The myth of the self-made man is American culture’s own special heart of darkness, helping to explain both its infectious optimism and ruthless greed. The idea holds enough truth and seductiveness to make it easy to forget its delusional dangers. To reprise Marx’s famous formulation, individuals, like humankind, do make their own personal history, but not under conditions they choose. But… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (190)“. . . [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?
Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 1:56 PM 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.
Posted by John Morales on Jun 24, 2005 at 2:11 PM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 2:25 PM 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.
Posted by Beth on Jun 24, 2005 at 2:57 PM 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 Jun 24, 2005 at 3:22 PM 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.
Posted by 1388-2/HB on Jun 24, 2005 at 4:22 PM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 4:48 PM 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.
Posted by Carolyn on Jun 24, 2005 at 6:09 PM 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?
Posted by Zahtevnik on Jun 24, 2005 at 7:45 PM 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.
Posted by MOR on Jun 24, 2005 at 8:17 PM 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.”
Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 8:36 PM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 8:43 PM This article is directly on track & we linked to it at www.gnotics.com/newsletter.html
Suzanne Radford
www.gnostics.com
Posted by Gnostic Communications on Jun 24, 2005 at 9:47 PM 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.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 24, 2005 at 10:31 PM 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.
Posted by MOR on Jun 25, 2005 at 2:30 AM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 25, 2005 at 2:39 AM 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.
———————————& ——————————— 8212;
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.
Posted by MOR on Jun 25, 2005 at 4:12 AM 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.
Posted by B Miller on Jun 25, 2005 at 5:46 AM 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!
Posted by MOR on Jun 25, 2005 at 3:47 PM 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.
Posted by MOR on Jun 25, 2005 at 3:55 PM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 25, 2005 at 4:16 PM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 25, 2005 at 4:31 PM 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.
Posted by B Miller on Jun 25, 2005 at 8:53 PM 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.
Posted by MOR on Jun 25, 2005 at 10:01 PM 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!
Posted by michael roloff on Jun 25, 2005 at 10:13 PM 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!
Posted by MOR on Jun 25, 2005 at 10:25 PM 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.
Posted by Jack Finn on Jun 25, 2005 at 11:17 PM 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.
Posted by B Miller on Jun 26, 2005 at 12:36 AM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 26, 2005 at 1:45 AM 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.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 26, 2005 at 2:13 AM 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?
Posted by GrayArea on Jun 26, 2005 at 6:15 AM 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.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 26, 2005 at 6:36 AM 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!
Posted by Margaret on Jun 26, 2005 at 6:38 AM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 26, 2005 at 12:58 PM 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!
Posted by steve on Jun 26, 2005 at 2:05 PM 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.
Posted by JJ Garcia on Jun 26, 2005 at 3:51 PM 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
Posted by Brock on Jun 26, 2005 at 3:57 PM Hum, maybe it’s time to rename computers and run our IP Hoppers for subsequent posts?
Posted by M O R on Jun 26, 2005 at 9:31 PM 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.
Posted by jane doe on Jun 27, 2005 at 2:43 AM 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!
Posted by MOR on Jun 27, 2005 at 2:49 AM 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.
Posted by Brock on Jun 27, 2005 at 12:32 PM 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.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 27, 2005 at 5:37 PM 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.
Posted by Kaela on Jun 27, 2005 at 6:28 PM 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.
Posted by Kaela on Jun 27, 2005 at 7:09 PM 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.
Posted by Johnny Grim on Jun 28, 2005 at 9:19 AM 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”.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 28, 2005 at 1:22 PM 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.
Posted by steve on Jun 28, 2005 at 1:38 PM 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.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 28, 2005 at 2:25 PM “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!!!
Posted by Lefty on Jun 28, 2005 at 2:28 PM “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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 28, 2005 at 2:37 PM 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.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 28, 2005 at 4:06 PM 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.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 28, 2005 at 5:02 PM 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.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 28, 2005 at 5:17 PM 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!
Posted by steve on Jun 28, 2005 at 7:00 PM 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???
Posted by Kaela on Jun 28, 2005 at 7:12 PM 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.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 28, 2005 at 8:13 PM 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?
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 28, 2005 at 8:33 PM 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!
Posted by steve on Jun 28, 2005 at 9:12 PM 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.
Posted by steve on Jun 28, 2005 at 10:01 PM 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.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 28, 2005 at 10:22 PM Insert ‘Muriel boat-lift.’ between ‘the’ and ‘Chavez’
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 28, 2005 at 10:26 PM 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.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 28, 2005 at 10:41 PM 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!!
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 28, 2005 at 10:46 PM 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.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 29, 2005 at 2:02 AM 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’.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 29, 2005 at 9:09 AM 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.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 29, 2005 at 12:43 PM 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?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 29, 2005 at 12:47 PM 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.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 29, 2005 at 1:06 PM 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.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 29, 2005 at 3:30 PM 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?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 29, 2005 at 3:35 PM 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.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 29, 2005 at 4:52 PM 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!
Posted by steve on Jun 29, 2005 at 8:39 PM 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 drive human behavior.
The most important lesson we can learn from Marx is: you can’t know the future. For that reason, all causal relations are fluid and uncertain. The concentration and centralization of capital MIGHT therefore lead to the increasing impoverishment of a progressively larger segment of the population, culminating in social revolution… or it might NOT. We don’t know. The best guess is that there will be a political reaction against the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism that will invoke the protective powers of government, as there was in the decades following Marx’s writings.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 29, 2005 at 9:38 PM Matt,
You seem to be saying that Marx was rather wishy washy on key points in his main thesis-the crisis of capitalism! It makes good sense to go back to the original themes and rework them to make greater contemporary sense. The MR authors Baran & Sweezy did this by discarding Marx’s theory of the fall in the average rate of profit. Baran & Sweezy recognized the new stability of late monopoly capitalism and saw instead a “tendency of surplus to rise” whereby the military, advertizing, bureaucracy, and other parasitic activity were said to renew the business cycle through artificial demand creation without soaking up much of the reserve army of labour thus mitigating its downward pressure on wages! This was vital to reinvestment and restarting the cycle. Eventually crisis would deepen to a point where the system would eventually collapse. The labour theory of value is also difficult. As a Keynesian overproduction theory it works well! But Marx would object to these theoretical reworkings on the grounds that the contradiction needs to be located in productive relations and the labor process NOT in consumptive or MARKET relations. This would be to Smithian except Smith, like other classicists, believed the price mechanism brought the entire system back into equalibrium and that capitalist crisis was a contradiction in terms. Of course, many years of late capitalist history has hopefully disabused us of any such absurd notions.
Posted by steve on Jun 29, 2005 at 10:45 PM Marx’s thesis was not that the “crisis of capitalism” was inevitable due to some mathematically determinable tendency of the rate of profit to fall. His thesis was that capitalist development is uneven and prone to periodic crises, and that progressive groups would have to take advantage of these situations to make inroads in reforming or overthrowing capitalism. (He did admit the possibility of both projects, though of course, being Marx, he preferred the revolutionary path.)
Again, consider the language you’re using very carefully. Dry, technocratic. Facts standing in fixed, mathematically determinable causal relationships. How different from the language the man himself used! “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” We live in a constantly changing world, and because of this, our knowledge is fundamentally uncertain.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 29, 2005 at 11:01 PM R. Stump,
I was not involving myself in any game-it is you that seem to be playing games. I simply stated what I thought.
And excuse me, conservatives and the Christian Right seem to be very much the same animal to me at the moment-conservative christians seem to be controlling the agenda. My confusion may stem from that church and state thing that seems to be getting more blurry by the minute.
Luxery? Healthcare and food are luxeries now? And certainly I am familiar with protecting the innocent and sacrificing so others, or other principles may flourish. But thats not what conservative Christian social policy in it’s current form does for people, and there’s nothing moral about it.
I know this because I am poor. My husband is a disabled veteran and since the conservative Christian agenda has been in place, he gets no healthcare, less food because his foodstamp allocation was cut and has no saftey net, so that when he gets too sick to even work part time, homelessness looms large-i.e. he suffers.
So these things I ask you about are not some exercise in academic theory building. I live with your conservative Christian agenda every damn day and I have come to the conclusion-and you helped get me there- that Christians, conservative or not but most especially conservative ones-think it is ok for others to suffer. Because Rick, that’s what happens when your conservative Christian policies are put into action-people suffer.When this is pointed out in oh so many ways, the ensueing argument never really deals with the issue-that suffering- but instead is blamed on one party or another, so I’m not asking you to go there now. It seems to be impossible for conservatives or Christians to deal with things that are not black or white in life.
Now before we leave this subject, if you recall, I said that this contention of mine was not meant to offend-I grew up with some very loving Christians-Catholic nuns-but they are long departed and I see in their place ambition and political divisivness and a lust for power that has long left the realm of reason or morality. They were the sort that fed the poor, habored both intellectuals and communists and would never have voted to decrease anyone’s access to healthcare.
Class is, at the end of the day, more about how people survive within the economic and political systems that surround their lives and morality-Christian or not- shouldn’t hinder that survival but lift it up.
Posted by Kaela on Jun 30, 2005 at 12:06 AM Steve, Matthew, Luminous,
Very interesting points, and I think I see my failure. I am not trying to “champion” anything, nor to say that socialism sucks, etc. My goal is to point to those who *do* see Marx as a prophet and *do* attempt to make empirical preditions based upon his theories.
I agree that B-B has some serious flaws in his own theoretical framework - but he did demonstrate how easily the LTV can be refuted. And since, in my experience, at least - the cornerstone of arguments both in American academe and ‘in the field’ hinge on this theory I am continually amazed at its use. I find it as ridiculous as “Creation Science”.
Posted by Rick Stump on Jun 30, 2005 at 11:22 AM Well, I wouldn’t go that far. The labor theory of value has little empirical use under modern social conditions (the shift from manufacturing into services and batch-production, the separation of ownership and control, etc.), but it still bears greater relation to reality than “Creation Science,” so-called. Besides, “Creation Science,” unfortunately, has a much bigger following than academic Marxism, which is an oddity largely reserved for little clusters of faculty in humanities departments at small, poorly-funded liberal arts colleges.
Hence my tendency to believe that whatever ideology leads the next progressive challenge to capitalism will be an entirely new kind of “ism.”
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 30, 2005 at 1:29 PM Rick;
The real question is whether the surplus value of a commodity or service is exclusively the profit due to capital investment or whether it should, morally, be shared with the workers whose labor produced that commodity or service and the workers whose labor produced the capital property necessary for that production and the workers whose labor produced the raw material necessary for production.
When ownership is exclusively the right of the investment class it is natural for them to do what they can to repress the compensation of labor in order to maximize profit. This means in an unregulated free-market with surplus labor that base wages can effectively be minimized to subsistence levels and there is nothing workers can do about it. They are nothing in the minds of the investment class but a commodity whose value is only ‘good’ if it is greater than its cost. Thus the exploitation of labor is a given characteristic of the ownership class.
This is a ‘real world’ condition that is not ‘refuted’ because B-B says investors are entitled to a return on their investment because they are taking a risk and workers get a weekly paycheck. Nor is it dependent on the formal mathematical expression of LTV. Those who say it is, whether academic Marxists (if that is indeed what they are saying) or their Capitalist-Libertarian critics, are begging the question. It is losing the thread of reason in a fog of ephemera.
The question being; do you believe in the possibility of fair, just and democratic compensation of human effort, or is it ‘devil take the hindmost’ and leave all decision making in the hands of our ‘social betters’?
“Them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose.
So the Bible says, and it still is news.”Billie Holiday
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 30, 2005 at 4:46 PM I repudiate all of my leftist ravings on this board in every forum that I have posted in.
I’m an expert in the crime of promoting false
premises.
Now I’ve seen the light.
It is the investor class which takes the risk
and trying to impugn a person’s argument based
on their class is no different than using the
technique as regards their race.
The Nazis were identical to the Marxists in
everything from socialist economics to the
camps.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 30, 2005 at 6:42 PM I must say that I think neither Marx nor B-B does a perfect job describing how the economy works today. B-B seems to think that profits are justified because investors take risks. As luminous has already explained, they aren’t the only ones who do so. That argument is also merely an attempt to justify profits; it doesn’t explain where they come from.
Marx’s theory, on the other hand, while a brilliant insight into the capitalism of his day, is significantly less relevant in a middle-class society. The separation of ownership and control, the rise of an educated middle class of managers and professionals, as well as the emergence of labor unions and the welfare state (both of which, unfortunately, are in remission at the moment), all make the theory less workable as a description of postmodern capitalism.
I would concentrate less on the labor theory of value and more on the social division of labor as the source of injustice and maldistribution in contemporary economic relations.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 30, 2005 at 7:42 PM Actually B-B’s point is correct.
It was not “explained” but merely
asserted that others take risk.
But not nearly the same risk,
which is why the proportion of
entrepreneurs is quite small.
By the way, nowhere near 55%
of Israelis are entrepreneurs
as I lied on the other posting.
Most are lazy welfare staters
like their ilk over here.
There is no separation of
ownership and control as Mises
and Reisman have shown. That
Gardner-Berle thesis was debunked
when it came out in the late 30s.
Try to get something right, Matthew
K. For a pleasant change.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 30, 2005 at 8:14 PM Lefty,
May I suggest reading a couple of books inclusive and highly enlightening on the history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict? One should not swallow supinely the US media mythology that has been spoonfed to us for the last 30 years on the “righteousness” of the Israeli cause.
The Clash of Fundamentalisms, by Tariq Ali; and The Source, by James A. Michener.
Both the examination of the “historical” Jewish excuse for for taking Palestine (and Jewish plans to “eliminate” the Arabs since the very beginning of the “Israeli Homeland” idea in the 1890s :Herzog), AND the abandonment and betrayal of of the Palestinians by their own leaders over the years should be understood before making pronoucements.
Afterall, if you (an American) accept the Israeli position of defending (stealing back) an historical homeland, you should also be in favor of handing the United States back to native American Indians and becoming a refugee yourself. You can’t have it both ways.Also Israel was “created” by Ashkenazi Jews, who had not lived there since the disapora. Most of the Sephardic Jews who largely inhabited the land along with the Arabs at the end of WWI, have themselves continually been discriminated against and marginalized by the European Jews who now overwhelmingly control the country.
Another brilliant example of those with money and political clout running rough shod over the peasantry simply because they can, even though it contradicts everything they profess to believe in. No wonder the power-loving conservatives in the US like Israel so much! It’s just like them.
Posted by Nokiba on Jun 30, 2005 at 10:15 PM The problem of the separation of ownership and control of capital is not a real problem for Marxists in the sense that it is for traditional social scientist. Sociologists like Maurice Zeitlin and others examined the bureaucratization of corporate America and found that the owners and managers were not that far apart. To the extent that in public corporations many of the top level CEOs and those on the board of directors are also top shareholders they also form part of an ownership class. Middle level management is just a paid salariet and without any real, stable, marketable wealth or independance to boot! The concentration of stockownership and other corporate-based forms of marketable wealth such as bonds, derivitives, and other securites has been well documented repeatedly by in-depth studies from such think-tanks as the CBPP and the Center for Economic Policy and in Edward Wolff’s study of the distribution of wealth and income in the 1990s called “Top Heavy” and bears no repeating. In recent M&A trends concentration has furthered and so has the concentration of stockownership by big management. This is hardly a refutation of Marx but only a form of private ownership not foreseen in his time. The history of the modern business corporation begins five hundred years ago with the Joint-Stock Company and had always based itself on shareownership, not managerial perogative.
Posted by steve on Jun 30, 2005 at 11:07 PM Steve said: “To the extent that in public corporations many of the top level CEOs and those on the board of directors are also top shareholders they also form part of an ownership class. Middle level management is just a paid salariet and without any real, stable, marketable wealth or independance to boot!”
Marx wrote of 2 basic social classes of capitalism. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (to oversimplify greatly). The bourgeoisie was characterized by the ownership of the means of production; the proletariat, by selling its labor to the bourgoisie for a wage. It was a system of stark exploitation.
In the case of the modern large corporation, relations are much more complex. In most modern large corporations, shares are traded freely on the capital markets. (There are a few holdouts remaining, like the Coors brewing company, which remains privately owned by a family… of fascists.) Anyone who has the money can be a shareholder; and in fact, the majority of stock and bond ownership is by large investment portfolios. These range from hedge funds and venture capitalists, which cater mostly to the extremely wealthy, to public school teachers’ pension plans. It is true that approximately 50% of this wealth is owned by the top 2% of the population—rentier families like the Rockefellers, DuPonts, and Gateses, who are the direct-line descendants of the bourgeoisie.
How much influence these families have on the companies they founded is an interesting subject of debate. Some play no role at all. Others, through ownership of large bundles of preferred stock, family trust funds, and nonprofits tied to the family, use their equity stake to buy a seat on the board. (Most who play a role of this sort also have seats on the boards of banks and other large financial institutions, despite such “overlapping directorates” being illegal under the Clayton Act.) Others, like Bill Gates, exercise a direct role in operating the company, though of course, Bill was the entrepreneur who founded it. His children may or may not play an active role in the company’s life. He could still be removed from his position as CEO by the shareholders, if they wished.
However, in most cases there is a formal separation of ownership and control. Corporate executives sell their labor in the market “just” like other workers (though they have the benefit of determining the level of demand for their own labor). They sometimes have options to buy stock at favorable rates, and participate in not only generous pension plans, but other high-risk ventures (like the hedge funs described above), though it’s rare that they will buy out a company. Since the shareholders are numerous, not usually experts in whatever the company produces, and don’t have the privileged access to information that executives do, they are often at the mercy of CEOs to govern the company. (Remember Enron and Worldcom? There are plenty of examples of a conflict of interest between shareholders and management.)
As for skilled, middle-class workers? (“Middle-managers” haven’t existed since the 1970s or so; they were wiped out by corporate “downsizing” in the ‘80s.) They often have pension plans, real estate, and other investments, not to mention bargaining power by dint of skills and education. They work in clean, safe, well-lit environments, do interesting, creative jobs, and get paid handsomely for it. It’s kind of hard to argue that computer software designers are being exploited.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 1, 2005 at 12:59 AM Michael Hardesty aka Jack Barnes - the multi-personality schizoid/psychopath who likes to have conversations with himself on public message boards, is using my forum name.
Ignore him. He’s a conservative troll.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 1:07 PM Steve,
I think it’s a good thing for corporate officers and directors to also be shareholders. They should have a stake in the outcome of their management. I also have no problem with middle management being merely salariet, although I suspect large corporate middle management compensation typically includes stock and/or stock options.
I also find nothing wrong with the existence of super-wealthy people who have no other purpose in life than being getting more for themselves. Good for them.
What I have a problem with is when the tax burden on the wealthy actually smaller than on the middle and lower economic classes. IMHO, the wealthy use more of the services provided by the government than the middle and poorer classes. In reality, they pay a smaller proportion of their real income in taxes than middle and lower income individuals do. THAT, I have a big problem with.
Again, I’m a “lefty” because I think that, even in an efficient capitalist system, there are some things that the government can do better, cheaper, more efficently and fairer than private enterprise, and everyone should have to contribute their fair share toward those services.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 1:16 PM I forgot to tie in my conclusion which is, when the society as a whole, through fair and equitable taxation, provides services that include a safety net for those who find themselves, for whatever reason, in desperate circumstances, THAT provides a platform from which the economic underclass can, through diligence and creativity, improve their economic cicrumstances.
There is no reason, other than base greed (so abundant among conservatives) that in a rich country like the U.S., all citizens cannot contribute, for the good of the whole society, to accomplish this goal.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 1:22 PM Taxation is theft, pure and simple.
It is robbing someone of their wealth
to give to another party who has no right
to it. There is no such thing as “society.”
Losers like “lefty” , who is an extreme rightwing
Zionist-Racist zealot, want to steal from the
rest of us because they are too incompetent to
make it in a free market. Losers like “lefty”
want to be greedy with your money and think it is
an outrage that you should want to be greedy
with your own money.
Every time a loser like “lefty” posts on this
board I’m going to be here to put him like a
dog.
Posted by Martin on Jul 1, 2005 at 2:39 PM martin is the only one making sense on this board.
where do the rest of you socialist troglodytes come from ? Lefty sounds like a junior high schooler whose butt gets regularly spanked by his
mom. such a juvenile ! matthewk reads like someone
who tries to wow us with his utter pretentiousness. the rest of you need to learn how
to write concisely, you could make your point in about 1/10th the space that you currently take.
Posted by Sheila on Jul 1, 2005 at 2:46 PM Let’s just have a flat tax and eliminate all deductions of all types. We can call it the 7% solution. You make a buck you pay 7 cents you make a hundred million you cough up 7 million to the IRS. The savings on printing costs for Tax Guides alone would make it worth doing, and the screams from the country clubs would just be an added benefit for those of us who understand how the rich stay rich!!!
Posted by RMB on Jul 1, 2005 at 2:58 PM Michael Hardesty aka Jack Barns, Sheila, Martin, etc., etc. is a conservative troll who has phoney dialogue with himself (including using others’ screen names) in order to disrupt liberal discourse. Ignor him.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 3:08 PM RMB,
I think that’s an excellent idea, if it actually results in EVERYONE paying 7% (I think 10% is more realistic). The problem is - 7% of what? Gross sales, gross profit, net profit. It’s not that simple. Operating expenses have to be deductible. I’m not an accountant but no matter how you cut it, you can’t tax a business whose operating expenses exceed its sales. So, the question becomes, what gets to be characterized as an expense. Should depreciation of durable equipment be abolished? If so, should it be deducted as an operating expense? If so, that company may have no income that year. Then, should the losses not used in one year be carried forward to the next?
Perhaps if there’s a tax accountant on the forum, he/she could offer some insight into the mechanisms of implementing a “fair” flat tax.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 3:16 PM One more thing in furtherance of my prior comments about socialism and class mobility, to me, the two most important services that the government can provide to enhance class mobility are the best 1) public education, and 2) public medicine in the world. Those two, with nothing more, would go a long way to leveling the “opportunity” playing field. And this country has much more than the wealth needed to accomplish that.
From the left.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 3:20 PM Again, our pathetic little boy blue Lefty,
an extreme racist Zionist Judaic funndamentalist
wants to steal from others because he is too
incompetent to make it on his own.
We need to get the government totally out
of the brainwashing factories called public
schools and out of medicine which has been 80%
socialized since the horrible Medicare and
HMOs. Abolish guild like licensing.
We do not need nor is it possible to have any
level playing fields because inferiors like
lefty aka Righty are never going to be equal.
We need to abolish all public services and have
strictly voluntary charity.
Either someone CHOOSES to feed you or you starve.
Libs are pro-choice, remember ?
Oh, the country has no wealth at all.
Only individuals have wealth because ONLY
INDIVIDUALS EXIST. The “country” and “society”
are merely verbal abstractions, they do not
signify any real entities.
Posted by Martin on Jul 1, 2005 at 3:43 PM Lefty the answer is “none of the above.” I say get rid of all deductions and all exceptions to the tax ( which is why I choose 7 instead of 10 percent)by losing all the deductions and minimizing the flat rate nobody who is actually paying taxes will come out a loser…the only screaming will be from those folks who are not paying their fair share…and of course from the tax attorneys and tax preperation companies who will no longer be able to justify their existence.
Posted by RMB on Jul 1, 2005 at 6:04 PM For the sake of American society, I hope that Martin is joking when he espouses such beyond the spectrum right-wing rhetoric. He accuses Lefty of immaturity but his entire posts are unsubstatnive diatribes that degrade the level of debate rahter than enhance it. Martin seems to believe that under current federal tax law, the poor steal from the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only tax in the U.S. that has any resemblance to the idea of progressive taxation is the federal income tax, but in recent years thanks to the GOP, that has become less and less so. Martin does not take into consideration the single largest tax in the U.S., the payroll tax, which is highly regressive since it does not apply to incomes higher than $90,000. Add into that state sales taxes, and other excise taxes and one gets a regressive tax structure. FYI, a person making less than $50,000 a year has a higher rate of audit in this country than someone earning over $1 million, even though the the millionaire can cheat the government out of far more money than a poor man can. Final thought, in 2000, the richest 1% of taxpayers paid an estimated 25% of the nation’s taxes, yet received 43% of the 2001 tax cuts benefits under GWB. This country is socialist in that it redistributes wealth, but contrary to conservative opinion, the redistribution flows upward, not downward.
Posted by Bud on Jul 1, 2005 at 6:08 PM Bud, if you were capable of reading
carefully, you would discover I’ve made
the reasonable arguments and supplied refs
to boot. Not the case with “lefty.”
It’s not cheating the government to want
to keep my money. The rich have always paid
much more so it’s only fair that they should
reap the greater tax cuts.
The progressive income tax is a Marxian idea
going back to the Communist Manifesto.
Since equality is not possible and not
desirable and not a moral goal, we can dispense
with your stats even if they are true.
Your whole premise is under question.
The market will take of all distributions
of wealth, thank you and you will be
rewarded accordingly.
Take off the worn out socialist blinders
and see if you make an argument that doesn’t
rest solely on bromides.
Posted by Martin on Jul 1, 2005 at 6:41 PM who are you trying to kid, bud ? Martin has been making the reasonable arguments and jerks like lefty have been reduced to gutter ad hominems.
did you have a few too many buds before you did
your shoddy posting, bud ?
Posted by Charles Sherman on Jul 1, 2005 at 6:44 PM Ted,
Don’t mind “Martin,” aka Jack Barnes, aka redstater, aka Liz, aka Sheila, etc., etc. He’s just a random right-wing nut who comes onto this site to harrass people. Don’t try having a rational argument with him; some people are simply unresponsive.
In fact, why don’t we all ignore all of the random obnoxious people, of whatever political orientation, who just post creepy hate-filled diatribes instead of soliciting polite debate?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 1, 2005 at 6:45 PM Sorry, I addressed that to “Ted” when it should have been “Bud.” All apologies, Bud.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 1, 2005 at 6:46 PM Matthew K is a notorious Communist
Holocaust Denier, see the Howard Zinn
thread of the other month. Matthew K
was totally bested by a Jack Barnes in
a debate over Nazi vs. Communist mass
murders. Matthew K went totally apeshiite
and was reduced to crawling out with his
panties wrapped around his ankles and
neither the sight nor the smell were
pleasant.
Matthew K regularly loses arguments and
he assumes that everyone else is in his
sorry mental state of cognitive disintegration.
Ignore his wails and keep debating !
Posted by Martin on Jul 1, 2005 at 7:13 PM Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, Charles Sherman, etc., is a conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including others’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal dialogue. IGNORE HIM.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 7:17 PM who gives a flying fvck if he does ? half the people here are trolls including you but why not
deal with his arguments ? who said that only boring, deveopmentally disabled libs get to post ?
why not try to construct a real argument ? or is your education limited ? notice you have yet to present a coherent, reasoned argument on ANY subject where you have posted on the whole ITT
board. how come ? retarded ? or whatever the pc
term for that is now. boyfriend jilt you ?
move to occupied palestine, hamas will be happy
to solve all of your problems…...........
Posted by doug on Jul 1, 2005 at 7:30 PM “For now, the realm of freedom for most Americans remains constricted to the shopping mall, where they can buy their identities. Both the Journal and Times point to the rapid growth of personal credit as one way that Americans have continued to buy while earnings have stagnated. Former United Auto Workers official Frank Joyce even sees the rise of credit cards as undermining workers’ interest in unions. Income, earned or borrowed, obviously greatly differentiates people’s lives, even if a working class consumer can only indulge in a box of luxury chocolates or sub-luxury car”
So true, so true!
But do you do
when rent comes due?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 1, 2005 at 8:42 PM Speaking of labor unions, does anyone have any ideas as to why the labor movement has declined so precipitously? Obviously, the shift from manufacturing into services is a big part of the problem. How might credit cards subtract from union membership?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 1, 2005 at 8:55 PM Credit seems just like money in your pocket. It promises a cushion against life’s unexpected contingencies. Leaves members a little less concerned about contract negotiations & co-pays & such. The difference between ‘y’know, we can just about cover this’ & ‘If’n help don’t come quick, Tonto, our ass is grass!’
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 1, 2005 at 9:30 PM Credit doesn’t seem like money in my pocket, since it’s all borrowed and there are interest payments. How does it cushion life’s “unexpected contingencies”? Do a lot of people really routinely use their credit cards to pay the mortgage? That doesn’t sound financially prudent. I just don’t understand.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 2, 2005 at 1:37 AM Matt said:
“Speaking of labor unions, does anyone have any ideas as to why the labor movement has declined so precipitously? Obviously, the shift from manufacturing into services is a big part of the problem. How might credit cards subtract from union membership?”
My guess it is a combination of things not the least of which is that neither the National Labor Relations Board the ultra-conservative federal bench is not forcing employers to bargain in good faith under the National Labor Relations Act. The other is systematic brainwashing by the corporate media against anything government or labor.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 2, 2005 at 1:52 AM Note to Mr. Morales - great comments! I am heartened that people are TALKING about this. Maybe there’s some hope. My brother has said for YEARS that self-made men are rare rare rare these days. Even people who you think “made it all on their own” most likely had LOTS of help from their parents or grandparents. All business ventures require start-up money, and banks don’t just hand out loans like candy. Look at something as basic as home ownership. Most of the ‘younger’ (45 and under?)generation keep up the appearance of a higher class by thousands of dollars in downpayments donated by parents—allowing them to live in a much more expensive house than their incomes should allow, or any bank would qualify them for. The funny thing is, many younger couples actually think they have acquired this lifestyle by themselves and almost are ashamed to admit their parents put $30,000 down in the house for them. “Suzie Q. Public” would rather that people assumed her husband John actually makes enough to live in a $300,000 house. But all this old money is starting to run dry. The wallets of older generations having to support their own retirement AND uphold a better lifestyle (credit card debt, rescuing them from a job lay-off, etc.) for their children and their families will eventually run out. Even the cushion of their life insurance will be quickly spent in their children’s lifetime on grandchildren’s college, etc. The illusions of class will begin to breakdown within one or two generations. And the expanses between the classes of us all will become more apparent. Right now an image of a guillotine came to mind for some reason…hmmm…what historically has happened at times of such extremes between the rich and the poor? Unless the ultra-rich start using their
leverage for the betterment of us all, instead of soley to protect or increase their own wealth—we’re heading towards one of two things: a revolution, or the death of a country.
Posted by Carolyn on Jul 2, 2005 at 4:28 AM Matthew K:
It may not be prudent, but it is convenient. Especially when there is too much month at the end of the money. If your car breaks down are you more likely to get it fixed using credit or walk 10, 20, 30 miles or more to work everyday until you save up enough? If your child gets sick, are you going to wait to take him to the doctor until you can afford it? Check advance places don’t make money off those whose income exceeds their living expenses. Credit cards are a better deal than that. If you can pay them off quickly they aren’t so bad as when you just make the minimum payment and let the interest roll. If you can’t, what are you going to do?
It does seem incredible that so many Americans have so little idea of what it’s like to be working poor until they have experienced it.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 2, 2005 at 5:06 PM RMB,
Please re-read my post. Are you saying that a business should be taxed on its gross sales? What if it’s operating expenses exceed its sales?
Posted by Lefty on Jul 2, 2005 at 5:19 PM Good point, luminous. It makes you shudder to think what might happen if the housing bubble collapses.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 2, 2005 at 8:03 PM Cycling back to the main point, does anyone have any ideas regarding how to convince Americans to change their values? How do we persuade people to abandon religious and ethnic bigotry? How do we convince them that economic individualism won’t work as advertised?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 5, 2005 at 4:13 AM Top level corporate management is closer to the bourgeousie. They do not sell labor like workers do but rather manage, control, and share ownership with the largest owners and shareholders. Shareholding is a form of bourgeous ownership and is almost 500 years old beginning with the first 16th century joint-stock companies in Europe. The great trading powers such as Great Britain and the Netherlands developed these institutions and they became a great source of merchantile and trade finanace. The inequality of ownership is the issue. Many employees are forced or encouraged to purchase stock for their retirement plans or as a benefit. They are merely helping to fund the company with loans and don’t glean much for their contributions nor do they get a say in managerial decisions. The class system in the US is amoung the most rigid and unequal especially now. Most people labor cheaply and are economically disenfranchised despite historically the highest work loads on any working class in modern history. Capitalism has become truely inhumane! Look at the United Airline strike where the employees are losing their pensions while salaries, benefits, and retirement packages for the CEO and the BOD has never been higher! It’s time for the rich to stop the class war against the poor and working class NOW!
Posted by steve on Jul 5, 2005 at 12:22 PM Great comments, Steve. Is the Stock Market really good for the US economy? Isn’t it the reason fat cat corporations have to show ever-increasing profits so they can keep their shareholders happy? Company X cannot be succesful by showing a paltry $1M in profits 5 years running. To be considered a “success” in Stock Market terms, they must show GROWTH. In order to do that, companies limit wages, make serious cutbacks & outsource manufacturing. But at some point, Company X cannot continue to show growth year after year. The amount of profit realized has to reach a ceiling. In the meantime, employee happiness, customer service, and product quality have suffered. When will the worker bees’ wages reflect their contributions to big time corporate coffers? Not as long as the Stock Market is around. When is someone going to do a Reality Show where CEO’s are forced to live on $9.00/hour (or less!) for 6 months. 98% of the country would tune in to that one!
Posted by Carolyn on Jul 5, 2005 at 3:17 PM Martin,
The basis for a progressive tax structure was conceived by the movement of the same name in the 1890’s and early 1900s as a logical response to the vast inequalities in wealth that the laissez-faire economic system had wrought upon this nation. Furthermore, equality is not an amorphous moral concept anymore than the civil rights or women’s suffrage movements were when they first began. It is people like you that keep such visions from manifesting into reality.
I am not a socialist, rather I view government as a tool that should be used to keep the inherent biases and flaws of the “free market” in check to ensure a greater standard of living for ALL Americans. The reason why America’s economy boomed in the post-war period was because of the GI Bill, which sent millions of people to college for free who then formed the now disappearing middle-class. Government has a role to play in America’s future.
Finally, when the rich have their share of taxes reduced, who ends up paying the bills? Regular folks like you and me. Just look at the early 1980s, when the payroll tax increases were used to fill government coffers that had lost a lot of revenue due to Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich. Remember this, the U.S. economy is heavily dependent on the state sector- in the form of defense contracting. I guess for conservatives like you, government is the source of all evils unless it is spending its money finding new ways to kill and destroy.
Posted by Bud on Jul 5, 2005 at 3:27 PM Bud, you are wrong. Government has no role
to play anywhere except in enforcing the
prohibition of initiated force. The only flaws
in the free market are those created by the
government and this includes depressions,
monopolies and all the other ills wrongly
blamed on capitalism.
You need to read Capitalism by George Reisman,
a massive 8 by 14 1,000 page Atlas sized work.
It would take up way too much space here and
since the books have been written, why reinvent the wheel ?
Equality is a bad idea and not an achievable
ideal. It has nothing to do with people like
me, it has to do with objective reality and
the absolute iron law of human differentiation.
Civil rights was always a bad cause, it is the exact flip side of Jim Crow Laws and slavery.
If feminism means the abolition of laws prohibiting women from exercising their particular
abilities, I’m for it, just as I advocate the
aboliton of compulsory segregation.
If it means govt intervention to force some
kind of association or affirmative discrimination,
then I’m against it.
I too oppose Pentagon socialism.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 4:23 PM Steve:
Yes, management is closer to capital than to labor, but managers still have to sell their labor in the market to get their jobs. Theoretically, anyone can become a corporate CEO, though in practice education, background, and connections play a huge role in this process. You have to be careful to note these things, since there are many people in this country who are technically managers and supervisors who don’t actually make much money. (Managers at McDonalds, for example, often still need food stamps to make ends meet.) One seldom-discussed facet of inequality is the level of inequality within the professional-managerial class. Typically, managers, while paid enough to live comfortably, aren’t making spectacular salaries unless they are senior executives at a major Fortune 500 company. There are dozens of people who do managerial jobs at the countless small and mid-size corporations who make little more than the average unionized worker (and sometimes less).
Shareholding is indeed an old form of ownership, but public trading of shares (whereby shares are traded on the open market and anyone who has the money can own stock) is a relative novelty, not appearing in any widespread form until the 1920s or so, and not becoming the norm until after World War II. As you said, the inequality of ownership is the issue. Not everyone has the money to own stock, and slightly more than half the population own no stock at all. Most of those who do own small amounts through pension plans over which, as you noted, they have little control. There is enormous risk involved in such investments, and sometimes companies do aggresively promote self-investment programs which amount to giant pyramid schemes (like Enron), though this is hardly the norm. More frightening is the dumping of pension programs by the airlines, which could very well become the norm.
Honestly, Republicans who talk about an “ownership society” should put their money where their mouth is. We as a nation should look into asset-diversification welfare plans, in which the government plays an active role in disseminating stock and bond ownership (appropriately regulated, of course).
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 5, 2005 at 4:23 PM Reagan’s tax cuts were a main cause of the
fantastic boom of the 80s. They were too little
and should not have been phased in but enacted
all at once.
The rich pay more, they SHOULD get more back.
The money belongs to them, not the govt.
Letting me keep more of my own money is not
welfare.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 4:25 PM Bud:
God love you for trying, but I simply don’t think that a conversation with a drooling right-wing fanatic like Martin (aka Jack Burns, aka Liz, aka Sheila, aka Thelma & Louise etc, etc, etc.) is really going to be productive. Some people cannot be reasoned with. If a thoughtful conservative wants to lodge well-reasoned objections to the progressive point of view (something I’d love to see, as I have yet to hear any, lol, though I’d settle for someone who’s merely polite), I’d be perfectly happy to engage them. Talking with this reprobate will only encourage him.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 5, 2005 at 4:39 PM Matthew K,
You are right. Nevertheless, arguing with a conservative allows me to get my talking points and arguments in line so that when I do debate one in the future, I will be prepared.
Posted by Bud on Jul 5, 2005 at 5:35 PM I’ll stack my posts for reasonableness any day
against yours, Matt.
I saw your previous exchanges with others
and I find their cognitive value to be close
to zero. You typically accuse them of what
you yourself do, post under multiple identities,
and then you scurry off the board when your points are argued down.
Only a fanatic would write that he’s never heard
of any reasonable points on the other side.
God, talk about narcissistic ideologues !
Bud, you did the best you could with grossly
inferior positions. But you at least tried.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 6:51 PM Matt,
I really think one of the solutions to the whole problem of greenfield investment is public funding of needed industries that meet human needs. We need to develop human capital. We need to develop infrastructure and industries that will make the US economy less foreign dependant not just on oil but on foreign financing of this obnoxious, unnecessary balance of payments deficit and the import dependancy that feeds it. Our whole low road strategy is ridiculous! Keeping masses of people poor to self justify cheap big-box retailing of junk from China, India and Central American slave labor while no one has health care, education, decent housing, or meaningful work and gas is $2.50/gallon. Our whole strategy is keeping us poor and stratgically vulnerable (and not because we happen to trade a lot with China!) How about a massive redistribution of wealth from these damn parasites to create a nation-wide mass transit system, health care system, affordable housing program, and education and vocational training program. We would be more energy efficient and independant, healthier and more productive, and have enough internal demand to import substitute the production of many of the poor quality goods we are now importing. Highly concentrated income have given us poverty and a way to externalize the inefficiency and vast social costs of the wasteful, over-consumptive life style that led to wealth concentrating and resource depleting economic strategies in the first place! Even our national security would be served by a far more egalitarian system by building up our national infrastructure in nation-wide mass transit and health care delivery for emergencies. We are a short sighted society! You yourself pointed out that 90% of commercial loan capital since the mid-1970s has gone to finance the M&A frenzy to the deteriment of social equality! A social fund is needed to invest in America’s future! I say support the Greens and their program of socio-economic renewel!
Posted by steve on Jul 5, 2005 at 9:08 PM Carolyn,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Every business school in the US from the local junior college to Harvard tells incoming students the same line: the American corporation is beholden niether to the worker, the bosses, the public, nor even the customer-it’s the all important STOCKHOLDER that the US (and I suspect many other) corporations are most beholden to (and the very biggest ones as well)! I really think that this is what is fueling the overall short sightedness in American economic thinking and strategizing. The Walmarts of this world have seen their profits and sales volume grow by leaps and bounds over the last ten years. But look at the overall opportunity cost of this low road strategy of retail based global product and supply chain economic structure. It has cost jobs, incomes, social well being, and investment into new and innovative fields of research that could lead to energy independance, healthier populations, greater resource use efficiency, and a greater and more diverse base of workforce knowledge and skills. Our current strategy does much to concentrate wealth in a real hurry while leaving most economically disenfranchized. Capitalism isn’t only a system of rationality. It is a top heavy system of political decision making power! Economic democracy would have different priorities and would be structured differently with a different emphasis. This does not mean protecting inefficiencies for the sake of low wage jobs at home. Final stage assembly is gone for good and so be it! What we need to do is rebuild an economy that generates benefits to all and is capable of sustainable growth, investment, job creation, and well being. This will provide greater social stability as well as social justice!
Posted by steve on Jul 5, 2005 at 9:29 PM Steve, check out today’s (7/5) Ludwig von Mises
website for the lead essay by Reisman titled
The Union Hunt For More Victims, an excellent
analysis of this prime enemy of economic progress.
You and Carolyn and MattKKK should cease diddling
each other and check out the other side.
Socialism has been a proven failure everywhere
as has every form of collectivism. The only cure
for any problems of capitalism is more capitalism
since all the problems are caused by govt interventionism.
Repeal minimum wage and you’ll see full employment.
Repeal the licensing and guild monopoly in
medicine & end Medicare and you’ll see prices
tumble (get rid of the govt sponsored HMOs too).
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 10:43 PM It all sounds good to me, Steve. The problem is convincing everyone else it’s a good idea. The question I asked before remains the central question—how do we convince the American voter to change his value system?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 6, 2005 at 12:13 AM Martin,
I did not want to engage you anymore but your rants against the minimum wage have gone too far. If you look at the most recent minimum wage hike in 1997, employment grew. If your thesis is correct, then as the real value of the minimum wage falls, labor demand should rise. History has shown this to not be the case at all. The federal minimum wage in real value is the second lowest in its history, yet I do not see employment rising. Yes, the unemployment rate is falling, but so is the labor force participation rate. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth in this country. You tell me how paying someone $3/hr is going to improve the economy. On a final note, the economy did so well when the government was kept at a bare bones level except for that minor event in October of 1929.
Posted by Bud on Jul 6, 2005 at 6:31 PM Check out America’s Great Depression by
Dr. Murray N. Rothbard. Not only did the
government cause the great depression via
the Federal Reserve but Hoover prolonged
it by various government interventions in
the economy to such an extent that it made
it in to the worst depression in history
and FDR exacerbated Hoover’s policies.
Hoover was quite the social engineer and
liberal Republican of his day contrary to
stereotype. Only WW2 which FDR planned got
us out of the Great Depression.
See The Roosevelt Myth, 2nd rev ed, by
John T. Flynn.
If the minimum wage actually raised the
general level of wages then why not raise
it to $20. or 30. an hour ? If is too low
it makes no difference but if it is too high
unemployment results. Do you really think you
can repeal the laws of economics by legislative
fiat ?
See Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt,
specific chapter on this subject.
Posted by Martin on Jul 6, 2005 at 7:31 PM Martin,
I have taken several economics courses in college, so I do not need to be lectured about the subject. I understand the laws perfectly well, but remember, economics is a social science and its theories are not as tenable as those of say, physics or biology.
What exacerbated the Depression was the fact that nobody’s deposits were insured, so when the masses went to the bank to withdraw their funds, there was no more money. Roosevelt created the FDIC, remember? WWII was the event that eventually terminated the depression, but Roosevelt’s policies put millions back to work and created the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provided navigable waterways and electricity to the rural populations of Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky. To insinuate that nothing good came from Roosevelt is ridiculous. I assume you appreciate the 40-hour, 5 day workweek and the prohibition of child labor, right?
Posted by Bud on Jul 6, 2005 at 8:11 PM Martin,
I really don’t know who you are or why you are insulting people you don’t even know but it is the hieght of ignorance and the epitome of libertarian stupidity and fanaticism to insult someone like Matt K. who is probably one of the few individuals who even has a vague sense of current political discourse and thought. Very few people actually take libertarians seriously because they’re quite simply nuts! Stop bugging us on the left. Go to your own goofball blog site and drive each other insane!
Posted by steve on Jul 6, 2005 at 9:36 PM Steve,
I honestly appreciate the thought, but you cannot reason with this sicko. Just ignore him. He’s not worth the effort.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 6, 2005 at 9:43 PM Matt
Single payer systems for health, pension, and disability benefits and other needed programs would save hundreds of billions in efficiency alone. A study by a pro-national health care physicians’ group estimated a total savings of almost a quarter trillion to national health providers in costs and financial delinquincy by having a single payer system. It makes more sense! Also, with a single payer health system that included day care for working mothers the savings to the national budget could easily provide enough good paying jobs and convienience to poor, single parents to get rid of TANF or any other kind of “welfare” indefinitely! It would never be necessary. These are the kind of reforms that would save money and bring social justice to millions!
Posted by steve on Jul 6, 2005 at 9:46 PM To all libertarian sickos who never really worked a day in their lives,
The current minimum wage is $5.15/hour. In todays economy it is not enough to raise even an individual let alone a family of 4 above the poverty line at full time employment. The economy will NEVER deflate sufficiently t bring price levels to where people earning this paltry sum can survive, business costs are to high and wholesale prices are not flexible enough. The idea is to work people to death who are just trying to survive to get maximum surplus value out of them! In this system people don’t count as much as the profits of a few small megafirms! This is wrong! Its time to change the system for the better!
Posted by steve on Jul 6, 2005 at 9:57 PM First, Bud, you do need some special ed
in economics, which is why I took the time
to recommend some worthwhile books including
Dr. George Reisman’s Capitalism.
The laws of economics exist as much in reality
as those of physics or biology.
It is not the same kind of laboratory
measurement but they exist.
What exacerbated the Depression was Hoover’s
artificial attempts to keep wage rates up
instead of letting the market take its necessary
corrective course in response to the Fed policies
of credit expansion which caused the Depression
to begin with.
The unemployment rate in 1939 was as high as in
1932, so the New Deal failed. Hence, WW2.
FDR robbed the whole population by taking us off
the gold standard and leaving us with the swindle
of paper instead.
Capitalism made possible the 40 hour week, plenty
of countries have that legislation on the books
but it is a dead letter if the economy can’t
afford it. There is nothing wrong with child labor
and 60% of our youth would be better off working.
If we have a depression on the scale of the last
one I wouldn’t bet on the insurance, I hope I’m
wrong here but I doubt it. In a free economy there
would be no legal bankruptcy and the bank would
have to pay back the depositors or face a necktie
party, a very good inducement to stay in line.
Your college courses were obviously given by Keynesian hacks, so READ the books I recommended.
Posted by Martin on Jul 6, 2005 at 10:07 PM Steve, I want to answer your remarks by
themselves. Outside of your pathetic and
insulting tone, none of what you preach is
remotely correct. All of the crazy socialized
medicine and other schemes you advocate would
NOT save billions, they would COST the taxpayers
TRILLIONS. Socialized medicine has failed in
EVERY country including Canada, any Canadian
who wants to get anything more than a routine
checkup comes here to the USA. Otherwise, they
die waiting which is why the Court there said
they HAD to allow people to seek private treatment. HOORAY ! The beginning of the end of
socialized medicine in Canada.
If the minimum wage is too low, it has no effect.
It is too high, it causes UNEMPLOYMENT ON A LARGE
SCALE. Which is a main reason for the very high
Afro unemployment, maybe you want blacks to starve
but who are you to make that choice for them ?
If it really works, then raise it to 20. or 30.
an hour and see what happens.
Steve, you can have all the temper tantrums that
you want but you can’t repeal the laws of economics.
Where does it say on the ITT website that only
confirmed statists can participate ?
Frankly, a lot of us are tired of your pretentious
buttbuddyism with MatthewKKK and a few of your pets. You lefty bores always win all the arguments
that you have with yourselves, don’t you ?
I read MatthewKKK’s total apeshit response to
Jack Barnes on the Howard Zinn thread and let
me tell you, MatthewKKK is no thinker at all
but a standard brand Communist Holocaust Denier.
You got a problem with that ? You see MatthewKKK
about it.
Meanwhile, you need to come into the modern world
and see the labor theory of value as the exploded
farce it is. Read Capitalism by Reisman.
Posted by Martin on Jul 6, 2005 at 10:22 PM Bankruptcy only exists because of the fact that there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor and credit needs to be used to pump prime the economy because of a lack of effective demand due to low wages, massive unemployment, overcapacity, and rapidly falling profit rates. If people can’t pay their bills what is it that libertarians suggest, taking everything they own and jailing them?! Whose supposed to do this all, the dreaded state that libertarians hate and malign? Should creditors and their thugs take the law into their own hands? Who are libertarians to call anyone a Nazi anyhow?!!
Posted by steve on Jul 6, 2005 at 10:30 PM First of all the Canadian system is having trouble because it is underfunded. Most Canadians, though they complain support their system and wouldn’t trade it for ours! Secondly, a low minimum wage doesn’t have NO effect. People just take on more of a work load! There are NO real permanent laws of economics except supply and demand. Everything else changes as the structure of the economy changes and the unequal power relations stay the same or worsen! Black people are NOT unemployed because of a high minimum wage but because they have no jobs in proximity to where they live, poor mass transit, face racial discrimination, and in general deal in a low wage/low skill labor market that is shrinking all the time. The government has NEVER created social problems or economic imbalances through government intervention. It has merely mitigated certain problems the market could not solve for society. The state usually favors the rich and powerful anyhow! Yes, individuals use their rationality but within the very strict confines of power relations which are not shaped by government authority but by groups within civil society.
Posted by steve on Jul 6, 2005 at 10:42 PM Steve, you’re just throwing meat to the lions. There are plenty of conservatives and libertarians it might be worthwile to debate. This Holocaust-denying racist crackpot is most assuredly NOT one of them.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jul 6, 2005 at 10:53 PM Matt K. is surely correct! Also, libertarians might do well to actually investigate the Canadian health care system instead of making the usually unjustified assumptions based on laisse faire predjudice. For example, over $35 billion is planned to be spent over the next three years upgrading health care quality and access to all Canadians who will have affordable access 24/7! Check it out! It’s true!
Posted by steve on Jul 6, 2005 at 10:57 PM Standard socialist excuse that your programs
always fail because yet more money should
have been poured down the government rathole.
They fail because they are wrong in theory
and practice.
Bankruptcy is as much abused by the rich
as by the poor and it is failure of moral
dimensions in BOTH cases. I’m talking about
Chapter 7 and 11 as much as 13.
Black people are unemployed because of the
minimum wage laws in rather large numbers.
The only reason “prejudice” exists is because
blacks commit such an incredible amount of crime
relative to their population and they use the
bias excuse as a crutch.
They have more than adequate mass transit but they destroy the buses and trains just like they
destroy every housing project they live in.
Read the works of John McWhorter.
Wages are not low, it’s like saying prices are
low and they are not, wages are the price paid
for labor.
The government has created EVERY social problem
through government intervention.
Read For A New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
for starters, there’s plenty more after that.
You and MatthewKKK are national socialists,
i.e., Nazis.
MatthewKKK earlier wrote today that there
were NO libertarian or conservative arguments
that he ever respected and now he’s trying to
be disingenuous by claiming he wants to debate
real conservatives or libertarians. Most ARE
holocaust revisionists (not deniers).
MatthewKKK lost the argument on the Zinn thread
and is trying to CYA.
But it’s not working.
Posted by Martin on Jul 6, 2005 at 11:13 PM Read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
for a large list of problems created by government
intervention. Go to lewrockwell.com webite
and he will see refs up the gazoo as well as
much better arguments than you make here.
Posted by Martin on Jul 6, 2005 at 11:15 PM Martin,
First off, I have never insulted your intelligence either directly or implicitly, and I DO NOT appreciate your pathetic resort to puerile antics to invalidate my claims. Actually, my first economics textbook was written by N. Gregory Mankiw, the right wing economist now serving under George W. Bush.
If the U.S. has the model healthcare system as many conservatives like to claim, why then do we spend nearly 15% of our GDP on healthcare yet have nearly 50 million uninsured at any one point during the year? Also, why does the U.S. rank far below other developed nations in infant mortality rate and life expectancy? Sweden has a life expectancy of over 80 years! It also is a social democratic state renowned for its quality of life.
Of course, you have no basis for the Reaganesque claim that government is the source of all evils in the world. What do you propose, allow the Wal-Mart’s of the world to do as they wish, move their production facilities to even cheaper labor markets, pay their employees below $7/hr, and drive down the quality of life for entire communities?
Government exists (in theory) to provide refuge for those who suffer the merciless onslaught of market economics, but it is clear that you do not care if people starve to death or if young children die because their families cannot afford health insurance. As noted earlier, governments in reality serve the interests of the rich. The vast majority of Congress is made up by millionaires who are beholden to the corporate interest groups who finance their campaigns. The consequences? As the New York TImes recently reported (this is not a liberal paper!) you have a better chance of success in Britain or France than the United States. Martin, you claim we are statists, but the right-wing governments of the world are the most avid enforcers of a rigid caste system that prevents vertical social movements.
Posted by Bud on Jul 7, 2005 at 12:09 AM Martin,
You are also a racist. That phony claim that blacks are in a poor situation because they want to be is entirely false. There have been numerous sociological studies conducted that prove race influences landlords in who they let rent apartments, bosses in who they hire, and police officers in who they profile and arrest. It is typical of radical conservatives to deny the existence of social structure while at the same time vote in governments who only serve to stratify society even further.
Posted by Bud on Jul 7, 2005 at 12:13 AM Off topic, (I guess):
My apologies for my naivete about the ins and outs of economics. I haven’t read all the books and I’m sure my ignorance shows through. But love me anyway.All I know is, I watched my father raise a family of NINE on one Delco Products income, and we lived well in a smallish suburban house, ate well, had 2 new cars, a boat, etc. I grew up with him supporting us all on one paycheck. Now, I can barely support one person: myself. This is just one generation later. I’m having a hard time understanding what has happened in the past 40 years. I know it’s a combination of many things, and I also know it is NOT the result of ONE particular political group’s actions, so why bother arguing sides?? It’s making me crazy! That house we grew up in was $11,000 in 1952. It sold in 1998 for $85,000. Will I ever see this kind of return on my house? Will my $100,000 house sell in 40 years for a 700% profit? If so, let me factor that 800,000 into my retirement! And how much was income tax in the 50’s? If memory serves, I think only 4% of your paycheck was taken in taxes—compared to 20% today. Another “class” sorting device we have now that did not exist 40 years ago is the institution of The Credit Report which dictates everything you’re allowed to have in life. One screw up and you’re branded for 10 years as a credit criminal. (BUT if you come from “good stock” and have family to bail you out, then you can keep a good score.) People with no safety net cannot make a mistake without paying DEARLY. What else didn’t exist back in the salad days? Ah yes, credit cards with 24.99% interest. Why is this gouging allowed? And don’t lecture me about ‘not living beyond my means through credit’ because I don’t. But if my hot water heater blows, I don’t have $1,000 just sitting in my checking account. By the way, my father was making $4500 per year when he bought that brand new house for $11,000. If that was possible today, I should be able to find a nice suburban ranch house for $40,000! I’ll start looking tomorrow!
Sorry if I expect to live at least the quality of life my parents were afforded, but I thought that was one of the things people could wish for in America. All I know is that people in power—in ALL arenas of politics - have been making some BAD decisions for the economic health of the future. And now we’re 10 years down the road to becoming a country of 95% low paying service jobs. The Dems passed Nafta, but the Reps sure haven’t done anything to repeal it. Ahh, who cares, right? I mean, SOMEONE has to make your sub at Subway.
35, bitter, and giving up.
Posted by Carolyn on Jul 7, 2005 at 2:26 AM Bud, you are also an asshole.
Landlords don’t want anything more to do
with most (not all) blacks precisely because
of their cultural sociopathology and ingrained
criminality. They simply commit crime far out
of proportion to their numbers precisely because
they have been carte blanche to do so by leftwing white trash like you.
Police profile them precisely because they
commit many more crimes proportionately than
any other group. Even exceeding Latins !
You have the cart before the horse, little man.
Bosses don’t hire precisely because they don’t
perform and then you have a lawsuit when you
try to get rid of them.
Wake up and smell the coffee, smegma breath.
Posted by Martin on Jul 7, 2005 at 12:43 PM Bud, you are an arrogant AHOLE. You need to
take your big mouth out of overdrive and remove
your brain from neutral and read some of the works
I’ve been kind enough to refer you to.
Government is the cause of every social and
economic problem that we have. I do not care
what piece of Republican Keynesian piece of
crap that you studied under, you need to read
Murray Rothbard’s dissection of Reagan on the
lewrockwell webite before you spout nonsense about Reagan being anti-government.
Both France and the UK have a lower standard of
living by far than the US and hundreds DIED in
Paris last summer due to the lack of air conditioning. The NY Times IS a liberal Demo
paper and has always has been.
Where do you get your misinformation from,
Auntie Noam ? The great sucker of Pol Pot’s
weenie. It is precisely government medicare
and HMO’s that are bankrupting the medical
system, which is still the best in the world
but not for long. Repeal all licensing and
other barriers to entry and you will see an
explosion of doctors and a subsequent reduction
in medical care costs. But, no, little Bud would
rather whine and pretend to speak for the “masses.” Bud, you speak for no one but your
sorry little tuchas.
Move to the UK or France if you really believe
your own BS.
You certainly won’t be missed.
Meantime, little buttbuddy, please do not tell
me what or how I feel about things.
Your assertions are not facts. WalMart provides
plenty of jobs for lots of people at the going
market rate as well as great products for the
consumer. If you think wages are too low, then
get off your sorry tush and start a company and
provide employment at 15. an hour.
No, a loser like you would never think of doing
that.
Posted by Martin on Jul 7, 2005 at 12:59 PM Martin,
You are simply proving my point, over and over again. Your last two posts were more polemical than substantive. I do not recall ever naming you an “AHOLE” or using symbols to represent profanity in my posts. Furthermore, I never referred to you as trash or used sexually explicit language to get my point across. I never suggested you leave this country or employed denigrating comments to describe your mental capacity.
First, Noam Chomsky never, EVER, supported Pol Pot. He merely noted that in the power vacuum left in Cambodia after massive U.S. bombing that the conditions were ripe for someone like Pol Pot to take power. In addition he was critical of the gap in U.S. media coverage (specifically the NYT’s) between the atrocities committed in East TImor and those committed in Cambodia over the time period of 1975-1979.
The reason why health care is so expensive in this country is that private insurance companies can set their coverage rates arbitrarily. Litigation is not a problem in this country, corporate giants like AIG just say so and give tons of money to the Bush/Cheney campaign to get their legislation enacted.
The easy part of this rebuttal is your defense of Wal-Mart. For some insight into what it is like to work there, just read “Nickel and Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenreich. Maybe then you will understand the underbelly of crony capitalism. Wal-mart forbids unionization and eliminated its grocery workers when they dared to exercise their legal right to join a union. In addition, since Wal-Mart’s health benefits are so pathetic, it forces thousands of employees onto state health insurance rolls, costing taxpayers hundreds of million dollars each and every year. Certainly you do not want to subsidize Wal-Mart’s cruelty.
The U.K. and France have a much greater distribution of wealth than the U.S. and subsequently have greater vertical mobility. Capitalism has the power to generate great wealth, but also concentrates that wealth into the hands of a few.
The reason why so many died in Paris two years ago was due to an unusually extreme heat wave, which unfortunately coincided with the month when most French take their vacation time. Perhaps you forget about those who die in the U.S. each year for lack of air conditioning. Perhaps you also forget about the thousands who are at risk of dying in this country each year when Bush underfunds the program that helps poor people pay for their heating bills. Oh right, that is their problem. Too bad if they die. Se la vi.
On a final note, if I ever move out of this country, you won’t be missed either Martin.
Posted by Bud on Jul 7, 2005 at 1:32 PM Bud, Chomsky did support and apologize for
Pol Pot in his original 1978 co-authored
pieces in The Nation and numerous times after
that including an August 1979 debate in Boston
with Anthony Lewis which I heard on tape.
The Progressive and numerous others even on
the Left have debunked Chomsky on this issue.
Chomsky only criticized East Timor because he
perceived that as a US backed atrocity.
See The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky by Keith
Windschuttle, you can download it on the web
right now. Also see What Chomsky Really Wants
by Benjamin Kerstein and this can be downloaded
on the Frontpage.com website as well as Kerstein’s
own site in Israel. Then see The Anti-Chomsky
Reader by Horowitz and Collier. I only agree
with 40% of the essays here but that 40% is
absolutely devastating. Thanks for proving my point and showing yourself to be the ignorant
Chomsky cultist that you are in fact.
Barbara Ehrenreich’s book proved ZILCH. the
actual stats are that WalMart provides plenty
of paying jobs for people at the market rate
for their skills. People who really have to
work for a living unlike Babs who could play
housemaid while Doctor hubby really supports
her.
The USA is much less class stratified society than
the UK or France as you would know if you ever
read anything other than left agit-prop.
Sure some make more and they should, they are
more talented than most, there is absolutely
nothing wrong with disparity in wealth per se.
The freer the capitalism the more chance there
is for mobility. See The God of The Machine
by Isabel Paterson.
Insurance companies only came into the picture
in a big way because of Medicare and HMO’s.
Governmental creations. Before that we had
a pay as you go private fee system. The state’s
pumping funds into the medical system has had
the predictable inflationary results along with
the arbitrary medical school guild and licensing
system. See Capitalism and Freedom by Milton
Friedman, the chapter on occupational licensing,
another barrier entry set by the state.
The reason people died in the heat in large numbers was THE LACK OF AIR CONDITIONING IN
FRANCE DUE TO THEIR WELFARE STATE BACKWARDNESS.
See Tom G. Palmer’s website, you may to dig a
little to find his piece from last year when
he was in Paris. Had the French had a modern
economy they would have had the necessary air
conditioning and no one would have died.
It is not a normal occurence in a capitalist
economy and society.
Thousands of people are not dying here due to
Bush not paying for their heating bills
(which really means the rest of us not paying
for their heating bills since Bush has no money
to give). Document your statement, liar.
My rebuttals were both substantive and polemical,
there’s not necessarily a dichotomy between the
two. The symbols were done by ITT.
Your rants were nasty and personal, Bud, and
I properly responded.
“If you move out of the country, I won’t be
missed….....” Now that makes a lot of sense !
Posted by Martin on Jul 7, 2005 at 2:02 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Out of Control
Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up. - Labor’s New Leader
The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka. - The Retail Devolution
Two new books explore corporate evil. - Who’s Got the Power?
Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform. - Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions. - Solidarity Reunited?
Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
