Recycling, composting, even bravely volunteering at the soup kitchen and confronting the reality of poverty head-on are admirable steps that many of our affluent citizens take, to, as they say, “give back.” Yet in spite of their best efforts the 1% takes more and more of the planet’s resources, leaving less and less for everybody else.
Even here in the wealthiest nation on earth, the majority of people don’t enjoy anything close to the comforts and opportunities that well-off folks take for granted. A little bit of charity, and token reform won’t fix what is broken. Dramatic changes, bolder than anything dreamed of in FDR’s New Deal are urgently required.
Our elites have lost credibility when they ask us to trust their “leadership.” They aren’t leading us to a land of milk and honey, they are asking us to sacrifice even more of our standard of living so that the billionaires who rule our planet can add a few more zeroes to their offshore bank balances. These plutocrats could literally stuff millions in cash into the fireplace, every day, and still be able to buy dozens of mansions, yachts, jets and anything else they could want. Their insane greed is disgusting, yet they hold themselves up as role-models. All that it takes for the greed-heads to win is for decent people to stand apart from the class war. There is no middle-ground. Just like in fascist Germany, those who don’t resist the criminals are at least partly complicit in their crimes.
This leads me to Rick Wolff’s recent suggestion that we may be entering a time where questioning the utility of capitalism will become more common in mainstream American discourse [ http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/wolff190213.html ]
“Early in their histories, rising capitalisms in Europe and the US experienced rapid growth. Bitter clashes often arose between workers and capitalists over who would benefit and how much from that growth. We are likely to have at least as bitter clashes now as struggles pit winners against losers in economic decline. In any case, the threats and risks of capitalist-driven decline and severe capitalist cycles in western Europe and the US put the system into question in ways not seen for many decades.”
So, here is my plea to the more affluent (as opposed to insanely rich) brothers and sisters of North America. The time is long past where modest reformism, as you wait for a rising tide to lift all boats, is appropriate. You have long known in your hearts that capitalism is unfair to many. Now that it is clear that capitalism is unfair to moist (including you!) hasn’t the moment arrived to radically transform, rather than slightly reform, the capitalist system?



30 Comments

Our world would be a better place if more people listened to Rick Wolff! Nice diary, AntiP., Recc’d
Thanks for your post, antipanglossian. I admit I’m glad that Dr. wold has freed up his websites; last time I went to one of them, I wasn’t permitted to read there. ;(
Yves Smith posted his interview with Bill Moyers, and she and many of the commentors were quite taken aback at this crapola, if I might call it that. first in:
One commenter did provide a link to Wolf on the Mondragon cooperatives, and another to I. Wallerstein on the end of capitalism.
I’m not sure what you’re asking of us. Learning more is helpful, and while I read now and again at anticapitalists.net (iirc), a bit at Jacobin courtesy of a friend’s recommendation, whenever I ask my communits and socialist friends how they imagine a change to even a more Democratic Socialism, I don’t get much of an answer.
Behind the curtains, there are certainly more worker-owned businesses and factories brewing; more public banks would be helpful.
But what do you imagine?
Pleading or begging does not have a good history of success in making changes.
I do suggest you read on Machiavelli’s advice on making change.
US Federation of Worker Cooperatives
There are a lot of folks beginning to vote with their feet.
I’d have to go back and find that segment, and I can’t right now, but I think when he said that it was with a bit of subtle snark.
Thanks Wendy Davis!This is the same problem I have with many of my socialist and communist friends.
We don’t have to completely abolish private property to do much better by workers. Public banks (like those in N. Dakota) would be a good step. One interesting proposal I heard was for employment law to be changed, requiring all employers to provide profit-sharing programs on top of a (much higher than today’s minimum) wage. This gives labor the same incentive as capital to make an enterprise more profitable. If we think of the Social Democratic systems of countries like Finland as the floor below which we won’t allow workers in our society to fall, we can aspire to improving on that model.
Now Americans have suffered through so many decades of union-busting, and erosion of public goods, that many have become demoralized debt-slaves. They are afraid to bite the hands of the “job-creators,” and have begun to flee into apocalyptic fantasies, now that they’ve realized the “job-creators” will just continue to screw them over with ever-increasing savagery.
I think a positive step would be for Americans and Europeans to unite and to begin flexing their muscles as workers and consumers together, with coordinated global strikes, boycotts, etc. We need to insist that today’s global capitalism has failed, and put the burden on those who would preserve capitalism, in any form, to demonstrate how a new, modified capitalism can produce dramatically more humane results.
I haven’t taken the time to watch it yet, OmAli, so I just buzzed through the comments early this morning when there were far fewer. Nor have I watched the Wallerstein one. But this one just came in with Liberty Underground News; hope it makes ya chortle. ;o)
You’re absolutely right… I waould like to see a lot more demanding, uprising, and disrupting!! This was directed at timid, well-intentioned bourgeois reformers who have started to suspect that radical change, not modest reform is what’s called for.
That works for me, although I’m in a tear, as usual. My main socialist/communist friends were horrified by this piece, and I liked it, but I also like lots of what Pham Binh writes, so…I’m just learning and a bit gullible.
If I can take the time to find it, Binh’s piece from 2011 (iirc) on social movements dying in the Democratic Party was spot on.
Good on you, and TRRN has a video on worker-owned businesses I’d hope to put up sometime, as well as a so-so one on union myths.
Thanks for the link… those folks are awesome!
Thanks for the link… I’ve also grown to deeply mistrust the mainstream Democratic party as sucking the life out of genuine grass-roots movements!
Best. Youtube. Evah.
Rec’d. Thank you Antipanglossian.
Howdy, stranger. Ain’t seen ya around these parts much, least not in my neck o the woods.
Just doing my usual of getting in more trouble.
Hope all is well with you and mr wd!
The brazen theft from working people somehow has not brought a reaction.
60 million dollars donated by rich people to start the FiX The DEbt lobby so as to steal Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid from those who depend upon benefits which they paid for! The elite class is unified and willing to fight for austerity with their own dollars.
When Galbraith offered increasing the minimum wage as a ‘big deal’ I was wrong to scoff at his modesty. Yet, now I think he was right. Look at the forces arrayed against providing for the minimum of human rights.
Hedges said recently that the elites determine the form of reforms and changes, so we will have to wait and watch for their overreach. Wendydavis’s article seems insightful regarding the propensity to be attached to labor freedom, personal property, and opportunity as barriers to moving away from capitalism.
I am hopeful that after we all are done with suffering, human rights will re-emerge and become popular again. I have lived through years of economic terror of the kind which FDR spoke about in his October 31st, 1936 speech. I am ready for change, but I don’t think others are ready for change.
Thanks for posting your thoughts.
Thanks Tom Thumb! We should be seeing more outrage, for sure. But I’m encouraged that even certain gullible, socially conservative folks I’ve known for years aren’t buying Pete Peterson’s snake oil.
Recced!
I’m a Socialist. I don’t believe in the abolition of private property, though. I find that idea, well, silly. I DO believe in limits to the wealth that any individual, family, or legal entity can accumulate.
Good post, BTW. Rec from the old barbarian.
Bill Moyers just interviewed Richard Wolff this past week… Economist Richard Wolff on Capitalism Run Wild…
Great interview…!
Heh! An Indian professor whom I highly respected once said that Communism never caught on in India because the Indians had been exposed to Christianity.
Christian missionaries shouted, “The Second Coming!” When Communists came along later and shouted “The Revolution!,” most Indians thought, “Oh, yeah, we’ve heard that one before.”
Guess what I’m saying is that we no longer have time for doctrinaire approaches to real, necessary change. That said, I STILL think capitalism itself is an evil that cannot be reformed, only destroyed, and that is where liberals and social democrats fall short in my book.
The question is: What should replace capitalism? I do not have a definitive answer to that. But it’s got to go. It’s a threat to the species and the biosphere itself.
It’s nice all right.
I’ll be watching the Richard Wolff interview tomorrow evening with some friends in the neighborhood over dinner and beer. I’m bringing dinner. They’ve got the humongous TV.
This is in reply to greenwarrior, who will be watching the show, along with some of the accolade for Richard Wolff in comments above. I’ve been looking at comments on nakedcapitalism.com and would recommend wendy’s link above at #2. I also waded through a large number of comments at the Moyers site and came a long way through to the following:
“Annette Tchelka •
I always enjoy hearing Richard Wolff speak, but I disagree with him about regulation. As long as we had Glass Steagall in place Wall Street did not fail. By overturning it we had the collapse in 2008. The regulation did not fail, lobbying to circumvent it and then overturn it caused the failure. Too much collusion between Washington and Wall Street. Washington needs to do more to protect the rest of us against the depradations of Wall Street…
…The greedy few are too blind and smug to see that eventually the system will collapse because it has become unsustainable.”
This, along with a comment against prosecution of wrongdoers were two points in Mr. Wolff’s argument that I found unsupported. And the clincher for me was that he stated FDR’s reforms hadn’t worked, when they did work for a half century for many Americans.
That said, it would seem certain that a collapse is going to become reality – but I think we cannot blame well-regulated capitalism for the inevitable collapse of the monstersized warprofiteering oligarchy we call capitalism today. Surely our memories are not that short? If they indeed are, we are in a sorry state, ready to latch onto the first snakeoil salesman that pretends to offer us a cure.
We know what’s wrong; we just need to fix it. Practically speaking, it may seem less exciting than other avenues for redress, but it may be our only solution. This is not to say a revolution is not the answer – as far as society went, what the American revolutionaries did was not to change their way of life; it was to free themselves from a royal tyranny bent on extracting their common wealth.
So too must we.
Wolff’s point about the failure of regulation was historically based on the idea that FDR sought to save capitalism and stave off revolution by passing reforms that would forever be safe from meddling because the price would be too high. He is correct because capitalists began attacking those reforms as early as 1947 with Taft-Hartley.
The Democratic party has now become a fully owned auxiliary arm of Wall Street, evidenced by President Prettywords total failure to protect the public from predatory capitalism and by touting meaningless empty reforms such as Dodd-Frank which does nothing to curtail capitalists, and all but assures another major crisis, recycling much more quickly this time. All Dodd-Frank did in reality was to codify TBTF, just as the main point of the ACA was to entrench Insurance, Pharma, and corporate hospitals more deeply into a dysfunctional system. The Democrats answers societal problems such as these is to find the most egregious aspects of bad systems and make them stronger and more influential while demanding tribute for saving us from the “Bad Cop” side of the Uniparty by initiating the same policies “Bad Cop” proposes. (Seriously, how hard would you have laughed had a Republican told you five or six years ago, that a liberal Constitutional Law Professor would pass the Heritage Foundation’s health care “reform” proposal after running it through the lobbyists of Pharma, Insurance, and Hospital chains to remove the parts they really didn’t care for, then set out to destroy the safety net to pay for He and Bush’s wars, tax cuts for the rich, and bail out of failed Investment Banks?)
Marx said that the death knell of Capitalism would be hyper financialization, sound familiar to anyone? One in six citizens of the world’s richest (on paper) country, the U.S., have food insecurity. 17% of housing in this country doesn’t have complete plumbing, infrastructure is collapsing, education is being cannibalized for profit, and the top 3% have accrued 120% of the “recovery”. How can anyone say this system can, must, or even should be saved?
Thanks OB! One place we could be start would be imposing very severe (90%?) estate taxes on the fortunes of the obscenely wealthy…
“This system” (as it is today) should certainly not be saved… what remains in doubt is whether we could replace it with a system that still allowed private property. If you say no, then you’re going to have a hard time convincing Americans to join the revolution without making clear how the new society would be substantially different from the Soviet or Chinese model…
Reforms to the capitalist system will inevitably backslide as long as they are viewed, as FDR likely viewed them, as a means of forestalling more radical changes. Even if the reforms are valuable in themselves, this type of attitude marginalizes those on the left.
There was only one era in modern American history when there was at least a partial continuum between liberal and more radical ideas, extending into socialist ideas, and that was the period immediately before World War I. Although the actual scope of the reforms implemented in that period was much smaller in scope than the sweeping reforms of the New Deal, the mindset many of the ruling Progressives was much broader. If judged by this standard, Theodore Roosevelt, despite his many limitations, was the most progressive president between Lincoln and the present day. This period, roughly 1901 (the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency) to 1914 (start of World War I) should be studied extensively by those wishing to change American society for the better.
Any system (and you do need a system) will fail in the manner described if the parties in power are not working for the common good, (and there will be parties in power.) The hard part about starting a revolution is that matters fluctuate the way we are seeing them fluctuate in destabilized countries around the world, so that there is little chance for the ideal construct of government to be realized in the chaos.
Failure wasn’t inevitable; in fact when our system began to fail it was still possible to correct it had we had honorable people in power – both Roosevelts did that as president. They were not superhuman but human. It was hard; they did what they did. The system made that humanly possible. And it was a system constructed with a lot more acumen than we have presently available. Obviously not perfect, but a practical system of government which would work if it were being followed the way it was set up to work.
Maybe what we need is not a revolution but a re-action, which I do think was what happened here when stability was preserved while the British oligarchy was sent packing. Different from what happened in France, historically speaking, but similar to what we need to happen now.
Not many folk can construct an ideal system when chaos is what you have to work with. In fact, I can’t think of any, but I can think of many where despots got the upper hand pretty quickly. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I made a curried chickpea stew and braised bok choy with lots of garlic and my neighbors and I watched the taped Bill Moyers interview with Richard Wolff.
Agree that Glass-Steagall very much worked while we had it. I can also understand what Wolff and others are saying that the oligarchs have worked and will work single-mindedly to undo it or any of its relatives.
Right now we’re at a very low point of this ebb and flow. I look forward to Wolff returning to Bill Moyers and also coming to play with us on Book Salon here April 7. Thank goodness Moyers is having him on and having this discussion air on national TV.