Tag social democracy

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:

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:

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