Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Walmart Workers Walk Off Job in First Wave of 1000 Protests
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- Already? Obama Tells Supporters to Expect 'Bitter Pills'
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- Human Intelligence Peaked Thousands of Years Ago: Study
Popular content
Today's Top News
2011: Calling Time on Capitalism
Recent decades have seen a massive redistribution of wealth, imposing the cost of successive crises on the poorest. Enough!

But recovery noises are useful for some. Republicans claim that government should do less since recovery is underway (of course, for them, government action is always counterproductive). Likewise, Republicans and many centrist Democrats claim that income redistribution policies are no longer needed because recovery means growth, which means everyone gets a bigger piece of an expanding economic pie. Recovery hype also helps the Obama administration to claim that its policies succeeded.
Yet, this is more fantasy than reality. After all, the nearly 20% of the US labor force that became unemployed or underemployed in 2009 remains so as we enter 2011. No recovery there. Worse still, a quarter of those who found work since the crisis began only got temp jobs without benefits. Second, foreclosure actions by banks – including those who got most of the government's bailouts – continue to eject millions from their homes. No recovery there, either (except for the bigger banks).
Third, consider why the Federal Reserve decided last month to create another $600bn of new money, and why Congress and the president agreed in December on an additional fiscal stimulus (extending Bush's tax cuts, reducing social security withholding for 2011, etc). They took those steps because all the previous bailouts, monetary easing, tax cuts and government fiscal stimulus expenditures had failed to end this crisis. Those immune to hype recognize that more of the same policies that failed before might do so again.
More importantly, the recovery noise distracts from a more basic failure of our economic system: its fundamental instability. Recurring "downturns" – which neither private nor government actions have ever managed to prevent – impose massive costs on society. They plunge millions of effective, productive workers into unemployment and resulting personal, family and community disasters. Governments tap the collective purses of their nations chiefly to rescue just those private capitalists who were major contributors to the crisis and whose wealth insulates them from the crisis' worst effects.
Then, governments turn on their people to impose austerities (cutbacks in social programs, social security, etc) needed to restore government budgets busted by that rescue's huge costs. Like someone convicted of murdering his parents who demands leniency as an orphan, corporate America demands conservative government and austerity on the grounds of excessive budget deficits. Mainstream media and politicians take those corporate demands seriously, reminding us who controls whom.
The last half-century suggests a very different analysis of the crisis and a correspondingly different response for 2011. Since the early 1970s, workers' wage increases came to an end, their benefits and job security shrank and government supports for average people came under conservative attack. These increasing burdens were justified as absolutely necessary to enable more investment and, therefore, greater economic growth. A bigger economic pie would then provide more for everyone including workers.
In fact, growth in the US and Europe steadily slowed over those years (see graph below by University of Rome Professor Pasquale Tridico):
Average growth of GDP per capita in US and Europe, 1961-2009. Source: Eurostat
While workers' conditions deteriorated, capitalist surpluses and profits soared and stock markets boomed. Income and wealth were redistributed from poor and middle to the rich. But the promised results never materialized: neither more investment, nor greater economic growth. As the graph shows, growth actually slowed and then the whole system imploded into a catastrophic crisis.
Today's recovery noises accompany government actions that will repeat in 2011 more of the bailouts, monetary easing and fiscal stimuli that have proved insufficient since 2007. None of those actions dare to question, let alone address, how capitalism redistributed income and wealth in the decades leading to the crisis or how that redistribution contributed to the crisis.
The recovery being planned and hyped aims at a return to the US economy before it crashed. However, that capitalism was like a train hurtling toward the stone wall of crisis. To return to a pre-crisis capitalism risks resuming our places on a similar train heading for a similar crash.
Republican and Democratic politicians alike dare not link this crisis to an economic system that has never stopped producing those "downturns" that regularly cost so many millions of jobs, wasted resources, lost outputs and injured lives. For them, the economic system is beyond questioning. They bow before the unspoken taboo: never criticize the system upon which your careers depend.
Thus, this crisis and its burdens will continue until capitalists see sufficiently attractive opportunities for profit to resume investing and hiring people in the US as well as elsewhere. The freedoms of US capitalists to gain immense government supports as needed, and yet to invest only when, where and how they can maximize their private profits are paramount: the first obligations of government. The freedoms from want and insecurity for the US people remain a distant second priority – until mass political action changes that.
In good times, as in bad, capitalism is a system that places a small minority of people with one set of goals (profits, disproportionally high incomes, dominant political power, etc) in the positions to receive and distribute enormous wealth. Those people include the boards of directors that gather the net revenues of business into their hands and decide, together with the major shareholders in those businesses, how to distribute that wealth. Not surprisingly, they use it to achieve their goals and to make sure government secures their positions.
No Keynesian monetary or fiscal policies address, let alone change, how that system works and who uses its wealth to what ends. No reforms or regulations passed or even proposed under Obama would do that either. To avoid the instability of capitalism and its huge social costs requires changing the system. That remains the basic issue for a new year and a new generation. Will they break today's version of a dangerous old taboo: never question the existing system?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



126 Comments so far
Show AllThe value of American subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007 ("How severe is subprime mess?". msnbc.com. Associated Press. 2007-03-13. Retrieved 2008-07-13).
Neil Barofsky, IG for the bailout programs, testified before Congress that the bailouts could eventually cost $23.7 trillion.
Expect a longer work-week, less vacation, less compensation and no retirement.
egg, yes, getting anything over 10 times your claimed losses from the US treasury is sort of a good deal, eh?
Best,
Alan
Justice Arcs, let's 'hope" that 'change' comes from someone other than the current Faux Emperor in Chief, and that the "arc of justice" is faster in coming than his claim of bending the "arc of history".
Who knows, maybe if we get some more knowledge and solidarity within the oppressed working/middle-class and fight "Against Empire" (Parenti) in "The Coming Insurrection (Negri, et al), we can lick this Empire and recover some modicum of democracy in, oh say, one billion seconds --- rather than one trillion seconds.
Hell, it's only a couple of million seconds until Obomba's "State of the Union Address" --- maybe he'll 'grow some' and dare to even whisper the word Empire as being the hidden cancer in the belly of our pretty painted living room of supposed democracy.
But don't hold your breath, Justice.
Best,
Alan
To make it easier to think clearly about things, can I suggest a language change?
"Capital" is wealth that's surplus to immediate requirements, and is the basis for all progress.
Someone who must spend her/his whole day, every day, in the search for food is not ever going to have the freedom to even reproduce, let alone build shelter, record knowledge, or invent a musical instrument.
But someone who can gather two days' food every day can build up a surplus that can eventually be consumed while doing something life-improving.
So there's nothing inherently evil about capital itself. The evil comes in the use of it. Both Bank of America and Mondragón are capitalist enterprises, but in one the capital is privately owned and used to amass wealth for the few at the expense of the many, while the other is publicly owned and used to to create livings for more and more common people.
If we have separate terms for "public capital" and "private capital", I think we can escape the very prevalent idea that there's something sacred about letting a few people control more than their share of the world's wealth and productive mechanisms.
It would be very hard, I think, for someone to persuasively argue specifically in favor of letting the few have such an advantage, but right now they can do it because the terminology isn't clear enough to show what's being talked about.
So I'd suggest we capitalise (npi) the term, i.e. "Capital", when we mean "private capital", and leave it in lower case when we mean "public capital" or "capital in the abstract". If we do that, we can then rightly condemn Capital and Capitalism while approving capital and capitalism.
Private capital might not have looked like a terrible thing had not the few been given a wee little to too much leeway on making a mess of everything. Capitalism, when it goes bad, can feel like entropy.
Private capital might not have looked like a terrible thing had not the few been given a wee little to too much leeway on making a mess of everything. Capitalism, when it goes bad, can feel like entropy.
---------------------------------
I'd argue that private capital is bad *by nature*, Jennifer, and would always look terrible to those who look closely.
To recycle an earlier example: it's like allowing a poisonous snake to roam about in the house in order to get rid of rodents. The snake will kill the rodents, it's true, but it will kill humans just as willingly if not "regulated". But that regulation better be *100%* because the snake only has to get lucky once.
Compare that situation with supporting a cat or six. The household gets the same rodent-killing (or more often in my experience, evicting) ability *plus* one or more warm loving sandbags on chilly nights. :-)
Similarly with socialism: most people will work for the joy of creating, if they can. We can see this in the number of people who have creative hobbies and/or happily volunteer for good causes.
There's an astonishing, even to me, amount of computer software being developed socially these days ---people putting in hundreds or thousands of hours a year for "only" social rewards and personal satisfaction. And they can do that because their investment is only time and energy. The factory is in their heads.
If we had a system of creating socially-owned capital reserves to fund hardware projects, the way Mondragón has always done, I bet we'd have millions of people working on vehicles, power generation, carbon reclamation, and other problems, purely for the joy of being the ones to solve them.
Why should we risk snakebite?
We must not risk snakebites. The crooks who tell us things like "snake bites are curable" for the purpose of selling their "cheap" baloney will make excuses for telling us to risk it. They could care less that their snake oil "cures" don't work as long as they can extract money and get away with it. These disaster capitalists do one hell of a job focusing on their means with no regards to the end result.
P.S.: The means and ends came to my mind after reading today's article by Chris Hedges. Check for my post there today.
I would think that it is true (preserve capitalism if were necessary, but capitalism is perfectly capable to stand on its own)..........until the leadership proved differently via viral corruptions, cruel manipulations, and worse than just 'gambling' they intentionally created fake instruments and continue selling them to this very day. Using the very disaster capitalism mechanisms (Friedman economics) on ourselves and the world, for their reward. That is treason, as far as I'm concerned. I would think it doesn't make much sense either, its murderous, brutal, thievery and totally unnecessary which is not justifiable from my viewpoint, regardless the economic promises.
Capitalism was never in jeopardy...what is at work here is pure unadulterated domination, this leadership work their powers as if a game...with no responsibility to reality, humanity, or fairness for these matters...their kind of domination is poison. It was shameful in the history of their ploys for the last 30 or more years...pure poison. That is their trade, poison with submissions ..cruelty to the point of wrecking anything and everything for their sad cause. Lies abound, covert powerplays, fraud...whatever, and theft skyrockets in the upper realms truely... corrupting value. And yet Capitalism remains itself graceful, and honourable, and fair. It is the leadership that has chosen & fostered, this intentional direction I distain.
Is it true that most familys & citizens & businesses of the world, operate their own personal budgets, quite happily in the capitalistic framework. I don't believe it is the capitalism system at fault...it is corrupted leadership that WE are having a problem with.
whocares;)
Since yesterday the comments have devolved from enlightening to merely entertaining, as several posters seem to have decided that words will mean whatever they wish them to mean. But perhaps that's enlightening about a particular habit of mind. Mr. Ellis seems to accuse me, if I understand his meaning, of suggesting that socialists have this sneaky way of claiming to stand for the common good while actually subverting the perfect natural order of things, competitive capitalism. I would merely suggest that Mr. Ellis look around and decide how perfectly everything is working out these days.
Further, his 51% is not always right. In years past 51%+ thought slavery was natural, and that men were smarter than women, and that the sun revolved around the earth. One would hope that humanity will continue to evolve in our understanding of economics as well, applying principles of morality and justice as a civilized society must. "What matter if a man gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" If money is not the whole measure of our worth (or intelligence), and I do not think it is, we need to change our society before it is too late.
"We must love one another or die" L.B.J.
Yes and the wild card we seem to be missing is the looming ecological catastrophe.
Strange turn of events:
For the last 60 years, the middle-class could accumulate wealth and had no need for the inner-city poor. The middle-class moved to the suburbs and let the cities decay.
Today, the rich have no need for the middle-class in order to accumulate wealth. They move to their gated communities and let the country decay.
egg, a very telling analogy --- and I love analogy thinking (as George Lakoff at Berkeley describes it).
Actually, your point is very very pointed --- and humbling.
Yes, the middle-class were taught to hate and escape the working-class, and did not say anything when the Empire came to take away the dignity, resources, jobs, and future of the working-class.
And now the shoe is truly on the middle-class (middle-sized) foot.
The truth of your insightful comment reminds me immediately of a poem about those who, likewise, did not say anything when another earlier Empire came to take-away 'others':
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- by Martin Niemöller, prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, best known as the author of the poem First they came....
The lesson you address so well, egg2001, is that if there is not solidarity, respect, and empathy among all non-elite average citizens under Empire's oppression, then the ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist Empire taking over any country will divide and conquer every category of people over time.
Fascist Empire's don't simply stop at devouring one class, one people, or one country --- when they are GLOBAL in their existential dreams of total control.
And as Hannah Arendt herself warned, based on her painful experiences with that earlier fascist Empire,
"Empire abroad entails tyranny at home".
We are all like innocent Afghani, Iraqi, Pakistani and other foreign citizens of the 'oil terroitories' today in the eyes of this Global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE, which is using and abusing the dead carcass of our former democratic country as its deadly lance in the face of all average people today --- and that lance will soon be in our own and our children's faces right here in River City if we all don't recognize the cancerous problem of Empire and confront it TOGETHER.
Best,
Alan
Just FYI, Alan, Niemöller's words, translated and paraphrased, only look like a free-form poem. He didn't intend them that way--they were just a list/timeline.
And the order in which the Nazis did away with German citizens (which, of course, Niemöller knew firsthand), was approximately
Commies
"Uncurables" (the disabled, the chronically ill, gay men, etc)
Socialists
Trade unionists
Jews and Rom
Xian clergy
Your overall point is, of course, extremely well-taken.
Dear Mr. Wolff
A dollar short and a day late, or should I say 30 Reagan trickle down years and 18 Clinton NFTA job loss and Glass/Steagall repeal years too late.
The Neo cons and some fake neolibs sold us out to the New World Order.
And now, because of the 9/11 inside job, the war of occupational terror, the looting of America, joining hands wont be enough to fight the warrant less surveillance police state stasi.
No, its going to take a full blown revolution , us against them, all of us .
We must put constitutional law above the Patriot Acts , and the Supreme Court has to grow constitutional back bones, or blood will be spilt.
You will not enslave 275 million gun owning American Patriots , who love this country and the freedoms provided by the constitution.
The war mongering elite have miscalculated, and the fear mongering is not going to survive another year.
Infowars.com We are the Resistance.
Does anyone believe the Bush tax cuts spurred the economy? Yet we hear Republicans claim today that tax cuts and further deregulation are what's needed to stimulate the economy.
This debate has taken on a certain fury between a minority of progressives and everyone else. The obvious - that tax cuts and deregulation don't create jobs and growth - has been ignored by those at the center of the debate, in the Congress and in the mass media. We are at the tail end of the Reaganomic experiment but the Republicans are asking for more. And they will fight like hell to get it.
So "government is the problem, not the solution?" Well, yeah, if government is used as a bludgeon against the system and all common sense. So would surgery not be the solution if the surgeons wore heavy workmen's gloves and had been out drinking all night before. Government can only work if it is treated with some seriousness and managed competently. That seems elemental, doesn't it?
==For more information about Richard Wolff's work, visit his website.==
No.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
To "call time" on the raving neo-liberal beast would require intelligent planning, organization and guts. That's why I've been saying for nearly two years that we need to ask the heads of every progressive organization we know to communicate with every similar leader that they know to convene a national populist progressive leadership summit (exclusive of those wedded to the Democratic Party) for the purposes of voting on national policy goals commensurate with the organization of a new and more broadly inclusive national populist progressive movement and/or Third Party.
Such a movement needs its own media to circumvent corporate media censors. Low power FM radio offers progressive non-profits that opportunity. We need our own grass roots funding. We need to appeal with educational websites, public speakers, public marches ending in speeches, etc., every way we can to the roughly 80% of eligible American voters who are so alienated by both dominant political Parties that they routinely do not vote in federal elections. We need our own national "bail-out/legal defense fund" to protect our members who are abused or wrongfully arrested by the Police State during protests and other public political events.
Once we can put together a membership of between 3 to 5 million supporters we need to start reaching out to Democratic voters and support organizations who are alienated from the DLC misled Democratic Party. We need to encourage members of the Progressive Caucus to bolt the Party and join our new movement. We need to reach out to disaffected affluent liberals and progressives to cease backing the neo-lib DLC Dim Party and fund our movements. And we need to get such a movement up and running ASAP.
We need to be able to put between 1 and 2 MILLION people in the streets in Washington D.C. and New York City on very short notice and to be able to support protests of such magnitude repeatedly for as long as it takes to breach the fascist wall. And I agree with Ralph Nader that we need to start staging large scale public protests against the corporatist/militarist/Zionist media at the headquarters of those corporations and shout our demands en unison at them. What should we demand, people?
I fully endorse your suggestion, Cicero. This is precisely what we need - a unified strategy that steps outside the Democratic Party. We need a critical mass of progressive leaders that would form a new party with its own media (Democracy Now and related alternative media could provide a good beginning). We can no longer afford the fragmentation of hundreds of micro-causes each pursuing their own agenda - we've got to begin the unification process or we will all sink together. 3 to 5 million is a realistic goal and sufficient to begin a national movement. There are enough dissatisfied Democrats and union members to pull in this level of support. Yes, we will be accused of splitting liberal forces at a critical time, but the time when the Democratic Party can be expected to anything but serve corporate interests is past. New thinking is mandatory now.
Break up the Democratic Party now and salvage whatever we can from it. Obama has done more to destroy the progressive agenda than Palin and the Tea Party ever could. Let's start by demanding a 90% reduction in the military budget, an end to all Middle Eastern wars and support for Israel, an expansion of Social Security, Medicare for all, along with a transfer of the money saved from military adventures into education and alternative energy programs. Let's start by demanding what's needed, not the crumbs the corporate class might be willing to concede.