naomi's doppelganger? Has she been reading Craig Brown's fund raising letters?
If this is a "progressive moment" I'd hate to see what a "fascist moment" looks like.
Don't be too hard on Ms Klein. Wishful thinking is endemic these days. It's not hard to understand why.
I know, I actually have great respect for Ms. Klein. But "wishful thinking" is a just a euphemism for being delusional.
I would like to call bulls**t on anyone who rants against capitalism but lived their whole life in North America or Western Europe, including Naomi Klein.
I didn't have access to information before 1989 in eastern Europe. But does anyone here know if there were people in the west deploring the evils of capitalism before then as well? I don't seem to remember anyone immigrating to any of the East Europen countries at that time.
By the way, was there nothing else to post today? This article was up a few days ago, and while I understand Sarah Palin is a character, she ain't no Michael Jackson for the media to milk a story about her for more than 2 days.