Put-Our-Rich-Criminals-in-Check Global Emporium

I did not lump the wealthy all together. I spent a fair amount of time describing wealth that wasn’t Trumpist or even substantially exploitative of anyone but themselves. As a said, I riffed Rump only slightly. You took that, ran with it, and ignored the majority of what I said; at least, that’s how I feel. I get that a lot, it’s my fault. I mumble a bit.

So, without allusion and without taking much from a broad palette of hatred for the rich, let me state it plainly: the rich work themselves into a corner the more wealthy they are. That corner has a Rockefeller flavor, a Carnegie flavor, a Koch flavor, a Trump flavor, whatever flavor the name is. They’re rich enough they earn their own flavor even when they’ve stopped earning anything else.

With increasing wealth they will reach a point where they cannot be effective with their wealth except to create an authoritarian corporate hive and keep growing. The hours in the day do not increase with their wealth so they cannot do more actual work. They must turn to more value-added methods to make their hours more effective.

They buy labor and plant, then go on to buy out their competitors labor and plant, then go on to put a stop to others building labor and plant to build as close to a monopoly as they can. There they sling overpriced, mediocre goods, like Bill Gates. His company and the choads that he brought up to keep it going (who themselves have gone on to be very successful athletic team owners :roll_eyes:) have sucked more value out of the global economy from lost work hours than any one government could have. But he’s been working on malaria, so that’s all good.

Like Warren Buffett they may become a pure investor and buy a company like Precision Cast Parts, a Portland company whose reputation among their employees is among the worst of anyone I’ve ever heard. PCP (or whatever they’re called now) is incredibly profitable because they squeeze their employees for as much labor as they can give, denying them any life, discriminating freely against women and minorities (for reduced wages at that workload, if nothing else)… and what do they make? War shit. But yes, they’re relentlessly profitable, so go Warren Buffett! And he gave nothing to his kids and grandkids that someone with four less zeros wouldn’t give them! What a sweetheart.

They may play on the celebrity of wealth to make themselves a brand. If it ends there, you get Anderson Cooper, a bland media personality who brings some awareness to causes between daily rounds of sensationalized, fluffy snoozery and other bullshit.

I can say bad things about George Soros too, if you like. Talk about a guy trying to buy his way into the good graces of the kind of rich people who try very hard to believe in democracy so long as that democracy doesn’t reflect the economic dysfunctions at their core.

Even three examples of not-Trumps who aren’t as evil as Trump don’t look too great given the control they exercise. They’re still a blight. Where they’ve become hivelords of corporate monopolies, they are hivelords of corporate monopolies. Where they’ve become a rabid champion of reliably high profitability, that’s still what they are. Where they’ve hit their limits and haven’t figured out how to be truly effective by fighting directly against their class, they’re pretty useless at keeping wealth in check.

I apologize for taking this too personally and for taking so long to get back. Work has been stressful, the Elsewhere was moving on a kind of a vague timetable, and I’ve been puking up jelly-like flu-cous for three days now.

I hope you are all doing better than that.

4 Likes

Where do you draw the ideological line on that? Are the Nordic economies capitalist? Is Bernie a capitalist [1]?

.

[1] Incidentally, the DSA crowd would mostly say that Bernie is just barely socialist. The left-of-the-DSA activists mostly deny that he’s a socialist at all.

1 Like

The Nordic economies and the type of politics that Bernie is expounding are both profoundly capitalist, albeit with some socialist policies.

“Capitalism” and “socialism” aren’t antonyms, despite what some Americans would have you believe. Until you abolish the exchange of goods and services for accrued capital (and competition for said capital) completely, the economy of any given society is capitalist, even if it has socialist policies (such as a minimum wage, universal healthcare, or a universal basic income) in place.

Admittedly, capitalism can be predatory or it can be largely benign but as I said earlier “fuck the poor” isn’t an inherent quality of capitalism itself. Neoliberalism is the enemy here, not capitalism as a concept.

5 Likes

I freely admit to being inadequately educated on Marxist theory; I was a psychopharmacologist, not a political economist. My understanding of the terminology is rather imprecise.

However, it looks to me like you’re defining anything that isn’t communism as capitalism. In my use of the terminology, there is a broad spectrum of socialism between capitalism and communism.

:blush:

To me, communism is when you abolish capital completely; socialism is when you bring capital under the control of the working class. Which, in its mildest forms, has a surface appearance not too different from a social democratic capitalist economy.

3 Likes

I understand that these definitions of terms vary between people and locations but what you describe as socialism has much more in common with Marxism to my eyes.

The definitions that I am more familiar with would be broadly as follows: Marxism advocates the control of capital by the working class, while post-Marxist Communism advocates the complete abolition of capital, replaced with centralised distribution.

However, socialism doesn’t concern itself chiefly with capital redistribution (although this can be a side effect of reducing inequality through things like progressive taxation) but instead focuses on advancing social equality as its central tenet, as opposed to liberalism/conservatism, which focuses on reducing governmental barriers to individual wealth acquisition in order to improve the overall wealth of a society (and which largely fails at the latter part of that goal, imo).

According to these definitions (which seem to be British usage of the terms), both socialism and liberalism/conservatism are capitalist schools of thought, in that they do not seek to remove the free market from the equation, only reduce or increase legislation and the role of the state within the existing market-based economy.

Accordingly, both the post-war UK government (which brought about the NHS and strengthened the role of the unions) and Roosevelt’s New Deal government in the US were socialist in that they put social improvement, rather than deregulation, first. To say that they weren’t capitalist societies would be false though, given that both economies did extremely well, thanks to Keynesian injections of cash from the government that improved liquidity and the fact that neither government sought to abolish the trade of goods and services for capital, or the accrual of capital itself.

From my (British) point of view, the confounding of socialism with post-Marxist Communism is an intellectual device of the American right designed to discredit anything except liberal-conservative free market thinking. Given the context of the Cold War, I think it has been extremely effective (“you’re either a capitalist or a goddamn filthy socialist who wants to abolish money and the American way”) but I think it’s a distortion designed to smear anything to the left of an increasingly rightward-shifting middle ground and it irritates me profoundly…

9 Likes

Wandering through some industrial history

5 Likes

Any chance you’d be willing to post a quick glossary with your personal brief definitions of socialism, communism, capitalism, liberalism, fascism, anarchism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc? It’d be good if we can work out some common language here so we don’t all end up talking past each other.

Are you coming at this from some form of pre-Marx socialist perspective?

Despite some of my rhetoric, I’m not actually much of a radical. I spent most of my life as an extremely wet SocDem, although I’ve been shifting rapidly left over the last decade. Climate was the main initial driving force behind that, although my focus has expanded since then.

I’m still working out exactly what I believe and exactly how to describe it. My instinctive tendency is towards the left edge of a Nordic-style mixed economy under genuinely democratic control, but I am appreciative of and open to more radical ideas. On domestic economics, I lean towards Naomi Klein; on international politics, Akala.

Although I believe in the justice of the leftist approach, the main reason why I am trying to promote socialism at the moment has little to do with economics or conventional politics. To put it simply: socialists fight fascists, and that is what is required right now.

4 Likes
3 Likes

I’m not going to say that fighting fascism isn’t always important, but it’s reactive, not reforming or revolutionary. Putting the wealthy in check has been so unimportant for so long that everyone is on on the back foot, swamped by the need to hold the line against wealth’s inevitable private army of amateur and professional brownshirts.

As a faction that reacts against that, socialists are valuable, but that’s not really what I created the thread for. I’m not putting my foot down. The thread is owned by the community. I’m suggesting that there’s more radical and newer ways to fight the Man than joining the long, slow, slogging socialist retreat in the face of massive and bumbling hordes of lawyers and massive and broad displays of firepower. I want to investigate what might break the cycle we’ve been in since the Roman Republic.

For what it’s worth, socialists are good at investigating and reporting what’s happening (Naomi Klein). It plays into the reactive posture, not a revolutionary posture. They’re guardians of the people, for better or worse, but for worse it doesn’t put the rich on the back foot more than momentarily.

I’m looking more at reform and revolution and how they blend into each other. It’s true that Sanders is barely a socialist, ideologically, but he is both a reformer and a revolutionary. Reformers and revolutionaries aren’t inherently good or bad but Sanders has avoided a number of traps set for revolutionaries and reformers.

But we need more than just Bernie. We need revolutionary sticks, reforming carrots, and battling forces to push the multitudes of both forward.

6 Likes

Apologies for my contribution to the derail.

That’s pretty much the focus of Naomi’s recent work, No Is Not Enough

(crappy MSNBC-ness, but the interviews with real journalists were all 20+ minutes)

Or is your thought that the goals she proposes are too modest?

Which bits of Bernie’s approach do you see as revolutionary, and which bits as reformist? Which traps were you thinking of, and what do you think his plans are now?

Are you after immediate practical tactics or longer-term theoretical thoughts?

2 Likes

As a reformer, he got in! He has spent decades casting principled votes, far more than other Senatorial curmudgeons, shaming and naming, and not always making the precise choice another social democrat might make, but as an outsider battler against I have no real comment.

But no, curmudgeonry alone passed for a while as a face for happy, rascist DC powerbrokers. It took a real hippy to make it live. Now it has a real face that Mitch Mconn can’t say much against. He has brought a principle of curmudgeonry back to this country that no country can be without. Stalin never learned that lesson, and that makes Sanders a revolutionary.

2 Likes

I have little thought about the immediate. Bernie is still not a long-term story. Hit the wealthy where they hurt; they are stupid about everything but contract law and purchasing obedience. Work on that.

1 Like

I’ve been calling for the same for a while.

Most relevant quote from that link:

…which is what leads into my usual advocacy for an as-soon-as-possible US response along these lines:

As to how to make that happen? That’s more complicated, but I’d argue that it begins with community level organisation and a left-wing united front.

If you’re thinking with a more global perspective…well, in my view the USA is the lynchpin. Too much money, too much carbon, too many spies, too many soldiers; as goes the USA, so goes the world.

In the longer term…I don’t think that there really is much of a longer term if the Trumpists persist in power. Climate is an all-hands-on-deck urgent emergency; so is fascist control of the US military.

OTOH, if they’re overthrown, it will be via revolution rather than reform. And if that happens, many impossible things become possible.

4 Likes

The bit starting about ten minutes into this is on that topic:

The whole thing is pretty good.

1 Like
7 Likes

Except you ignore any pesky laws/regulations/taxes because you’re #disruptive

5 Likes
7 Likes
11 Likes

…which is also being advocated by others:

https://twitter.com/newleafhank/status/924520846021967875

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-current-state-of-the-us-economy-explained-in-one-chart/

3 Likes