Class Consciousness Matters

“. . . [I]nfectious optimism and ruthless greed.”

I did say that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: 1)idiots and 2) crooks, didn’t I?

Finally this aspect of American culture is getting some airtime. Me and my brother have been talking about it for years.

I think there is something far worse at play than so many believing absurdly that becoming rich is just around the corner for them or their children.

Via the powers of group think Americans have developed a pseudo-religion that cuts across all classes. 

The demigods of this new religion are the extremely wealthy and famous.

The priests, pastors and laymen of this religion are the people of America.

For them to criticized the rich is blasphemy against themselves—well it will be someday. When they join the rich as equals. Yeah right.

They worship in the way they live their lives and what products they buy, what clothes they wear, the wisdoms they spout (anyone - you’re fired) Etc.

The powers the RnF have is far more a result of the willful indulgence on the part of those below them in the economic order. They want to believe these things about the rich and famous.

Paris Hilton is a direct result of this. America is so taken with her, we laugh with her as she ridiculous common culture. We adore her and follow her hoping to see what it is like to be a goddess. She is the new standard. She need not be super intelligent, talented or gifted in any way (save for stunning looks)

She is happy to meet America’s desire for a flesh and blood goddess. Even doing low brow porn only brought her more fame. 

Once a person obtains enough wealth and/or fame. It is almost impossible to draw doubt to their actions. No matter what they do, Americans will go out of their way to believe it was for the best or for good reasons. Michael Jackson could not be convicted no matter what, because a “common person” dared to question a god. How ridiculous. That foolish trashy woman to challenge a god!!! That’s basically what it came down to.  We are so doggedly determined to believe our new gods are beyond reproach and sin. That we willingly and forcefully close our eyes to obvious patterns that indicate the truth is not with us.

Ask a person why, and they’ll say well - they got their money and power for a reason. Obviously they were far more right than ever wrong. So who am I to question it. Their reputation cannot be impugned. Their beliefs and opinions start getting taken as fact. People follow their instructions or advice as if G-d himself did speak to them through Mr/Ms. Wealthy.

Playing into this deification of the rich is the ever increasing humility of the working class. Which more and more believe that to be poor or working class is their lot in life, and if you are rich. That is because God wants it that way. So again who am I to question. Very very sad.

It is the celebrity culture gone wild with money, there is a whole spectrum of roles from very good to pure evil. Hilton is mostly benign. She’s just milking it, but doesn’t seem to be out to hurt anyone.  Other more benign Demigods of wealth and fame are Donald Trump, Oprah Winfrey. People hang on their words like Plato himself was speaking. Bill Gates, Ellison of Oracle also are in that club.

I’m sure though we can all think of the fabulously wealthy who have no problem taking advantage of their deification to extract even greater wealth and power from society at large. Some don’t even bother with the common man, instead they extract and abuse using middle dealers, like the former head of Tyco or Adelphia.  They behaved so above it all, that the what the common man thought was irrelevant. Only after living with extreme hubris did they fall, and it wasn’t the common man who brought them down, but their fellow wealthy. Who realized that such extreme parasitism was bad for all of them.

Perhaps one day America will find a way to condemn en masse the rise of this sick pseudo-religion with its focus the worship of the rich and wealthy.  I’m not to confident it will, before it causes the US to catastrophically decline as a country.

BTW, I think it’s silly to call the proverbial American “self made man” a “myth.” There are millions of them to one extent or another, in America and all over the world.  The question of whether it’s more difficult now, for an American to achieve some measure of economic prosperity, than it was, or than it could or should be, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.  IMHO, to premise an argument on a false premise poisons the rest of the argument.

This is slightly off topic. And i definitely do not want to start a flames war. So read or not, but if you do, take a few moments to think before you react. . .

“11 percent thought it was very likely they would become wealthy, another 34 percent somewhat likely”

In my view, most of the top 25% or so ARE wealthy. They have more food than they can eat. They have cable tv, dvds, eat out more than once a week, have washing machines and dryers, multiple cars, etc etc ad nasuem. While they are not “rich” in the sense of having unlimited resources, they are nonetheless very comfortable. (And i expect that many people who work their entire lives get pretty close to this mark as they age and accumulate resources, like houses, pensions, 401Ks and SS benefits).

The problem with the US (and the West in general) is the emphasis on materialism. We already have too many things (i am specifically NOT referring to the bottom 25% here!). I note that many (probably most) of those in the top 25% contribute to charity, and i applaud this.

I am sad that the “live more simply” trend has all but vanished from this land. While i embrace the “live within ones means” philosophy, i am also sorry to see it is held in virtual comtempt by so many, especially in that it aids one in living more simply (and thus using less resources!). It is a win-win for much of our population (again, excluding the bottom 25%), but has little popularity in any camp.

Anyway, that’s what i have to say.

Fascinating. After the cultural shocks of the ‘60’s - with its clamorings over socialism and communism, its communes and egalitarian ideals - and the push toward socialist institutions in this country, we are *less* mobile now than in the ‘50’s.

John,
Paris Hilton and"stunning looks”?She’s not all that great.Anyone look good when they can hire a small army of appearance specialists.Oh,and having people put you in favorable lighting and constanly photographing you from your good side doesn’t hurt either.I favor Bill Maher’s view of her.Her head is too small and she only has one facial expression.

What surprises me is how we let ourselves be distracted by her.Millions of people were taken by the fact that she didn’t know how ordinary people live.They should have been concerned and even upset that someone that wealthy and powerful can be completely out of touch with the world.The idea of shows like hers are the reason I no longer watch anything except CNN,and that only for the news.

Our culture and economy has become lean and mean.
Competition in business is being phased out with lack of regulation on big businesses like Wal-mart who come into a town and deliberatlely lower prices to shut down competitors.Our unions are being subverted and dissolved by corporations.
The result?A class structure which is becoming reminiscent of the 1920’s--right before everything nearly fell to pieces.

Now here we are again at nearly the same point.Let’s just hope the circus can distract people from the fact that there’s no bread.

Stump said:

“Fascinating. After the cultural shocks of the ‘60’s - with its clamorings over socialism and communism, its communes and egalitarian ideals - and the push toward socialist institutions in this country, we are *less* mobile now than in the ‘50’s.” Posted by Rick Stump on June 24, 2005 at 10:22 AM

Defective analysis Stumpy.  You leaped right over the Reagan/Bushg 12 years of fudalism.  I think their conservative policies of ignorance and greed played a very large role in the current dearth of upwardly mobile potential.

Beth wrote:
“In my view, most of the top 25% or so ARE wealthy. They have more food than they can eat. They have cable tv, dvds, eat out more than once a week, have washing machines and dryers, multiple cars, etc etc ad nasuem. While they are not “rich” in the sense of having unlimited resources, they are nonetheless very comfortable. (And i expect that many people who work their entire lives get pretty close to this mark as they age and accumulate resources, like houses, pensions, 401Ks and SS benefits). “

I don’t think this is necessarily true.  Remember credit cards? I think there are a lot of people living beyond their means and don’t let on that that’s what they’re doing.  The rest of us seem them and think they’re well off, but at time when “home equity loans” are at all an time high, personal bankruptcy and home foreclosures are at an all time high, I have to wonder how well off these people really are.

As for their accumulation of resources, well if they have a home equity loan (when did they stop calling it a second mortgage) on their house, is it really an asset? As for pensions, we’ve seen what United Airlines has done, the State of Illinois recently decided to dip into its pension fund to balance out a budget, and no doubt other states do or are thinking of doing the same, and you can bet the other big corps like GM are drooling over the United Airlines ruling so I wouldn’t count as a pension being safe.  As for 401(k)’s, I’ve worked in Human Resources and seen where a lot of people put their money--in the guaranteed income section where they get maybe 2-4% growth which won’t be enough.  Plus many people saw their portfolios drop tremendously after the dot-bust.  So 401(k) can depend a lot on how the stock market is doing when you’re ready to retire.  And we all see what’s happening to social security and medicare is really in critical shape.

The bottom line is that most people are distracted from their financial reality by the false-promise of moving up in the world.  A good part, if not most, of that 25% you see aren’t in good shape.  But business keeps it all going with the illusion that we’re all going to be rich.

What currently worries me the most about this is the “death tax” advertising that has been going on. The supporters have been pitching ads to the lower/middle class about how unfair it is that part of the estate money is taken by the government.

I’ve talked to people in the dark about what the tax is actually there for, and they are in _full_ favor of revoking the death tax based on the concept that “I’m already poor, why should the government get money from my deceased loved ones?”

This worries me immensely since it means the advertisements are working perfectly for the other team. And that a bill that will stagnate our funds will ultimately be passed.

PS: Very off-topic, but I wanted to toss it onto the end. Heard about the Bush for Life campaign? They’ve proposed an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 22nd amendment so that an individual can serve more than two terms as president. Can we say frightened?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-108.pdf

I can’t think of a more ridiculous judgement from the court concerning class warfare. Now any rich developer, if he can buy his influence (which of course he can), can take over private property for his own development.

The liberal justices are idiots. The above link contains the oral arguments.

Can anybody posting here defend this decision? The NYT today had probably the most idiotic editorial ever written in defense of it if you want a source.

Beth said:

“In my view, most of the top 25% or so ARE wealthy. They have more food than they can eat. They have cable tv, dvds, eat out more than once a week, have washing machines and dryers, multiple cars, etc etc ad nasuem. While they are not “rich” in the sense of having unlimited resources, they are nonetheless very comfortable. (And i expect that many people who work their entire lives get pretty close to this mark as they age and accumulate resources, like houses, pensions, 401Ks and SS benefits).”

Beth, there’s a huge leap between having more than you can eat and unlimited resources.  Somewhere in between those two states of existence are those who - if they wanted to - could afford to live an affluent lifestyle on their investments without “earned” income.  That would be my definition of “rich in America.”

Zahtevnik said:

“PS: Very off-topic, but I wanted to toss it onto the end. Heard about the Bush for Life campaign? They’ve proposed an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 22nd amendment so that an individual can serve more than two terms as president. Can we say frightened?” Posted by Zahtevnik on June 24, 2005 at 2:45 PM

We don’t need to repeal the 22nd amendment in order for Bush to be president for life.  Jeb Bush (the really bad one), will run for President in 2008, and after he wins two terms HIS son, George P. ("Pendejo") Bush will win two terms as President, and so on and so on and so on . . . .  And, with the sworn public allegience to all things Bush Diebold Corp. - who makes the voting machines AND counts the votes - who’s to stop them.

BUSH ===> BANANA REPUBLICAN OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.

This article is directly on track & we linked to it at www.gnotics.com/newsletter.html
Suzanne Radford
www.gnostics.com

MOR,

Are you calling Clarence Thomas a Liberal Judge?  I thought that only O’Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist and one other dissented?  If you think that the winning judges are “liberal”, you have a very different dictionary than I have.

To me, this smacks much more of Libertarianism. A system which preaches individual rights, but really kowtows to the super rich corporations.  When are the Republicans going to wake up and smell the coffee?  The Libertarians are far more of a “threat” to our country than the liberals, the communists or the socialists.

Margaret-

I normally don’t respond to people’s post b/c I find most of you completely uninformed. And of course I’m right again.

It is extremely easy to find out who voted for what on any case before the Supreme Court. No, I am not calling Thomas liberal. He voted against it - along with O’Connor, Scalia, and Rehnquist. These are what we tend to call the “conservative” group on the bench.

As for your definition of “Libertarianism” I have no idea what you are talking about in this context.

“The libertarian Cato Institute, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Kelo’s behalf, called the decision a ‘blow to homeowners and small business people’.” (Go to CNN or Google, or the Cato homepage). Every Libertarian I know is truly outraged by the vote. Every Republican I know publicly denounces it in public and is dancing behind closed doors. This is one of those absolute perfect cases for Republicans to bring up - just when one of the justices is going to retire. Granted, it’s not as good as New Englander judges voting for gay rights right before the presidential election. But it’s pretty amazing nonetheless.

Communists and Socialists have absolutely nothing to do with this case. Bernie Sanders is the only socialist of any position in government. And the only thing he has ever done of substance is be a talking head on the O’Reilly factor. Oh, wait, somebody name me some legislation he’s passed in the House?

Yes Margaret, we certainly do have different dictionaries. I just have no idea where you got yours.

Buh-Bye. Later for a little shindig.

MOR, I didn’t hear the arguments on appeal, or the evidence in the trial court, but on the face of it, it’s an outrageous decision.  Once again, corporations win, people loose.

Lefty- I would assume that you and I probably only agree on about 25% of the issues. But I just wanted to let you know I copied one of your posts on some facts of Israel from another recent story. Great information. At least it seems as though we agree on this one court ruling and probably our attitudes toward Israel.
----------------------------------------------
I just don’t get this. Rachel Maddow, of Air America, was even completely stumped in trying to defend this decision. This is nothing but pure class warfare. It’s not just the government that is allowed to use Eminent Domain for public works or a hospital anymore - it’s rich private developers!

Imagine the 527’s sound bites over this. The 30 second ad when they show the actual 80 year old (and his son) who are now going to be kicked out of their home of the last 30 years so a corporation can put in a mini-mall in Connecticut. These are going to be run when Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court come up - among many others.

The actual case is much more complicated. That’s why I posted the Supreme Court notes link in my first post and mentioned the NYT editorial (as moronic as it is). But that isn’t going to matter to average Joe.

By the way, Republican reptiles are guilty of class warfare too. I ain’t going to defend those hard-right nutjobs like Tom Delay. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is right 100% of the time.

It is surprising that this issue was even before the court. There is nothing in this case that would merit consideration in an area where there should be little disagreement. That the specific four members who ignored the mountain of existing precedent in this matter call themselves Conservative, that is certainly not in evidence in this decision.

First of all, had previous decisions gone the other way in the past, we wouldn’t have telephones, cable television, or most Sporting Arenas - not necessarily a bad thing, but you get the picture. In this particular case, the “Public” use involved the development of a complex that would generate $680,000 a year in local taxes as well as bring a couple hundred jobs to the area. The municipality in question had recently suffered through the loss of a military base and associated facilites that employed about 1500 people locally.

Governments, including local governments, have the authority to promote the general interests of business. Once again, not everyone agrees with that idea but the practice is well established in the law. It is the judgement of these (local) governments that dictates what is to be considered “Public”. This is not an issue for the court - that is decided by the political types who run the government.

In this case, if the people of New London feel they have representatives in their government who are in involved with business in inappropriate ways, they may turn them out of office or have them prosecuted if they have broken the law in this regard.

I feel bad about the people who didn’t want to lose their property (for which, incidentally, they will be properly compensated). However, they don’t have the Supreme Court or the Federal Government to blame - they have their neighbors to blame.

I find it ironic that Conservatives and Libertarians would appeal to the Federal Government for relief on this issue. They should be arguing that the Federal Government has no business involving itself in local matters that ought to be decided locally. The exception would be where just compensation was not forthcoming.

1- How is it remotely surprising that an unprecedented use of Eminent Domain ended up in the Supreme Court? What kind of cases do you think go there? Everybody knew where this was going from day one- hence the most anticipated ruling in a long time. Or maybe I’m wrong - could you please cite me the “mountain of existing precedent in this case”? That mountain that every court overlooked? The mountain that lead the Supreme Court to of course take the case? Just give me some links and I’ll check on it.

2- How do you determine proper compensation? What do you give to a widow who is living in a house that her husband built after returning home from WWII? Just apply the basic housing rate formula for the domain? It’s just wood and nails right? Besides, if she doesn’t get “just compensation” she can just “turn out” her local officials. That’s easy enough! (the above example, by the way, is loosely based on the lady who successful fought Donald Trump from tearing down her house so he could expand his Atlantic City Casino - it’s guys like him that just got a tremendous boost from this ruling).

3- How is it ironic that Conservatives and Libertarians, the parties that champion individual rights (those include property rights obviously), would argue against new, unprecedented intrepretations of particular statutes?

4- But I certainly do agree with you that there are a whole host of issues that should be decided by local and state governments over the federal government. That’s a great point. Remember how anything not specifically enumerated in the constitution as a function (power) of the federal government should be left to the states? Let’s see where that could lead us!

Quickly- I’m not arguing against Eminent Domain the way it was practiced in the past. It has served as a vital function in thousands of examples. I would just argue that we have crossed into very new territory with this newest ruling. If anybody is interested in it just please check out many different news sources to make your own decision.

This is an article on class warfare. This decision is potentially influential on that topic. The power of the private interests, and their influence in local government, to overthrow the rights of the unprotected.

The USSC ruling is tangentially related to this thread in that class warfare and commercial/government corruption are inextricably intertwined.

What I find problematic with the opinion is that it opens the flood gates of government corruption by commercial interests - bribing local govermnents and agencies to condemn private property for PRIVATE use.  I’d like to know if the USSC opinion addressed that issue.

MOR,

My position on Israel is simple.  I’m not an Israel historian, but, as I understand it, Israel was established to be a refuge for Jewish refugees and concentration camp survivors following WWII who had no where else to go. And it continued to be a refuge for Soviet and other persecuted Jews around the world. Before the Jews moved there, there was no sovereign state, no infrastructure, no government - other than British military rule, and no economy.

The local Arabs opposed the migration of Jews from the beginning, fled the area in protest of the establishment of the State of Israel, and along with the rest of Arabia, has vowed the distruction of Israel, and has 100’s of times proven through deeds that they are bent on the distruction of Israel by any means possible.

I think Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens from terrorist attacks.

I don’t think that Israel should negotiate with the right hand of an avowed foe, while the left hand is suicide bombing it. 

I think that Israel should build a physical barricade between it and the Palestinian occupied territories and allow the Palestinians to fend for themselves.  Let the Iranian Islamist who finance and organize the Palestinian terrorists (Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas), finance the new Palestinian state.

I wish I could aford to spend some time answering all of these questions but with regards the following:

“How is it remotely surprising that an unprecedented use of Eminent Domain ended up in the Supreme Court? What kind of cases do you think go there?”

There is nothing in this case that is unprecedented. When you review the case law (the initial decisions, not the appeals), do a general review and don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the details of each case. Once you start looking over the interested parties, you get a pretty good look at the dirty business of Eminent Domain. Once again, I am not an advocate of the policy. The history of it’s use is a disgusting roll call of corruption (You may want to glance over the details of it’s use in Texas - to build a baseball stadium, involving the current chimp-in-chief).

As to the reason why they took this case, this is pure politics. Certain members of the court, who have repeatedly and gleefully ruled against the interests of individual citizens for the benefit of corporations, wanted to demonstrate that they are really out to protect the common man from the forces of corruption. What a load of trash! Here is what O’Connor wrote on the subject:

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Wow! She’s just figuring that out!

The point I believe they intend to make is that the “Liberals” on the court have now ruled in such a way as to make property rights appear to be less certain than before. This is nonsense. Nothing has changed with this decision.

In the end, the key is to elect people who are not corrupt and who will use the process wisely. Obviously, we have a long way to go on that one.

Lefty - I agree 100%

B Miller- I have no idea what you are talking about.  Your reply rambles from supporting both sides, mocking both sides, uses no specifics related to THIS case, interjects a quote from O’Connor that makes perfect sense (but is lost on liberals), and claims this entire case has a “mountain of precedent” but was heard for pure “political reasons”?!

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree and call it quits. I have a feeling our attitudes on the subject are rather set. You’re a good writer though - I just completely disagree with you.

if only it would be possible to survive without getting onto the treadmill, without wanting “to make it”! That would certainly stop the economic engine in its tracks!

B Miller - Or how about this plain and simple - Will this ruling lead to more or less evictions? If you agree that it is more, who do you think will be overwhelmingly evicted - rich millionaires in their mansions, or the low to middle class?

As per the relevancy to class conciousness - will this increase the seperation or lower it? (granted, it is certainly not by a huge amount - but nonetheless, which would it be?).

Moberg must be annoyed that these threads always degenerate!

Am truly sorry some people must move. Anything that can be done to improve New London economically (and esthetically) is in my opinion, worth it. As one who spent a number of years there while in the Navy, just let me say that even in “Good” times, New London is a bastion of mediocrity, elititism and screw the working class politics. The area under developement cannot go anyplace but up. As much as I hate the idea of individual rights being abused, I say let the developers do their thing, it can’t hurt.

MOR,

I believe we probably agree on more issues than not. My point is that we have a system that needs to be properly maintained to remain healthy. Even though I think that people should be shielded from the heartlessness of a corrupt government, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. In this case, the right way is to work with elected officials to avoid wronging people just because they don’t have the cash to defend themselves. The wrong way would be to abuse judicial review to the point that all law is made by the courts.

In the area of Class Warfare, Eminent Domain is a minor issue compared to the granting of citizenship to corporations. This concept is not grounded in the Constitution, nor in Statutes. The idea is derived solely from judgements by the courts. That’s what I would decry as judicial activism. I personally don’t believe this current ruling will have any effect whatsoever (although, once you turn over a rock, don’t be surprised if something runs out).

In the end, the Courts will be populated by individuals who are mostly connected to existing wealth and power. They are shielded from the rest of us. We need to limit their power. Elected officials, on the other hand, are dependent on the majority for their strength. The last time I looked, there were a lot more working people than rich people. In that sense, the working class has to share some of the blame for the problems we have, since our complacency is required for the corrupt to have their way.

By the way, thanks for your comments.

B Miller,

The USSC has ruled that the 5th Amendment allows the government to take property for private purpose if it does some public good.  However, individual States can limit their own power, and the power of political subdivisions and agencies, by legislation.

Lefty,
Oops, try again. The ‘feudalism’ of the Reagan/Bush era was superior to the Clinton years in regards to mobility. Heck, during Reagan’s time in office there were new millionaires made at the rate of 100,000 A YEAR on average. Black business receipts increase 50%, outpacing the general economy by quite a bit, and the beginnings of Hispanic economic power began.

On the other hand, income disparity increased under Clinton at a *faster* rate than under Reagan (it also did the same under Carter).

Don’t get me wrong; the evidence seems to indicate that progressive taxation makes society more mobile - but I don’t know *why*. Some argue that its a redistrivution of wealth - but when we take the taxes and just give it to the poor, it doesn’t seem to help. Steep progressive taxes and a weak direct welfare system with a large number of safeguards (i.e., WIC, Medicare, etc.) seem to work best.

With respect to this article, measuring progress by the number of millionaires your economy generates is not that useful by itself.  You have to ask if these *new* millionaires are the sons and daughters of other millionaires.  It would be more informative to measure success relative to that of the parents.

Also, unless you have abandoned the reality-based community, then it is actually sort of intuitive *why* progressive taxation works.  It works because to a certain extent, taxation works in general.  Public education is a decent a case in point from the article.  Tuition is essentially subsidized by taxes, as is access to programs like head start, English language programs, etc, etc.  Basically, the more research and money that go into these programs, the better.

The progressive ideal on education is actually more attractive in terms of the self-made man concept than the conservative one.  If you are a conservative, then you probably feel that you should be abe to keep all your cash to send your kid to a grade-a prep school.  On the other hand, that kid hasn’t really earned a dime yet and is only entitled to that grade-a education because of *your* success.  What kind of self-made man, is that?

MOR,
You were right, Thomas did dissent.  I personally don’t find any of the judges on the current bench what I’d call “liberal”, but I guess in contrast to Scalia and Thomas, Kennedy and Souter are further left.  Normally I would say thank God for that, but not in this case. 

I think you truly misunderstand what most liberals feel as you find it amazing that a liberal would have trouble “defending” this decision.  Frankly, I don’t know any progressives that would defend this position.  My question is, what is the political affiliation of the developers involved in the New London scheme?  Somebody has put a lot of money into achieving this decision.

I guess you believe Ann Coulter and her ilk in their “understanding” of the liberal mind.  What a lot of ill-informed neurosis.

Rick,

I just heard yesterday on CNN that the income disparity has increased the most under George W. Bush than in the last 40 years.  Congratulations!

Margaret,

Stumpy is a conservative. You have to start with the presumption that everything he says was spoon fed to him by pathological liars such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc.

As is not suprising, US society is becoming more unequal and class boundaries are hardening more than ever in our contemporary history.  This situation was emerging steadily since the late 1970s with the beginnings of wage deceleration and the onset of one of the deepest recessions in our history, However, it really took off with abandon after 2000.  With Bush there was a great and sudden shift of wealth upwards which plunged 15% of the country well below the poverty line by the first quarter of 2004.  This was because of the increased pace of outsourcing, the loss of good jobs, the tax cuts and service and transfer payment reductions or eliminations, and a general economic slowdown.  Jobless recoveries have become the norm with globalization and the concentration of wealth upwards.  All this means downward pressure on wages which have been declining in real value for decades. In fact, since Bush took office in 2000, the national median income has decreased by about $1000.00 annually and shows no sign of recovering!  Social class as an issue also has taken on a different dimension since globalization, it has become a transnational rather than national phenomenon as the old middle classes that formed the basis of national capitalist development gradually disappear giving way to a new polarization consisting of transnationally linked capital on the one hand and unskilled highly mobile labor or low wage service sector workers on the other hand.  The new global, highly concentrated distribution of wealth has given rise to rapid job growth in places like the US in sectors such as health care, care-taking, retail, financial services, and hospitality much of which is often very low wage. It is tougher to make ends meet all the time.  Capitalism has placed the “American dream” further out of reach for most people despite how hard they may be working!

There is a demographic in this country that is hording wealth and hiding behind walled in neighborhoods.  This demographic is not reproducing or investing in people.  Based on rugged individualism at all costs and fear of anything and everything they seal the demise of themselves and the U.S.  Real communities are working class and poor usually in historically black and latino centers of population.  This is where true relationships happen becuase of necessity.  Wealth creates narcisism and quite frankly a major if not monumental miscalculation that dooms this country and wealth will have not meaning as we shift towards social disintegration at the hands of supremacists.  Salvation or survival lies in people making the necessary sacrifices and committments to dissolve their wealth and get out of their so-called comforts zones.  As I like to say we live in a country who is afraid of its own shadow and when we decide to confront who and what we are, we will continue the same patterns.

1) When Edwards spoke of “two Americas” he was hit by the old accusation of promoting class warfare. For some reason class warfare is allowed as long as it isn’t discussed. But the war is far along and the salaried class has long since lost and is just hoping that their jobs last as long as they need them.

2) States were long said to be the laboratories of public policies, but they have been more and more restrained by unfunded mandates which has just transfered taxes from the federal (cuts for the rich) to the states needing to raise taxes. Thus eminent domain has now been declared within the rights of the states to raise their tax bases, by the illusion of taking from the “legally defenseless” and giving to the “politically connected”.

3) Why are not the laboratories of other countries examined by the press? The USA is the only industrialized country without a public health policy, and antedotes are found to throw scorn on Canada (ignoring the thousands of stories of personal tragedy here). But what of Germany’s health program? Job retraining programs in Scandanavia? Why is the USA so low in their school performance in relation to other countries (who do not rate their schools by the standing of their football teams)?

Our xenophobia and military might leave us smug and arrogant in our ignorance

Hum, maybe it’s time to rename computers and run our IP Hoppers for subsequent posts?

Brock,
Are you a US citizen? Your post echoes what I constantly ask on this site. How is it that US citizens are so ignorant about the rest of the advanced democracies of the world? How is it that the US still has no universal health care? Why are US citizens so uncurious about the rights and entitlemtns enjoyed by others in comparable economies? Why are they so unable to see that the US form of capitalism and the social and political arqangments underpinning it are not the last word on these matters, and that other people in the world, including where i live, in Australia, consider their democracy to be stronger and fairer than the US, and fear the importation of its social economic and political arrngements far more than they fear a bunch of loony Middle East fundos.

Wake up brothers and sisters. US working people need to know that others fear your ruling elite far more than they fear the enemies your leaders are constantly peddling to you in order to distract your attention from the looting and pillaging of your rights.

Aside from that to ITT. And with apologies to Mr. Moberg for the off topic posts - again.

PBS’s NOW did a segment on this Supreme Court decision today. Those interested (and I know progressives love this program) should tune in on the re-air or go their website.

“Brock” - Great Walhberg porn name from Boogie Nights. Not so great, in my humble opinion, was your “#2” point. Seems circular and then attributes too much politicization (too tired to spell check that!) to the courts.

As per #3 - If you are having a hard time finding articles on these topics I suggest you learn how to use Google. Anybody with a computer can find hundreds of articles in the press (both foreign- Der Spiegel, Aftenposten, The Guardian, The Economist - for your couple of specific examples, and American- Mother Jones, The Nation, The Wall Street Journal, NYT, Christian Science Monitor, etc. etc.) concerning the topics you listed. Anyway, information is pretty easy to come by these days!

Maybe it wasn’t clear that I do believe that class consciousness matters, but it is discussed in “white tower” sites rather than in the national press.

What I meant is that the states can no longer be considered laboratories for public policies because they are more and more hamstrung. The courts did not make its eminent decision to make money for the states, but state and local governments will see it as a new tool to solve their tax base problems (I will be surprised if it doesn’t happen in Pittsburgh before the end of the year)

I would expect that the great majority of those posting here are news junkies. Of course I have used google to find many facts about Europe or I would not have referred to that ignored information. MOR misquoted my post. It is the national press that does not inform the public about the successful social policies of other countries. And I do not refer to the Times, Post, Mother Jones or Nation (the last two I have subscribed to). But until the local papers in Kansas, Missouri or Arizona start to bring up our public policy failings to which other countries have alternatives, it will not make any changes in the thinking of the red states, whose majorities automatically think that the US is first in everything, since no source of information that they use will state the information that MOR and I find in non-mainstream news sources.

The really astonishing thing, to me, is that so many people in this country so consistently vote against their own material well-being.  (This is the problem of ‘class-consciousness’ alluded to in the last paragraph of the article.) It seems like the Republicans have used social and foreign-policy issues to sever a large chunk of the (white) working class from its traditional Democratic loyalties.  What we need is a new rhetoric to appeal to these voters, without comprimising on social or international issues.

Jane doe, In reference to your June 26 post:
I am an american citzen and I’d like to know the answers to all those questions too. It’s a tad surreal to live in the US these days if you’ve got half a brain and consider yourself reasonably intelligent. What seems quite apparent(both evident in this article, your post and, well, everywhere you look)is met with apathy or right wing sound bites or worse-christian right wing dogma. It’s like watching a great house sink into the sand because no one has thought to shore up the foundation-they just keep re-painting and wonder why it’s not working.

Matthew K.
It is astonishing-and leads to that surreal thing I mentioned to Jane doe-but I think-and this is not meant to offend or critize-that the folks that keep doing that are deeply ebbeded in the Christian dogma of suffering. Getting a new rhetoric isn’t going to help us.I am by no means an expert on this because God was Love in my house, neighborhod, city, etc, but the argument goes something like this: It’s OK to suffer, even inflict suffering on others because Jesus died for our sins, etc etc..I’ve heard a similiar argument against environmental restrain-either that A) God wouldn’t let us run out of Oil, air, whatever,because he’s great or B) the Rapture is coming and environmental degradation is in keeping with prophecy. I think suplanting these ideas with anything but a new vision, articulated in the language of aggressive humility is going to fall flat.And I think it is important to start with the class thing. It’s quite frightening to me to think how much work, time and effort this will take and because our leaders constantly play a game of “look over here”, “No, look over here”. I am lost as to how to even start.The “same ole” isn’t working. I live very close to the Canadian border and it’s tempting to just bail- beleive me-but that doesn’t solve the problem. We can’t have a nation as powerful as the US is bullying the rest of the planet. It just won’t do. Her people have to stand up. And to do that,it seems to me, they have to be able to make ends meet.

Communists and Socialists have absolutely nothing to do with this case. Bernie Sanders is the only socialist of any position in government. And the only thing he has ever done of substance is be a talking head on the O’Reilly factor. Oh, wait, somebody name me some legislation he’s passed in the House?

Um, didn’t Bernie Sanders just pass a bill through the house to repeal certain portions of the Patriot Act.  Is anyone who believes in Government Regulation of Business to benefit working people a Socialist?  The only memeber of Congress not affiliated with either party and he gets labeled a Socialist.  Some people have really drunk the Koolaid.

Johnny Grim;

Bernie is a socialist.  He won office in Burlington as a Democratic Socialist, the political heir of Debs, Thomas, and Harrington.  In the House of Reps. he is registered as Ind. in order to integrate with Dem. ranking structure.  Otherwise he would truly be a lone voice in the wilderness.  There are several Dems in the Progressive Caucus who might be said to be somewhat ideologically socialist.  In Europe there are many politicians who are nominally Socialist, who are ideologically anything but.  It’s unfortunate that the label of socialism bears the negative connotations of Stalinism and Maoism or Pol Pot-ism in the US.  A hallmark of the success of free-market propaganda.

Of course, in the eyes of the Conservatives, anyone to the left of Olympia Snowe is a socialist, and they’re keeping an eye on her.  As an old Union song said “You ain’t done nothin’, if you ain’t been called a Red”.

The Republicans are the ones who are waging the class war against most of the members of American Society through tax and service cuts that significantly effect the middle class and through the three decades long assault on organized labor. The income and wealth distribution profile is testimony to this and is so well known that it really bears no repeating.  Those who want to get a sense of what John Edwards meant by the two Americas should consult the numerous and reputable studies done by the CBPP at www.cbpp.org to examine the decline in the overall US standard of living and the security of the middle and working classes.  If one wants to know why this occured with societies complicity it is the ignorance of the old, traditional white working and lower middle classes who somehow became convinced of late that Jesus Christ was either a Wall Street investment banker or five star General in the US Armed Forces!  Change will eventually come from the new US working class that consists largely of ethnic and racial minorities and women working mostly in the service sector. They are already on the march despite the many obsticles in their path. They deserve our support.

Kaela and Matthew K,
I’m not sure who the heck you are describing, but it isn’t the Christian Right in this country. Suffering is seen as having value in the Christian tradition - and also something that has value only when unavoidable. Christians value the martyr, but seeking martyrdom is a sin. Suffering and matrtyrdom only have value when unavoidable.
As far as voting ‘against their own material interest’ and being beyond belief; what about Soros funding groups that will increase his taxes? Or the large number of very vocal Democratic supporers who are very wealthy. *They* are voting against *their* own material interests, right? Why?
Well, for something they consider morally superior to material good, they say. Why would people who disagree with you act differently? Are the poor or working class incapable of sacrificing their own material advantage for something they see as more important, more critical?
Matthew, if you haven’t realized it yet, the ‘new rhetoric’ won’t work because the points of difference are the social issues you won’t compromise on. I am amazed at the ‘progressives’ I hear, speak to, and read that automatically assume that other liberals are clear-thinking, rational people but all the “red state voters” are reactionary ignoramuses incapable of thought.... *then* bemoan the fact that ‘they don’t understand our message’.
We understand your message just fine, thank you. And we reject it as unacceptable to us.

To change subjects a bit, I am also amazed at the persistence of the oncepts of Marx. Class consciousness, class struggle, class warfare. Folks, Communism was an earth-shaking failure. More than a century of thought, theory, practice, etc. all over the world have proven that Marx’ theories are fatally flawed. You cannot use them to make predictions and the most earnest applications of his theories result in failure.  Considering the unequaled amount of suffering and death associated with Communist thought, I am stunned that anyone would want *any* level of association with Communism or its weak sister, Socialism.

“Suffering is seen as having value in the Christian tradition.”

Blahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Yeah right, as long as someone else is doing the suffering, it’s noble and Godly.  Blahahahahahahahahahah!!!

“As far as voting ‘against their own material interest’ and being beyond belief; what about Soros funding groups that will increase his taxes? Or the large number of very vocal Democratic supporers who are very wealthy. *They* are voting against *their* own material interests, right? Why?
Well, for something they consider morally superior to material good, they say. Why would people who disagree with you act differently? Are the poor or working class incapable of sacrificing their own material advantage for something they see as more important, more critical?”

The point is that when the working poor do it, their quality of life is adversely impacted for the benefit of those whose quality of life is already very high.  The question becomes why would they?  Is cutting the taxes of the rich a “moral” sacrifice?  One reasonable inference is that the working poor have been lied to.

When George Soros does it, it has no effect on his quality of life, but it has a beneficial effect on the quality of life of the working poor.

R. Stump;

Stalinism was a monumental failure.  Stalinism is Authoritarianism with a Socialist veneer.  In spite of what most US citizens believe, the Soviet Union never came close to the Communist ideal of control of the means of production in the hands of the workers.  Capitalism avoided, for the 20th Century, the historical inevitability of socialism by accepting pragmatic adjustments to progressive ideas, i.e.; minimum wage, child labor laws, the 40hr. workweek and overtime pay, progressive taxation, independent democratic trade unions and collective bargaining, social security, etc.  As the Conservatives and Economic-Libertarians are successful in rolling back these reforms, Marx’s ideas of history return into play. 

Look at Latin America, where the grip of Neo-Liberalism is receding and the Socialism for the 21st Century and strategies for regional development propounded by Hugo Chavez, and the Communitarianism of the Zapatistas and Picaderos are taking root. 

As to liberal capitalists like Soros.  It isn’t contrary to their economic self interest to pay more in taxes if those taxes go to create broad economic growth for the lower classes.  They already have enough money.  Their interest is in expanding and preserving the influence of their business activity.  When poor people have more to spend, business booms, it’s as simple as that.

Lefty, your total dissociation from actual Christians is evident. And, again, why is it hard to appreciate that someone can choose to do something against their own short term economic interests for what they perceive as long-term (or even short term) ethical concerns? Remember, most conservatives voted on social/moral issues with economics being a strong second place. And there is a great deal of debate over how taxes and tax cuts effect job growth and economic development.
I’m not coming down on one side or another, but the Chicago Boys *are* economists that have had interesting success in stimulating job growth and economic development. Liberal economic policies of the ‘70’s led to steep inflation and stagnation of growth. Assuming people are duped because they *disagree* with you is intellectually lazy and not very persuasive when trying to convince them to change their minds!
And how much of an impact on the lives of the poor *does* an increase in the marginal tax rate have? Oh, I know it *could*, but is that money spent on WIC and college grants, or is it spent on military bases in Ted Kennedy’s district? And what do you do for people who refuse direct monetary aid because of the strings attached? For example, I know a young mother who is considering leaving WIC because they are more and more involved in telling her what she can feed her child.

Luminous Beauty,
(great tag name, BTW). *Communism* has been a monumental failure. From the death fields of Cambodia to North Korea, the FLN assassins to the imposition of communism on the Warsaw Pact. Marxist theory has been a bust all over the world. Marxist predictions have failed to materialize for 100+ years despite the fervent wishes and armed intervention of millions of Communist partisans.

Despite the yearning that many still have for the ‘perfect world’ Marx envisioned, it is another utopia that will remain forever out of reach. Yes, progressive ideas have improved the lives of billions of people. At the same time, however, Communist policies have starved or killed hundreds of millions of people. China remains nominally Communist by becoming capitalist. North Korea is a pit, Cuba has thousands of political prisoners, Chavez is busy buying guns and hiding killers, etc.

I shouldn’t think that Marx’s theories are a “failure”, whatever that means.  Surely many regimes that purported to base themselves on Marxism have failed for various reasons having to do with the fact that they were poor and failing societies to begin with and later faced hostile challenges from imperialism.  Many of these regimes were undemocratic in all senses and had leaders who scarcely understood the Marxism they thought they were practicing.  Marxism is a potent critique of capitalism and has well predicted the capitalist course of development from late industrial monopoly capitalism all the way down to globalization and the global concentration of wealth and productive capital along with the intensification of wars over the concentration, control, and survival of the system at large!  The gradual disappearance of the middle class so prevailent during monopoly capital’s Fordist/national stage of development was well predicted by Marxists alone and gave creedence to the notion of Class polarization in the waning days of the systems dominance.  The increasing social misery is also a prediction come true as is the extension, whether by force or corruption, of capitalist relations of production everywhere which capitalism’s proponents arrogantly assume to be the “volunatary” adoption of the better system rather than one imposed from the top down and whose benefits are restricted to the priveleged upper layer which installed the new system!  Further, Lenin’s prediction of war with the intensification of financial capital’s dominance of the system as it is used to concentrate existing productive capital rather than invest in new fixed capital formation during a period of global overcapacity has been amply born out! The systems collapse may come about but not for some time.  Right now repression and war mongering jingoistic ideological hegemony are helping to sustain the system!

R. Stump,
Class consciouness has been around before Marx decided to write about it-in fact I think it’s been with humans in one form or another for about as long as we humans have been around.Jesus spoke to it, for crying out loud, as well as Socrates and whole slew of others. Why is it that conservatives are afraid to talk about class? They seem to simply dismiss it as a failed movement when it isn’t a momvement at all -it’s reality.
I don’t know about Matthew but I find it unconcievable that people who need and deserve healthcare, food, the so-called social saftey net that the Christian right has been dismantling, would willingly and honestly choose to not only inflict suffering on themselves by denying access to these things but to inflict suffering on others deliberately to embue some sort of moral integrity. There is nothing moral about inflicting suffering on others deliberately, and I gotta think there’s nothing very Christian about it either. Which brings me back to my original argument:Right wing Christians, in their current adaptation, beleive that suffering is OK, and now, I know, because you’ve told me so, that all one has to do is label it “unavoidable” and it’s not only OK to suffer, but to inflict suffering on others, especially if it’s moral...and you guys really think this is reasonable???

Steve,
Relax - the political officer isn’t watching.
Marxist theory in and of itself is a failure, not just as applied in the Real World (although I never, EVER get tired of college professors working so hard to explain that “real Communism” hasn’t been tried yet) but also as an abstract conceptualization tool.
No matter how many ways and times it has been tried the abolition of private property has not led to an improvement in society (a key claim/prediction of Communist theory). Instead, it has led to sharp reductions in productivity and happiness.
Stadialist concepts were fatally flawed, and the core concept of Communist theory - that it was historically inevetible that ‘the workers’ would rise up - has only occured once (Red China). In other instances small cliques used force to impose Communism. And China is now about 70% capitalist in order to survive.
Marxian conceptualization of superstructure has also not survived contact with reality as means and methods of production around the world undergo massive change within a single generation and yet “class consciousness” fails to form and revolutions fail to happen in the places with the *greatest* production changes and *least* ideological change.
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk tore apart Marx’ labor theory of value, which is the linchpin of the entire ‘exploitative’ conceptualization of capitalism. Without an inherent exploitation built into capitalism, the rest of Communism (class consciousness, class struggle, etc.) vanishes. Unfortunately, Böhm-Bawerk’s explaination of value matches the Real World, Marx’s does not.Heck, Marxist scholars spent more than a century arguing over the “Transformation Problem” in an almost0open admission that the cornerstone of Marx’s critique of capitalism was fatally flawed.
Also, the predictions of the eradication of the petty bourgeoisie by market forces is contra-indicated by (again) the real World - free-market capitalism results in an increase in entrepreneurs/petty beourgeoisie, not a reduction. And while predictions of every-consolidated wealth by massive corporations is reported as just around the corner every day, many such mergers are disastrous and result in the breakup of large companies into smaller.
And while you may argue that communism failed because nations that adopted it were poor, etc (although Russia and China are both rich in resources and labor), even most Communist theorists argue that Communism could only work if every thing and method of trade and communication were seized at once. and based upon the results in Communist nations, this seems unlikely.
I am also puzzled by your statements about wars of concentration of capital, etc. The majority of wars within the 20th century were the diversification of colonial holdings from imperial powers - i.e., the *distribution* of capital and means of production. World War I was an Imperial war, but was defeated by capitalist armies. And WWII was much more ideological than imperial - also defeated (by capitalist and communist armies).
For all of the slack talk of an “American Empire” I see no taxes from Iraq, no captive governments in Afghanistan, no puppets in France, Germany, Japan, etc. Far from being exploited, Germany and Japan (once totally defeated by America) were rebuilt by American capital (often grants) and came back to supplant American idustries, often in key areas.
Hardly economic imperialism.
Yeah, I’m sure the burgeoning sales of McDonald’s in France are coerced by capitalist running-dog lackeys. Same with American music and movies - gun-toting agents of ILM rounding up Germans and forcing them into theaters. Yup. That’s it.
Also, the increased standard of living in China since the adoption of capitalistic elements, resulting in lowered infant mortality, disease, etc. is certainly an illusion promoted by the wealthy.

Kaela,
The “Christian Right” is dropping this? Or do you mean Conservatives? They *are* different, you know.
While you may involve yourself into semantic games, I do not. And the ‘suffering’ I am discussing is for the self, not inflicted on others. Suffering is not “OK” - it is something that can have value. Big difference.
And, I’m sorry, Kaela - morality doesn’t change. If saving the life of others means that I go withoutluxuries, that’s easy. If I must suffer to protect the innocent, I will. Wouldn’t you?

Mr. Stump,

I’ll address the more comprehensible arguments you’ve made.  First, Marx’s prediction that capital concentrates and centralizes is absolutely correct.  Even as globalization has created a plethora of firms that in turn spore greater number of foreign subsidiaries, the value of productive assets, sales, and profits concentrate all the time this is occurring.  This was also true of earlier phases of monopoly capitalism whereby the increasing concentration of wealth throughout the period 1893 to 1929 didn’t stop the rapid growth of independant businesses and firms many of which were later gobbled up.  Despite the fact that there are over 69,000 TNCs with over 690,000 foreign subsidiaries (UNCTAD’s last count) the top 500 of these probably account for well over half of global sales (this is my guess).  All this while the rest of the world gets ever poorer and formerly independant middle classes are proletarianized!

Mr. Stump,

To finish where we left off, TNCs are a growing core of the world economy. Over the past ten years sales of foreign subsidiaries of TNCs have been growing faster than world trade itself, one third of which is between TNCs and their foreign subsidiaries. Another thing is that TNC sales are a growing proportion of world GDP. The transnational corporation engages in economic development strategies that spread capitalist relations of production, concentrate wealth on a global scale, and proletarianize formerly independant producers reducing them in number and centralizing economic activity globally.  Marx would certainly have predicted these developments in his understanding of the laws of motion of capital!  The wars of imperial conquest today are different than of yore.  Today neo-imperialism rules indirectly through influence and military presence and economic domination.  Fourteen military bases in Iraq, the 100 Bremer Orders which basically turn the Iraqi economy over to US corporations, and US arm twisting in key international institutions all add up to imperialism to me! You also have to realize that the post-WWII merging of capital on a global scale through direct foreign investment and joint ventures across borders linked the economies of the major powers which made Europe and Japan sub-imperial clients of the US.  The US has always exercised great political influence over them even though they continue to out compete the US economically.  The US still accounts for about a solid third of global GDP and can influence other powers with its economic wieght and military potential.  That’s how we get away with pre-emptive wars and massive deficits funded by outside sources.  Now Bush is pushing CAFTA despite great opposition from both parties in the house in order to diversify product sourcing away from China that US Imperialism fears will gain to much political influence in East Asian affairs at the expense of US perogatives. World Wars I & II both represent imperialist wars whereby the national capitals of competing nations fought for global supremacy and in the case of WWII the wealthier US/UK imperialists could weather the capitalism’s first real global crisis with reforms while Germany and Italy, to powers which industrialized late and in a highly concentrated way, were less stable and faced serious challenges from their respective working classes that made class compromise a difficult option.  The ruling classes of these countries opted for fascism as a way out of the crisis because German and Italian capitalists’ foreign markets were less stable and assured, economic growth was less stable with greater fluctuations, and the left far more a threat to a stable labor/capital accord.  The defeat of the left by fascism in the 1930s left the way open for the US and UK to come in (with Soviet help)and restructure an open world capitalist system based on US hegemony. By the 1980s Western capitalism endured a crisis of overcapacity which required expansion into the areas occupied by “communist” systems in order to partly relieve the crisis of profitability.  US military spending and the war in Afghanistan opened up the remainder of the world to western capitalism. The current epoch of globalization is mainly the result of these historic events.

R. Stump;

If you could suddenly see the world without the ideological filters with which you have become accustomed you would necessarily go insane.  Your views are so dependent on your beliefs as to preclude empirical reason.  So, baby steps.

Does the adoption of the word “communism” as a propagandistic label actually signify the perfected application of socialist principle?  The only real world ‘communist’ societies are primitive communal societies which have functioned perfectly well for tens of thousands of years free of the corrupting interference of urban civilization.  Then there is your physical body, composed of trillions of individual cells functioning in perfect communistic harmony as long as none rebel in individualistic malignant metastasis. 

The Socialist government of Sweden was able to not only feed, clothe, and house its population in the post-war period when Capitalist Europe was relying on CARE packages, they were so successful at building a large middle-class they were voted out of office.  The same in Spain after the eventual disintegration of the Franco nightmare so beloved of conservatives.  The Socialist gov’t., in mutual co-ordination with the EU, brought that country to modernity with a quickness unparalleled by any other policy set ever.  History is an ebbing and flow of tides rather than a steady invariant stream.  It isn’t realistic to be sitting at the peak of a wave and declare the ‘end of history’. 

The monetarist policies of the ‘chicago boys’ under Alan Greenspan proved useful in restraining inflation in an overheated economy, but not so useful in stimulating a recessionary economy.  What has kept the current so-called recovery afloat is massive deficit spending.  The down-side is that it is mostly War spending which has a very low multiplier effect, and that only marginally in the communities that have defense plants and military installations.  That and the grafting corporations that get no-bid contracts.

Where do you get the idea there are thousands of political prisoners in Cuba?  If you can document more than 70, I’d like to see the references.  That was the claim of the Anti-Castroites before the Chavez is hiding what killers?  Definitely not Luis Posada Carriles.  He’s on ice in Texas where he will probably die before he can embarrass the CIA anymore than he has already.  How does replacing 50 year old rifles and buying a few boats and choppers for border patrol, in compliance with regional diplomatic agreements, constitute a massive military build-up? 

If I thought you were open to some friendly advice, I’d suggest you not believe everything you read at NRO, FrontPage, lewrockwell, or especially the 700 Club.  In fact, it’s a good rule of thumb to judge what information comes from those sources as pure BS.  Monological ideological correctness of a sort only the temporary triumphalist can engage in without embarrassment, temporarily.

Insert ‘Muriel boat-lift.’ between ‘the’ and ‘Chavez’

Kaela said:

“History is an ebbing and flow of tides rather than a steady invariant stream.  It isn’t realistic to be sitting at the peak of a wave and declare the ‘end of history’.”

That’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals see opportunity and possibility. Conservatives see only contrived bright lines and false absolutes.

Steve,
I see - the fact that there are thousands of more small, independent businesses means nothing becasue some large corporations are making more profits. Which are argely distributed to middle-class investors through broad-based investing structures. Sure. I also note that you completely skip the serious failings of basic Marxist theory.
And I see that the Marxist concept that all politics and culture is economic will not be shaken.

Luminous Beauty - you tagged up with a total loser to begin with. To paraphrase your opening “you are so blinded that you can’t think, so let me use very small words”. Another quote “Monological ideological correctness” - something that is indulged in by others than those you disagree with, friend.

I have posted critiques of advanced economic theory, eith names so you can look this stuff up and respond with rebuttals. Here’s a hint - responding with “you are irrational and don’t just listen to people who agree with you” is a ludicrous response: ESPECIALLY to someone posting on ITT!!

Rick;

I’m so sorry.  I didn’t mean to imply you were stupid or irrational.  Just one-sided to the extreme of pathological absurdity.  From my view it is obvious that with your willing consent your brain has been taught and trained and mismanaged with great skill.  The fact that you argue in the instrumentalist fashion of those whose ideas you only represent, rather than personally present, indicates a lack of the custom of balanced introspection.  What you call essential ‘Marxian’ thought is a charactiture and a parody of what Marxists really think.  It’s an invention of anti-Marxists and thus represents, in an objective sense, only one side of the story.

Monologically ideologically correct Marxists, suffer the same lop-sided mental deficiency.  Marx was a man who had some good ideas and some not so good.  Just like Jesus.  Just like you & me.  You can’t assume every Marxist is a militant revolutionary communist anymore than you can say every Christian, Muslim or Jew is a Fundamentalist.  Or that every libertarian is a capitalist.  The landscape of political thought and opinion is too broad and deep and complex to be decided by either/or absolutist argument. 

Better than throw out authority fallacies, just to pick an ideological fight, it indicates a degree of intellectual independence on your part, in my eyes anyway, when you respond in your own words and personal reasoning directly to the particular arguments presented to you.  It is also a sign of maturity not to whine about percieved insults.  Especially when they are so mis-percieved.

I think Marxist economists’ discovery that all social, political and cultural value cannot be precisely reduced to a fixed algorithm of monetary value would be a good thing.  Much better than defining the only values that ‘count’ as market-driven values.  More an expansion of creative democratic possibilities, rather than a fundamental refutation of principles.  Much friendlier to your assertion of unchanging moral values.

Luminous,
Ah, yes. Keep dancing, sunshine. You fool no one with a brain. You see, I posted something called a thesis (that certain concepts at the core of Marxist theory are incorrect). Your reply was, and continues to be, an ad hominem attack that I am *obviously* so very blinded by my one sided thinking as to be incapable of being enlightened.
As Socrates would say - “I certainly *am* a benighted fool. Please explain, in detail, how the labor theory of value DOES apply that I may gain in wisdom’.
Let us try this again, in small words.
Socialism and communism are ideological constructs. Broad, yes, but constructs none-the-less.
Regardless of your particular take on socialism or communism, certain elements are central to these ideological constructs. If they are false, the premises built upon them must be discarded or heavily modified.

Following me so far?

The core concepts of socialist thought (and here I am refering to the modern strains of socialist ideology, not hegelian concepts) were expounded by Marx, particularly in Das Capital. All modern socialist thought, with a few philosophical exceptions that have no real-world influence, are based upon this core work.

Read that again. As true as it is, you might want to nail that down.

Te core of Marx’s argument and the linchpin of his entire ideology is the labor theory of value. It explains the value of goods and services, the value of labor, the difference, and how the bourgeosie class exploits the proletariat through the very structures of capitalism. T labor thery of value is both the means of profit in capitalism AND the method of inherent exploitation, per Marx and all subsequent theories of socialism. It is the foundation of concepts as diverse the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands as an nevitability and the creation of class consciousness/class struggle/false consciousness (remember the title of the article?).

Now - here’s my thesis: its wrong.The difference between value and cost does not equal labor. Real world experience shows that this critical underpinning is not true, throwing serious doubt on the theoretical underpinning of 100+ years of discussion of class consciousness, ‘what’s wrong with capitalism’, etc.

I hope your reply is more than ‘Sweden was cool, once’.

First of all, I’m not sure why Mr. Stump is so insistent that all of Marx’s ideas are disproven by some obscure Austrian theorist’s refutation of the labor theory of value.  Marx’s theories are not wholly contingent on the labor theory of value, and in fact, there is a lively debate among academic Marxists as to whether the labor theory of value is still necessary or useful.  Personally (as an Institutionalist, and not a Marxist), I think it’s one of many ideas from Marx that made more sense as a description of the way the world worked in his own time.

While it is true that Communism was a moral and economic failure, two things must be remembered.  One, the Communists did do some good things.  They broke the power of ancient aristocracies, provided jobs and social services to the entire population, achieved a certain level of economic modernization (especially in Russia), and made advancements for the status of women.  Second, it’s not like capitalism has been any better.  The death toll from imperialism, slavery, fascism, and poverty runs into the millions, and the course of capitalist development has been marred by repeated crises. 

At any rate, the failure of Communism does not invalidate everything Marx said, nor close the door on possible alternatives to capitalism.  Communism was a utopian experiment; Marx and Engles HATED utopian socialism.

Steve:

Thought-provoking contributions as usual, but I suggest you avail yourself of the paragraph; it would make you a bit easier to read.  Also, you seem to hew to the sort of stale, mechanistic interpretation of Marx favored by his academic followers in the early 20th century, “laws of motion of capitalist development” and all.  Why not relax a bit, and take a more postmodern approach, a la Cornell West?

Matthew,
Well, my focus on Marxist theory is based upon both the tone of the article and some of the responses. Marx used his theory to make predicitions, predicitions which have not borne out. To continue to use the same theory to make predicitons is folly. Pretty much it, as far as that goes.
I’m not so sure that your examples are good ones, though. The power of aristocracies was failing already and the ‘blood nobles’ were replaced with authoritarian Party nobles - not much difference. While jobs and services were provided, they were often meaningless and poor and policies often resulted in everyone being equally hungry. Economic advancement was imposed, costly, inefficient, and exacted a huge human toll.
Pointing to capitalism the same way you do to Communism is tough - capitalism is an economic theory, Communism is social-political-economic theory. They play very differently in the Real World. Consiering that Communist governments killed 10’s of millions between 1920 and 1980 as a matter of policy, though, it is hard to draw a direct comparison that is less than damning.

I am not a fan of capitalism run amok; not at all. But there are much better tools for analyzing economics than Marxist theory that should be used. The same goes for politics, sociology, film theory, etc. If you want an alternative to neo-liberal capitalism there are many that have been shown to actually be predictive and work in Real Life. Heck, the Catholic Church has a ton of documents and theory on economic and social development that specifically rejects communism and capitalism.

It is unfortunate that many of Marx’s followers in the late 19th and 20th centuries (like our friend Steve), influenced by the rise of logical positivism in the natural sciences, vulgarized his theories into a stale, mechanical system of analysis.  Marx actually never made predictions about the future, nor talked about things like “the laws of motion of capitalist development,” as if the capitalist system could be understood in the same way that gravity could.  He didn’t even bother to describe in detail what he meant by Communism, leaving it to future generations to sort it out, something he has also been criticized for.  His goal was to understand the present by studying the past, not to predict the future.  It was this debasement of Marx’s radical epistemology by his followers (starting with Engels) that caused Marx to declare wearily toward the end of his life, “I am not a Marxist.” It is only with the rise of postmodernism that the truly radical breadth of Marx’s philosophy has been restored.

Whether the power of aristocracies was “failing” is an interesting and complex debate, one we don’t necessarily have time for here.  Needless to say, it’s almost unheard of in history for an aristocracy to fail without a certain amount of bloodshed. 

I don’t understand your distinction between capitalism being an economic, and communism a political/social system.  Economic systems are political and social systems, and vice-versa.  And if we include Joseph Stalin’s gulags in the indictment against Communism, as well we should, we must also include Hitler’s concentration camps in the indictment against capitalism.

Mr. Stump, you seem like a reasonable man.  I think you’re basing most of your criticisms of Marx on other popular criticisms made by conservative thinkers, many of whom either have not read Marx in his entirety or do not understand him fully.  Which, again, is partly because of the banausic distillation of Marx’s theory popular among many of his intellectual followers.  Marx was not a prophet, and did not present himself as such.  He was a man, whose opinions on any given topic we are free to take or leave as we wish (and I do).  I urge you to return to the source.  I would be interested to hear your response to Marx’s actual positions.

Also, what are these productive alternatives to capitalism that you mentioned, which have “worked out in real life”?  You mentioned the Catholic Church.  Are you yourself a Catholic, may I ask?

Rick;

I’m glad to see you are being less absolutist.  I was concerned when you were insisting that evidence of mathematical indeterminacy is the same as logical refutation.  Still, it seems, you are conflating marxian economic theory with Marxist-Leninist political theory.  Also dwelling under the presumption that the often merely paranoid actions of Stalin or Mao to consolidate their personal control over the State as somehow being determined a priori by theory, rather than a particularly calcified notion of theory being used as a superficial rationale of actions.

Particularily your assumption that LTV is the lynchpin of Marxian theory is unwarranted.  Marx merely postulated that if a simple mathematical relation between labor and price could be shown, it would prove to be a valuable metric for determining the level of exploitation that exists in particular economic sectors. Thus all the focus on the ‘transformation problem’.  That it hasn’t proven to be that simple to make micro-economic predictions from any macro-economic model does not mean it doesn’t have meaning on the macro level.  That is, it doesn’t in an absolute way say how an individual merchant sets prices and what proportion of that price is surplus value, but, rather, decribes the aggregate consequence of all such decisions.  It’s still a useful tool, if only as a rule of thumb (90+% accuracy), for explaining the exploitation of labor, which exists empirically (in the real world), not as the consequence of any theoretical construct. 

Nor does it impact the idea that given the conditions of laissez-faire unregulated markets, monopolization will occur.  That some mergers fail doesn’t refute it either.  The real world conditions are a recent diminution of regulations, not their absolute abandonment.  Thus the inference is the recognition of a tendency, not a certain prediction.  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is getting squeezed. 

In the same vein of categorical error is your implication that economic coercion is only the actual application of force (eating Big-Macs at gunpoint) rather than its threat, coupled with the exploitation of desire. 

One criticism of Bohm-Bawick I have is the assumption that only investors carry the burden of risk, justifying profit.  It is a consequence of the attempt to a priori define economics as a discipline having nothing to do with class relations and absurd on its face; just wishing away the problem. 

I agree there are lots of theories of capital formation and wealth distribution that are not nominally Marxist that have marginal usefulness within their given parameters.  The same is true of Marx.  To say that Marxian theory is not a complete theory does not mean it is useless, particularily if one is concerned with ideas of social justice.  If you don’t give a damn about egalitarian issues, it is indeed hard to see how it applies.  The question then is about your personal moral development. 

Indeed, the idea of a philosophic TOE, based on a finite single set of axioms is, at this point, a possibly eternally elusive goal.

And Sweden is still pretty cool.

I never said that the growth of consumer demand that generates an upswing in investment in the boom side of the business cycle was disproof of Marx’s general understanding of capitalist concentration and that capital’s “laws of motion” historically no longer mean a proletarianization of independant producers.  The boom periods of capitalism bring forth a rush of gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) and the emergence of new investment and businesses even in an epoch of severe overcapacity.  Even though most commercial lending goes to mergers and acquisitions rather than green field investment, there is alway an increase in some new investment and businesses in the boom cycle. This occurred in the mid to late 1990s.  As the economy slowed and the stock market bubble burst in 2000, there began a rash of M&As;which between 1998 and the present have accounted for trillions of dollars of buyouts displacing jobs, streamlining production, and concentrating ownership of productive assets and markets. The occaisonal growth of new GFCF doesn’t change the fact that when there is a downturn, newer business sell out under pressure to meet financial obligations to those with greater leverage and capital and there is resulting economic concentration.  The flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the late 1990s was an excellent example of this and had no real precident in order of magnitude since the M&A;movement after the 1893 recession that created the “robber barron” class in the main phase of the progressive era during WWI.  The only difference is that the earlier phase monopolized intermediate and feedstock industries such as coal, steel, iron, railways, and, of course, finance.  These in turn led to monopolies in consumer durables and other goods based on the concentration of production created by the government demand during WWII war production.  After the 1980s, globalization created a flurry of cross-border M&A;activity which ultimately created global supply and production chains concentrating productive activity on global rather than the previous national scale.  About one-third of the worlds garments are made in China and the products from such concentrated industrial centralization are sold by a few “big box” retailers like Walmart in the US and elsewhere. This new globalization model based on TNC concentration and Foreign direct investment in markets eliminating much actual cross-border trade would easily have been predicted by Marx. So would the rapid spread of capitalist relations of production and the proletarianization that has taken place. Despite the new wealth produced which has gone into “middle-class” funds (which have heavy investment from middle-class salaries in high risk stocks) there is a huge gap in average financial wealth holdings between the shrinking middle class and the upper fractiles.  While most of the middle class households at or slightly above the median income have an investment portfolio of about $7000.00 or so the upper 1% of US families have an average portfolio of marketable financial wealth of about $240,000.00.  The upper 1/10 of 1% tends to average over $1,000,000.00 Financialization has not spread the economic benefits evenly and has live well off consistently stagnant real wages for the past 30 years!  Financial investment tends to be either in M&A;or speculation in international currency markets or commodities futures or a variety of derivitives. Most of this investment and economic activity has had the effect of concentrating wealth and creating niche and luxury markets as the income and wealth gap widens!  What is needed is a redistribution of wealth to create investment in goods and services needed by the poorest and which would expand the middle class such as mass transit, affordable housing, better schools, and health care. This would avert another of Marx’s political predictions which is looming on the horizen-impending social and political crisis!

Again, Steve, you make wonderful points, but since your ideas are so complex and you use a lot of technical jargon, it would probably help people understand you if you space them out with paragraphs.

While it is certainly true that Marx talked about the “concentration and centralization” of capital through cycles of overcompetition and consolidation (the business cycle), he never said that this process would automatically lead to greater and greater consolidation of capital as a permanent fact of life.  Nor did he believe that this process would necessarily lead to the increasing impoverishment and
“immiseration” of the workers, culminating in class conflict and revolution. 

Marx was merely describing a process underway in his own time, speculating on what MIGHT happen and advocating things he HOPED would happen.  Many of his followers, unfortunately, tried to systematize his ideas along lines then favored in the natural sciences.  As a result, a philosophy which was centered on skepticism and spontaneity, and the creative potential of the human imagination, became a sort of lifeless description of human societies advancing according to immutable laws, as the planets revolve around the sun.  I would beware of any such interpretation as 1) contrary to Marx’s intentions and beliefs, and 2) more importantly, an inadequate description of human social life.  Remember, a lot of what is best in Marx centers not around trade-flow statistics and abstruse theories of value, but around the values, ideas, and emotions that dri