Tag capitalism

Capitalism Destroys Everything

“Well, it looks that way. You have to ask… How is it possible that the most dynamic, best capitalized, most high-tech economy in world history could not add a single dollar to the real wealth of the average working man over a 40 year period?”

Washington Post guest blogger Bill Bonner relates a conversation with a European diplomat wherein they discuss the long, slow decline of capitalism over the last 40 years.

One thing we can be certain of is that capitalism will end. Maybe not soon, but probably before too long; humanity has never before managed to craft an eternal social system, after all, and capitalism is a notably more precarious and volatile order than most of those that preceded it. The question, then, is what will come next. Rosa Luxemburg, reacting to the beginnings of World War I, cited a line from Engels: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.”

Writing in the Winter 2012 issue of Jacobin Magazine, editor Peter Frase indulges in an exercise of imagination to consider four possible successor systems to global capitalism: communism, rentierism, socialism, and exterminism. They are, by his own admission, overly simplistic and deterministic, and unlikely to come to pass in the distilled forms he describes. Nevertheless, we are at least part of the way down the road toward a rentier society in this country and will go a great deal further if someone like Newt Gingrich has anything to say about it. And, if the past is any gauge, the living hell of exterminism is merely one ecological cataclysm away.

I have seen this graph all over the place lately, but the first place I saw it was on my friend Ben’s blog, so I’ll give him the linky-love. What this graph shows you is the elasticity of income — your ability to make more money than your parents — against degrees of income inequality, with the values of a bunch of industrialized nations plotted for comparison. Income inequality is lowest in the Scandinavian countries, but economic opportunity is also the highest (ooh, those damned European socialists!). Meanwhile, as Ben says, if you live in the U.S. or U.K., you’d better hope you have rich parents.

Speaking of those damned European socialists, Claude S. Fischer at “Made In America” considers the Euro-bashing from Mittens and Newtster and takes some of the same measurements that you see in the graph above, along with a few others, to paint a different picture of just how awful life must be for those poor beknighted Swedes and Frenchmen compared to Americans.

It seems to many today that the United States’ 30-year drift from a democracy to an ostensible corporatocracy has resulted in nothing but business-interest legislation and disparities of wealth so wide among the classes that it appears impossible for them to be rectified.

Here’s a post that ran at “Prose Before Hos” back in October, at the height of the Occupy movement, from political science student Savannah Cox that illustrates what Claude Fischer’s and Ben Hyde’s graphs are trying to quantify: the on-the-ground effects of the destructiveness of income inequality in the United States, aided and abetted by compliant politicians of both parties including Barack Obama. Her “ray of hope”: that some of the billionaires themselves, such as Warren Buffet and Mark Cuban, who have been willing to speak out against the iniquities.

Lastly, also from October 2011, here is an op-ed from Sam Smith, who edits Progressive Review.com, entitled “The Party’s Over”, which begins like this:

The party’s over. The national delusion that began 30 years ago with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan has run its course. Free trade, competition, innovation, entrepreneurship, market driven, bottom line, laissez faire, deregulation, privatization, mission statements, strategic plans, value added and all the other gibberish that was meant to save us has brought us to where we are today.

Three decades of sweet buzzwords and brutal economics fostered by a media that thought “free markets” were required by the Bill of Rights have left America broken, busted, and bitter.

No, it didn’t have to happen. After all, as John Maynard Keynes noted, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” We might have noticed. But our teachers in government, academia and the press largely went along with the most wickedest of men, girding their cause with false arguments and misleading logic. The rest didn’t have much time to think about it all; they were too busy taking tests or finding ways to make enough money to buy all the things they were told they had to have.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Capitalism Destroys Everything…So What?

If you’re up for a little thick reading, here are a couple of articles related to what many are calling the “crisis of capitalism” that has gripped the world since the bank collapses of 2008.

The first one is an article from the September-October issue of New Left Review that got some attention when it first appeared. “The Crises of Democratic Capitalism” by political economist Wolfgang Streeck looks at the natural tendency of capitalism to run through cycles of boom and bust, taking societies through varying degrees of disruption and considers the friction between capitalism and democracy. For the “tl;dr” crowd, skip directly to the last portion, Section 7, “Political Disorder”, to get to the takeaways:

More than ever, economic power seems today to have become political power, while citizens appear to be almost entirely stripped of their democratic defences and their capacity to impress upon the political economy interests and demands that are incommensurable with those of capital owners. In fact, looking back at the democratic-capitalist crisis sequence since the 1970s, there seems a real possibility of a new, if temporary, settlement of social conflict in advanced capitalism, this time entirely in favour of the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold, the international financial industry.

In short, in the process of taking itself down, capitalism has also taken down (or is in the process of taking down) democratic governments through the fiscal blackmail of bank bailouts, only to turn around and force the governments into usurious “austerity” programs to pay off the debts incurred to save them. They have had their cake and are getting to eat it, too.

Which makes this second article very distressing indeed. In an article at Project Syndicate.org entitled “Is Modern Capitalism Sustainable?”, Former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff writes that it really doesn’t matter if the current form of capitalism is sustainable or not because whatever comes next is just another flavor of it and will most likely be even worse for everyone except the 1%. His article, which is a bit more of the “50,000-foot view” variety than Streeck’s (and thus a bit more readable for the average reader like myself), acknowledges that capitalism is essentially a juggernaut, but as such at any point in time it is really only a transitional beast that mutates to the conditions of the time, meaning it is next to impossible to talk about the “demise” of the system. Everything else around it, however, is fair game. Here’s a pull quote:

Perhaps the real point is that, in the broad sweep of history, all current forms of capitalism are ultimately transitional. Modern-day capitalism has had an extraordinary run since the start of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago, lifting billions of ordinary people out of abject poverty. Marxism and heavy-handed socialism have disastrous records by comparison. But, as industrialization and technological progress spread to Asia (and now to Africa), someday the struggle for subsistence will no longer be a primary imperative, and contemporary capitalism’s numerous flaws may loom larger.

Don’t everybody cheer at once, now.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Fukushima Isn’t The Only Thing In Meltdown

Guardian columnist Will Hutton recently posted this commentary about what he characterizes as “the meltdown of capitalism” stemming from the crisis with the Euro caused by the now-nearly-certain default by Greece and increasingly likely defaults by Spain, Portugal, Italy and possibly Ireland.

This International Business Times article doesn’t mince words about the situation: welcome to the Great Recession of 2011. IBT quotes Nouriel Roubini saying that the recession has likely already begun and that the Greek default will act like the first domino in a chain, and even China will not be able to keep things stable because their economy is also in jeopardy due to a housing bubble.

The time for real revolution is no longer in the distance. It is now.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Aux Armes, Citroyens!

In honor of Bastille Day, it’s worth taking a moment to consider the situation in which we find ourselves in this country today.

Speaking at the protests of the G20 summit in Toronto, Canadian activist Maude Barlow reminded the gathered crowd that the three richest men in the world have more money than the 48 poorest COUNTRIES in the world. Just let that sink into your brain for a second. Overall, the richest 2% of the world’s population controls over half of the wealth, and the bottom 50% control less than 1% of the wealth.

Sucks to be them, right? Well, you’re most likely one of them, too. If you’ve got some time, this rant by Hofstra University political science professor David Michael Green brings home the reality of how the redistribution of wealth away from the middle class is on the brink of turning this country into another Argentina or Brazil, where a tiny percentage of elites control the wealth and the vast majority of people live in the worst slums imaginable. If you can’t be bothered to read the whole thing (and it is quite a stemwinder), at least read this paragraph:

The product of these efforts has been precisely what one would expect. Corporations and economic elites have grown fantastically more wealthy than they already were thirty years ago. Their tax liabilities are now negligible and sometimes less than zero. Massive national debt, the product in part of those tax gifts to the rich, plus huge bills for interest on that debt (this alone is one of the largest items in the federal budget each year), is now owned by the mass public, who got nickels and dimes worth of tax cuts, in exchange for which they will now have to literally work years of their lives to pay down the taxes the rich escaped. Working people across the country get less and pay more for everything today. College is becoming increasingly out of the financial reach of average Americans. The minimum wage, which actually often isn’t the minimum, is far from a sustainable salary for one person, let alone a family. As of 2004, the richest one percent of Americans possessed sixty percent of all wealth in the country, while the bottom forty percent accounted for a whopping two-tenths of a percent. Between 1979 and 2004, after-tax income for the top one percent of Americans rose by 176 percent, while for those in the bottom 20 percent that figure rose only six percent. And those figures are for six years ago, during what by current standards was flush times for working people. Now jobs are disappearing, with the inevitable effect of driving wages down further, not to mention all the obvious effects on prosperity, security, health, mental health and sheer longevity.

Here’s a graph to help you visualize that:

Writing in The Nation, Harvard economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich says that this widening gap is at the very heart of the Great Recession, just as it was in 1929. In 1928, the richest 1% of Americans received 23.8% of income earned in the U.S., and in 2007 that figure was 23.5%, aided by tax cuts and shifting tax burdens that consistently favored the rich while gutting the middle-class. Again, Reich’s article isn’t a quick read, so here’s a good pullquote:

If nothing more is done, America’s three-decade-long lurch toward widening inequality is an open invitation to a future demagogue who misconnects the dots, blaming immigrants, the poor, government, foreign nations, “socialists” or “intellectual elites” for the growing frustrations of the middle class. The major fault line in American politics will no longer be between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. It will be between the “establishment” and an increasingly mad-as-hell populace determined to “take back America” from them. When they understand where this is heading, powerful interests that have so far resisted reform may come to see that the alternative is far worse.

Need some quant porn to flesh it out? Look at this post at Calculated Risk that compares the current unemployment situation to previous economic downturns. The graph below is too small to read here, so be sure to look at the original, but I think even at the reduced size you get the point:

Boston College law professor Ray D. Madoff (apparently no relation) calls the end of the estate tax and the continuation of other elite-friendly tax laws nothing less than the enabling conditions to create an American aristocracy, even as some super-rich individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates themselves have called for their class to give away their fortunes to the betterment of society.

While Reich is quick (and correct) to point out that the Democrats are just as equally to blame for the situation as the Republicans, it never ceases to amaze me that the current crop of Republicans has stopped even pretending that they have any other agenda, and that President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress will compliantly go right along with it, without so much as a peep from anyone other than “Give ‘Em Hell” Bernie Sanders (the only ACTUAL socialist in Washington, I hasten to add).

It is more than painfully clear that there is little that can be done within the existing political structure to reverse the situation, and that the only agent of change will be class warfare on the size and scope of the three major proletarian revolutions. The real remaining question is how much worse will things have to get for the middle-class populations of the U.S. and Europe — will nothing happen until every major city resembles Mumbai or Rio de Janeiro? I think the answer lies in how quickly things transpire; if things level off for a decade or two, the complacent population of America and Europe are not likely to rise up, even as our way of life is inexorably assaulted. A few sharper shocks, and maybe we’ll get some sense kicked into us.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Rethinking The World

Three seemingly unrelated articles for anyone interested in seeing the world from a perspective a little bit broader than the pushme-pullyou game of American politics:

British historian and NYU professor Tony Judt recently gave a lecture in his role as director of the Eric Maria Remarque Institute looking at the successes and failures of social democracy in Europe. The New York Review of Books has an edited transcript of the lecture, which also considers why America is ambivalent toward social democracy: he points to the heterogeneity of our society and to the human tendency to discount the dangers of anything sufficiently far away (physically or in time). Given the current fascination in this country with what is or is not “socialist”, it’s worth having the historical overview about the very nature of the ideas of social democracy. Here is link to a video of the lecture (QuickTime), if you’d rather listen to it than read it.

The political humor website Political Irony has this post today with a short excerpt from a recent interview with Noam Chomsky as a commentary on the ironic situation that Big Business finds itself in as it tries to simultaneously convince Americans to both love and hate our government. On their own, these couple of paragraphs are quite illuminating (as is most everything Chomsky has to say about politics), but the whole interview itself is even better. The interview is ostensibly about the past successes of labor political action and how it could/should be renewed in our present times, but the conversation does drift into this bigger context of how corporations and corporatist government has been able to successfully convince most Americans that big business is good for them. Seen in juxtaposition to the Judt lecture, both pieces take on added layers of meaning when considering the long, slow march away from the social reforms of the mid 20th Century.

So, thirdly, there’s this modern take on Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” from the New Deal 2.0 blog at the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. You may recall that Swift sarcastically suggested that the solution to systemic famine in Ireland was to start eating the Irish children. So, with tongue in cheek and eyes pointed quite firmly at conservative pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the author of the post suggests that the solution to our crumbling economy is to deport the poor until we reach 100% employment. Even though the author, Marshall Auerback, is being as sarcastic as Swift, it is not at all difficult to imagine some right-winger coming up with this idea and running with it sort of the way Lou Dobbs has done with the bugaboo of immigration. I think this post actually goes very nicely with the Chomsky interview as an example, if exaggerated for effect, of exactly how our power brokers work overtime to undermine notions of social justice and economic equality.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Capitalism Destroys Everything

Do I even have to say it at this point? The unfettered hand of capitalism, in this case manifested as the deregulated financial industry, reveals itself once again to have no compunction about destroying anything, including itself, in its juggernaut quest for profit. With the gaze of federal regulators turned away by formal deregulation and overall loose constraint on the part of the administration, the financiers destroyed themselves by chasing after profit to the exclusion of sensible management of debt. And now that the true rewards of such rapaciousness have come home to roost, those free-market warriors have forced said administration into a corner and demanded to be bailed out. And, as usual, it is the pocket of the average person, not the super-wealthy who benefitted most from those years of unscrupulous and unbridled greed, being picked to make sure those billionaires aren’t reduced to mere millionaires.

Times of London financial editor Anatole Kaletsky recognizes the end game of the global capitalist system when he sees it. He’s almost livid about the U.S.government’s overnight absorption of AIG, and echoes the financial world’s public mourning of its own demise. But despite the inevitable economic hardship these events are about to unleash on the population of the world, I am more in agreement with some of the sentiments aired by Douglas Rushkoff. We are at the tipping point of the post-capitalist era because the capitalists can’t bleed us for any more wealth and are beginning to cannibalize one another. The true value of “money” is revealed for its actual self: absolutely nothing. That will be a profound leveller of society and redirect our economic focus back to “real” assets: goods, some services, infrastructure, etc. The parasites who reduce everything to widgets and skim the profits will be choked of their blood supply, hopefully long enough to kill them, but at least long enough to displace them. Sadly, the way to that future will consist of a great deal of adjustment and displacement for a great many people. Our society’s short-term focus and relaince on instant gratification will not hold up well. Dark days await us all.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site