By Rick Lucke
Barack Obama's acceptance speech as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee alluded to an issue that did not, and never does, get deserved attention in mainstream media coverage. Saying John McCain “just doesn't get it”, Obama said:
For over two decades -- for over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.
In Washington, they call this the "Ownership Society," but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own. Well, it's time for them to own their failure. [Emphases added]
One of the most glaring failings permeating American society is the “you're on your own” mentality. Two points should be made. First, in all honesty, it's not “their failure”, it's OUR failure; it is the failure of both parties and of American society at large that this mentality permeates American culture. While it is true Republicans are the primary proponents of “trickle-down” economic philosophy, they are not solely responsible for legislating that philosophy. With this in mind, there are serious doubts about how much real change will occur as a result of an Obama presidency, given the gridlock that exists in congress, and which is a reflection of the character and values comprising American culture itself.
The second point; if this you're-on-your-own cultural trait is to be changed, its origin must be addressed. One argument says it is merely the inherent greedy, self-interested nature of human beings. That diagnosis completely ignores other inherent human traits, which counter greed and self-interest. That diagnosis ignores the fact that greed and self-interest are promoted and enhanced by environmental factors that activate those traits. For instance, when survival is threatened, greed and self-interest become prominent features of a person's relationship to the environment. An environment in which fellow citizens are pitted against each other for their livelihoods can lead to what end other than greed and self-interest?
If solutions to you're-on-your-own are to be realized, attitudes of Americans regarding capitalism as a foundation for every societal institution must change, which will require an honest national discussion about, and exploration of, the weaknesses of capitalism and what must be done to limit the societal damage those weaknesses cause.
One glaring weakness of capitalism is the characteristic that some argue is its strength; it is based on greed and self-interest. That argument says that humans are greedy and self-interested, and capitalism utilizes greed and self-interest productively. That argument seemingly defies logic; a societal-economic system based on human weakness will necessarily promote and perpetuate said weakness. Just as this weakness must be controlled in the human being, so must it be controlled in a societal system that promotes it, which is why excessive deregulation is misguided. E.J. Dionne says in his article, Capitalism's Reality Check, “What’s becoming the Panic of 2008 will mean an end to the latest Capital Rules era.” Dionne addresses blind-faith acceptance of dogmatic deregulation quoting conservative Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve:
Bernanke sounded like a born-again New Dealer in calling for “a more robust framework for the prudential supervision of investment banks and other large securities dealers.” Bernanke said the Fed needed more authority to get inside “the structure and workings of financial markets” because “recent experience has clearly illustrated the importance, for the purpose of promoting financial stability, of having detailed information about money markets and the activities of borrowers and lenders in those markets.”
Dionne says, “What’s striking is that conservatives who revere capitalism are offering their own criticisms of the way the system is working.” Dionne continues:
Irwin Stelzer, director of the Center for Economic Policy Studies at the Hudson Institute, says the subprime crisis arose in part because lenders quickly sold their mortgages to others and bore no risk if the loans went bad. “You have to have the person who’s writing the risk bearing the risk,” he says. “That means a whole host of regulations. There’s no way around that.”
Of course, even these references to regulation are constrained and cautious, as any discussion indicating capitalism, itself, being part of the problem is considered sacrilegious. With regard to the current presidential campaign, Dionne says;
In the presidential campaign so far, John McCain has been clinging to the old economic orthodoxy while Barack Obama has proposed a modestly more active role for government. But the economic assumptions are changing faster than the rhetoric of the campaign. [Emphases added]
The economic “rhetoric of the campaign” does not address the larger picture that has emerged through “deregulation” of capitalism, particularly on a global level. Representative Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, “We are in a worldwide crisis now because of excessive deregulation.” Neither presidential candidate has adequately addressed that simple truth. To do so would require expressing the inherent weaknesses of capitalism, which would challenge the capitalistic dogma that permeates American culture. Without a cultural shift in thinking regarding capitalism, the gridlock in congress and in American society will remain, regardless of who is president.
Capitalism can be a useful system in society, but only if society keeps the weaknesses of capitalism in check. Keeping those weaknesses in check will require recognizing that profit margin is not a valid criterion for every societal institution, nor for solving every societal ill. Services that meet human or societal-national needs and services should not be based on monetary profit derived from providing them; police and the judicial system, firefighters, social security, medical services, military services, education, and all other infrastructure development, etc.
Additionally, the runaway threat of corporations' influence must be reduced and restrained significantly. At present, America's political system is rife with corporate corruption. Major corporations are writing their own rules at the expense of average citizens, in both, America and other nations. Noam Chomsky points out:
They've internationalized capital to take advantage of cheap labor abroad, and intensified the class war that business has always waged against labor and the disadvantaged. [Their fiscal policies are] driving the United States itself toward a country with a Third World look in infrastructure, services, the disgraceful state of health and mortality standards -- a two-tiered society with enormous wealth and privilege amidst poverty and suffering. It's not like Brazil, because it's a wealthier society -- but fundamentally of the same type, created with bipartisan agreement. [Emphasis added]
They divide the world into two classes; shareholders and “inferiors” (consumers). At a shareholder's meeting of Allianz AG, major shareholder Hans-Martin Buhlmannn expressed the view that there is only one limit to the increase of the dividend: "The inferiors must not be bled so much that they can no longer consume. They must survive as consumers."
Capitalism's value lies in its ability to serve society; when society serves capitalism, that value is lost. Currently society is serving capitalism rather than being served by capitalism. Therein lies the fundamental change that must occur and which is not addressed adequately by either presidential candidate or their parties, nor in the mainstream media, and certainly not within the majority citizenry. One thing is certain, however, in this presidential campaign; the Obama team may at least slow our journey down this erroneous road, which may perhaps begin to turn the tide; meanwhile, the McCain team will merely hurl us faster down this perilous road with blinders on.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
That is, fundamental assumption that greed is good might have some applicability, but perhaps not unlimited applicability. It's fine for people to profit if they actually do something for the system. But we should stop confusing the statement "People should be allowed to profit because their success may bring the success of others" with the statement "People should be allowed to profit when the success of others actually causes the success of others".
Politics, as they say, relies on the consent of the governed. I think that if fairly polled, the governed would say they have not given consent to have a very small number of rich people while everyone else is suffering in poverty. The right to be rich is given with the responsibility to make sure that benefits society. At the point where the rich do not feel the responsibility to care about that, it's time to re-examine the right to be rich.
Tax breaks should go to those who are showing benefit to the public, not blindly trusting them to benefit the public, but actively verifying that they are doing so.
Besides, the real tax on the poor is the fact of being poor. No one should be asked to pay tax until they can pay for themselves. It should be considered a privilege of wealth to pay tax, not an obligation of the poor. One should feel proud that one has the means to help others, not obliged to help those who can already help themselves at the expense of a family that is barely able to break even.
I worked at the SEC in 1978 - 1981 so I saw enforcement being done during the Carter administration and then gutted at the beginning of the Reagan presidency. Deregulation initially seemed to be destroying the purpose of the agency. I worked in the Department of Enforcement for the Chief Trial attorney. I couldn't believe they thought it was a good idea to deregulate, since the Securities & Exchange Commission was formed for the express purpose of keeping robber barons and greed bags in check. Deregulation seemed to be saying, well let's allow their grandchildren a second bite at the apple. What a dumb idea. Since I was seeing the myriad ways that people in the securities industry found to manipulate and game the market, defraud investors and generally create financial havoc, I really couldn't understand how anyone was arguing for deregulation as if it was a source of an expansion in the economy. It was clear who was going to make the money, and it wasn't really going to be just the shareholders, and certainly not the employees of corporations, it would be the CEO, COO and the Boards of the corporations bleeding everyone they could for their own benefit and gaming the market and when that didn't work they would easily and less detectably be able to break the law. And of course, we all know the direction this all took in the end.
Capitalism is a tool that is meant to serve the society in which it exists, just as you suggest. Currently capitalism operates like an employee that hasn't seen their job description in over a decade. It just really doesn't remember how it is meant to be of service or who is in charge.
You raise a critical irony in the entire Reagan dilemma; the “trust but verify” quote, which is perhaps Reagan's second most cited quote after the somewhat hystrionic “tear down this wall”, which gets way too much air time, anyway.
To blindly trust that one person's wealth and acquisition thereof, that one person's rise, automatically insures that the welfare of others will also rise, is truly a fool's game; this is no longer open to debate, but has fallen into the ranks of theories whose worth has been proven in real-world experience.
Thanks for your very thoughtful response to my little essay. It is greatly appreciated.
Best,
Rick
I deeply appreciate your first-hand-knowledge-based response. Your insights from an insider's view seem to echo much of what is known, yet seems to be muffled out by calls from special interests that are apparently winning control.
The IMF, World Bank, and WTO appear to have the upper hand on a global level, and their interests are most definitely not served by ANY democratic principles, yet most people seem to view “democracy” as being inseparable from those entities. This irony is overwhelming.
Do you suppose there is any hope of turning the tide?
I think that Kent's comments about tax breaks are the kind of direction we ought to be taking generally. We ought to reward those whose businesses actually benefit more fully everyone involved in a corporation. We ought not to give tax breaks to those who unfairly disadvantage American workers to increase payouts to the leadership and ownership of a corporation. We should take all tax advantages away from any company that is behind in paying its taxes, and there are lots of them. Why should it be acceptable that dividends be paid to shareholders and not taxes?
Yes, we should be doing what we can to participate fully in the global economy, but not to the disadvantage of American citizens & legally documented workers here. The idea of existing as a business entity in the US should advantage all Americans involved in the enterprise and not merely the owners & officers.
I really don't have a problem with immigrants, I think they get used like a political football without regard for their hard work and amazing industry. If we keep going in the direction we've been headed all these years, they aren't going to want our jobs or the "American way" anymore. If you've ever seen people picking strawberries, lettuce or green onions, you know that Americans don't really want those hard jobs, but there are people in the world who still see hard labor as an opportunity to begin a way to a better life. I was from that kind of hardworking family and it worked out fine for me, and for many of my childhood friends whose families came to California from Mexico to work. Our values have gotten all screwed up.
I think the tide is beginning to turn now, and the turbulence in the political arena is a sign of that change.
You said, “Squabbles over whose interests are superior to all others just stop us from resolving anything. Compromise is not a bad thing. It's a step forward.”
I don’t know where you are coming from with the above statement, so if my response appears to misinterpret your statement, you’ll know that’s why. I think your statement misses the point – “special interests” represent a specific caliber of interests that benefit a very few at the expense (read as disadvantage) of the majority. There is not much debate about the ethical aspects of that issue, nor is there much debate on the efficacy of such interests. Debates over “special interests” are not “squabbles” as you indicate, but rather discussions about what is best for the majority versus what profits a minority whose interests oppose the interests of most citizens on both, ethical grounds and in terms of efficacy. Ultimately, the problem here is that the level of compromise that would benefit both interests is never realized; the powers-that-be virtually always come out on top and the majority pays the tab in one or more ways.
The idea that deciding “whose interests are superior” is a problem to be avoided, and that doing so would “stop us from resolving anything” also seems to miss the point. Decisions about these interests ARE the resolutions toward which we must move.
Another statement of yours was, “The idea of existing as a business entity in the US should advantage all Americans involved in the enterprise and not merely the owners & officers.”
The type of business to which this statement would apply would seemingly be mostly small, local businesses. These are the types of businesses that would receive my fullest support on most matters. The businesses to which I refer when I speak of “special interests” are the huge national and multinational corporations that are destroying democracy and the general best interests of the majority of the world’s citizenry. Again, I don’t think anyone can reasonably perceive this conflict as a “squabble”.
The original concept of the corporation is the concept to which humanity must return. The original concept viewed corporations as a means by which citizens could pool their finances, efforts, and any other relevant resources to accomplish a common goal that benefited SOCIETY, not solely a small group of investors. Additionally, once said goal had been attained, remaining assets would be distributed among the shareholders, and the corporation would be dissolved.
The current incarnation of the corporation is precisely one of the major problems confronting humanity at this juncture. It seems to me that the attitude toward business we need is that a business should benefit society, not just some small group whose financial interests trump virtually every concept known of what is good. I think your use of the word “squabbles” with regard to these issues is counter-productive because it belittles the magnitude of the international crisis created by these multinational “special interests”. The discrepancy between their interests and the interests of the majority of humanity certainly are a conflict of interests that is not going to be easily “resolved” by ignoring the issue, as you seem to suggest would be best.
Lastly, you state, “… you know that Americans don't really want those hard jobs…” That is not something ANY of us “knows”, as you suggest. What we “know” is that Americans don’t want jobs that don’t pay a living wage, provide security, and that take advantage of us. I felt somewhat disappointed when it appeared to me that you would perpetuate this Republican/conservative “talking point” that has no basis in truth. This particular talking point has a long history of corrupt pandering to interests that use migrant labor because they don’t want to pay a decent wage, provide any level of security, which necessarily means they are taking advantage of their employees.
Your suggestion that “Americans don’t want these jobs” is erroneous and unfounded. There are many physical labor jobs that Americans would be willing to do if those jobs provided the decent, secure livelihood they should provide.
Again, if I have misinterpreted any of your statements, tell me where and how. I look forward to your response.
I never used the term "special interests" and didn't mean anything that your interpretation led to either.
Regarding stoop labor, if you think Americans want those jobs, move to the agricultural fields in California and see who is working there. I get what you are saying about fair and equitable living wages, but I know my family did whatever work it could get, and if we had to live together to afford housing for everyone, we did, and that is what immigrants working in the fields in Salinas, King City, in the San Joaquin Valley and whoever picks our food and where ever they live all over the nation. And it wasn't better in agriculture years ago than it is now. People lived in large extended families. Nuclear family living is a modern phenomena that is not entirely successful economically.
I don't agree with you about what Americans want to do to make a living. I just don't think anyone wants to work out in a 100+ degree field if they can avoid it. It isn't an anomaly that the kosher meat packing plant that was raided by immigration was employing undocumented workers. Our current economy beats up on people who work hard and kicks them out and leaves their children without supportive, loving parents. Among the first words I learned in Spanish when I was growing up in California were "la migra." That says volumes as far as I am concerned. If doing such hard work is the first rung on a ladder for a family, I think we should respect their efforts. I think we should stop lying about illegal immigration and provide legal ways for families to live and work here that lead to citizenship. There is very little actual debate about immigration because it is politically radioactive. Nobody wants to pay $10 a pound for tomatoes, and if we did, then the people picking them might still be priced out. The people who are benefitting own shares in Dole and other such large processors. The money in those companies flows to the shareholders and the officers and clearly, not so much to the workforce. Corporations are designed to benefit shareholders. No matter what may have been the historic origin for the idea, it doesn't work out that way anymore.
If it isn't clear to you, I don't care if we remain a white Protestant country. I care that we become an equitable and fair place where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't have to come at anothers expense.
Anyway, I have to get back to work, but I hope this helps you understand my position.
Thanks for returning to comment further. It seems clear that you and I are not coming from different ends of the spectrum on this matter – I think we are closely aligned.
Perhaps my focus on your use of the word “squabble” seems pointless, but my reasoning was based solely on the definition of the word itself: “to engage in a petty quarrel.” It is the qualification of “petty” that I felt was out of place in this particular element of our discussion. I had the sense that it belittled the importance of the issue, as well as the particular battle itself. Your original statement pertained to my reference to “special interests” and my reading of your statement translated into an apparent dismissal of that as an issue, as if the pointing to “special interests” and their influence was somehow counter-productive, when it would seem to be one of the primary stumbling blocks to compromise. At this juncture, I'm thinking I did not place enough focus on your statement: “I'm thinking that we have all forgotten how connected we all actually are.” That is precisely the point, although I think some have forgotten and some have not. So how do we get around that?
My own view on the concept of compromise is that it is indeed, as you have said, “a step forward”. The problem to which my original statement alludes is that there currently is only compromise coming from one side of the equation (read as capitulation, giving up, etc). I believe that before we can move towards anything resembling compromise, we, as society, must start to pare back corporate power, returning their structure and function back towards that original historical purpose and place in society to which I referred. Otherwise, to use your term, the squabbling continues; there's no way around it. The corporate corruption and influence in our government and in our legal system will override everything else just as it does today. Of course, it's also important to point out that not only are these corporate entities already running the show, but they are not remaining static in their position – they are continuing to garner more and more power, which is really the problem. There simply is no move towards compromise from their side.
Lastly, we are also on the same end of the spectrum with regards to immigration. I grew up in El Paso, and am quite familiar with all the issues surrounding immigrants from Mexico. A long time ago, before I moved to where I presently live, I worked as a “supervisor” on a lawn & sprinkler maintenance crew comprised of myself and two “illegal aliens” (that's not a term I feel comfortable with), since I was the only “legal citizen” who could speak Spanish well enough to communicate with them effectively. Of course, they were relatively lucky since we paid above minimum wage for that time period, but I became friendly with one of them in particular, as each day after work I was giving him a ride home.
One day he invited me into his home to meet his family. It was as you described; there were actually two families living in the same “house”, which was actually more of an open studio atmosphere, being all one long rectangular room except for the bathroom, which had a door. There were many beds set up in the open space and the women were engaged in making dinner, which apparently consisted of freshly made tortillas and a pot of chili beans. As we entered, I was immediately surrounded by a group of 5 or 6 small kids who were excited at the appearance of someone new in their home, as all kids usually are. They were a beautiful group of people who invited me to eat with them, willing to share what little they had.
Migrant workers in that area were commonplace. I'm familiar with the scene of workers out in the fields, harvesting cotton, chili peppers, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. I think it is misleading when people say, “Americans don't want to do those jobs,” simply because nobody WANTS to do those jobs, including the illegal immigrants. I can't say I've been particularly thrilled about most of the jobs I've held in my lifetime, but I did what I had to do. Like you, I have no problem with immigrants, and would like to see some changes that eliminate abusing them, as corporate entities do. Where is the compromise in any of this?
Your latest response points out this very issue when you say, “The money in those companies flows to the shareholders and the officers and clearly, not so much to the workforce.” When one looks at the profits these shareholders, and even more, these officers are making, “not so much to the workforce” seems an extreme understatement; this points out two separate parties with conflicting interests. And the corporate interest is a “special interest” of the type that is poisoning America in many ways. I appreciate compromise as much as the next person, but it requires both parties playing the same rulebook, something corporations no longer have to do because they are writing the rulebook. There will be no compromise with these entities until enough people stand up in one way or another and take back some of the power these entities have illicitly garnered. And that will be a huge struggle, a struggle that will require many fronts, which was why I thought the word “squabble” appeared dismissive. I understand, now, that you were not being dismissive. It seems clear to me that we are pretty much on the same page. I appreciate your responses and hope you'll continue to respond back, to this latest message and others I will post.
Thanks,
In other situations, the way that these people negotiate is often no negotiation at all. It's a form of participation that is not designed for equitable resolution but for creating appearances that those who are less engaged in the process have been willing to accept in place of an actual resolution. You might call it a an optical illusion. Looks like something has been resolved until you look further into what it provides, and that is where you get to the "more of the same" provisions. What comes to mind is an Earl Scheib paint job on an old rust bucket. The car still smokes and pollutes but looks shiny and new.
My "not so much to the workforce" was meant derisively. I don't like or respect selfishness and greed. I cannot believe that the good I experience in my life has to come at the expense of anyone else. I think that we would all be happier if we had a broader middle class that included people who work hard doing physical work. If more people were living successful, happy lives, there wouldn't be so much acrimony. Allowing greed to run wild is divisive and exerts downward pressure on those who can least afford it.
You and Susanne, in my never humble opinion, are possessed of knowledge and insight. It says something about this country when the discussion can be so insightful without a theoretical model contrary to that of market capitalism. Fukuyama may be more right than people give him credit for, as people treat all contrary theories as discredited, and whatever the priests of capital articulate reigns unchallenged. As someone once observed, the ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class -- and the ideals of this current age (going back to probably 1876 in this country) say that free capital markets are good, the purpose of all market actors is to maximize profit, and the value of literally everything shall be set by the market.
Capitalism has always had an internal logic that ends in concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer. The reality of market systems, however, is that two-thirds of economc activity tends to be generated by consumers, and concentraying wealth in hands of the few means that most consumers can't buy -- and so the cycle crashes. At some point, after income of effectively distributed more widely (generally by a lowering of all), the cycle will swing upward once more. Hence, the boom and bust of the market economies. After the Great Depression, Keynsian principles of counter-cyclical spending allowed the government to soften the business cycle by spending more when consumer spending dropped off. In theory, spending was supposed to go back to lower levels during good times, but with a large standing military with ever more expensive toys and an industrial base that had grown to serve (and profit from) the military. The great research universities were also pulled in. Eisenhower warned of this, but Kennedy shrugged it off without a moment's thought on behalf of almost all of us.
The sheer magnitude of the productive capacity unleashed by capitalism led Marx and Adam Smith to praise it on that basis, even as Smith lamented the virtues lost in the process and Marx saw it as a stage to something more human. But even they would have been shocked by the gifts of the military industrial complex: computers, the internet, microwave technology, battery technology and, hell, even Tang.
Looking back the the Founding Fathers, it's not hard to trace how we got here -- and the stakes were clear to the brightest of them. Jefferson and Hamilton, in particular, represented strands that culd not have been more opposed to one another. Jefferson wanted a nation of small proprietors (given the technology of the day, farmers) because he saw it as the basis of democracy. Simply put, if I depend upon you for my income, I cannot take my political stands independent of your preferences. Hamilton, on the other hand (in the most charitable interpretation) wanted to create a strong economy as a way of making a stronger nation to stand up to England and the European Powers. His program was designed to stimulate the economy to help the growth of domestic industry, and didn't care one way or the other about democracy beyond the formal sense. As we know from history, or from just looking around, Hamilton won that debate in the first twenty years of the republic, and historically his ideas dominated but for very brief periods.
In a system with capitalist rules, there is no way in a top-down sense to change anything. Companies that care about things other than the bottom line eventually either die, get swallowed up, or reform to become more purely capitalist. We're seeing now that too little regulation results in problems (because it brings back the highs and lows of the business cycle with a vengeance); but we deregulated because in some ways regulation was choking the life out of the economy. Unless we want to cycle between eras of greater or lesser regulation, we need different IDEAS.
In this sense, neither the Obama nor the McCain campaigns represents much in the way of change. Yet, in a very real way, those who want to change away from capitalism to something that places a higher value on anything other than pure profit are better served by one campaign or the other. Which one you favor depends upon the manner in which one believes that revolitionary change can happen.
My reference for this a little book by Antonio Gransci, The Modern Prince. Gramsci distinsguishes between what he calls wars of movement and wars of position. Most revolutions are wars of movement -- take over the government, issue communique #1; but they don't bring about social change because governments are, in this sense, mere superstructure.
A war of position, on the other hand, requires the slow building up of institutions organized along different lines than the dominant culture. (Coops are one such example, but don't see themselves as particularly revolutionary.) Build up enough of these alternative insitutions, and the process acquires some momentum. At that point, if not well before, the movement requires something very specific: organic intellectuals. An organic intellectual is someone whose experience is that of the mass, but who is able to articulate that experience in a theoretical manner that suggest pratical action for change in a language that is perfectly understandable by the mass. There is at least one historical revolution like this, the one that took us from feudalism to capitalism.
The other model of social change requires total systemic breakdown, not a market crash but a collapse so complete that anything resembling capitalism is ruthlessly destroyed by the mob. This one is much easier, and happened at least twice in the history of Europe: the transition from the Roman Empire to the rise of the Free Cities, and the transition from the Free Cities to feudal nation states. The first facilitated by the collapse/defeat of Rome, the second by the bubonic plague.
This second one will happen eventually if we simply do nothing. Once we pass the tipping point in the global climate system, the global economic system that determines politics will collapse, and it won't take much work to explain that collaspe as being caused by the global economic system that fought climate regulation.
Because I have children, and perhaps because I am not a total misanthrope or because I am an idealist, I'll be going for Obama because I believe he gives us a better platform for moving to an alterative system by means of a war of position. ("We are the change we've been waiting for.") But Ricke is spot-on, a vote for McCain is a vote to hasten total systemic collapse.
Incidentally, the belief that markets determine politics isn't necessarily a radical one. Sure, it's the position of most Marxists, but it was also the practical position of most British Prime Ministers, Professor Charles Lindblom, and Ronald Reagan, among others. (Don't think so about Reagan? He promoted free markets as a way of getting democracy, "Free markets, free people" in his terminology -- and always in that order.
This is very well put. I think that one of the reasons that society is now serving capitalism is the presumptive status we give the for-profit corporation, which is nothing so much as a mini-economy dependent of parasitic relationships - the company needs to make more profit so has to pay more workers to make more product to sell to more consumers, and the worker needs the job to have the salary and benefits that have been enabled by insurers who have negotiated low rates to draw the worker which is paid for by the hospital by overcharging the - what did you call them? - *inferiors* thus draining them of both their health and their wealth and any confidence they could have built in either and thereby ensuring they *remain* inferiors unable to reap the rewards of the capitalist society, but only continue baring their jugulars to feed it.
Whew. Not sure if that made sense. What a though-provoking essay.
Tom Cordle
Don't know what brought you to this post at such a late juncture, but welcome, and thanks for commenting.
Yes, I read your Unmasking Myths post and several others along those lines, and related to them very strongly. As I say in the post here:
"Capitalism's value lies in its ability to serve society; when society serves capitalism, that value is lost."