I am neither an Anarchist nor a Communist. I'm not even a Socialist; not remotely close.
I believe in Capitalism and the power of the free market system. However, as I've blogged here, written in published articles, Tweeted, and posted ad nauseum on Facebook, the United States does not have a free market system; we don't have a level playing field where anyone and everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed; we don't practice the kind of "Capitalism" so frequently held up for all to see, particularly by GOP politicians and talking heads of late, as the foundation of America's greatness and "Exceptionalism."
I have posted a series of entries in this blog on the topic of American capitalism, focused on things said and done by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In "American Corporations Owe Nothing to American Workers, and That's a Big Part of the Problem," posted on November 14, 2011, I endeavored to explain the frequent disconnect between corporate profitability and domestic job-creation by U.S.-based companies, suggesting:
... only an increase in demand for a corporation's product or service will justify hiring one additional person under Friedman's profit maximization theory of why corporations exist. Giving corporations greater freedom to deploy their capital will neither assure that capital will be invested in the United States nor that the economic conditions will later exist to warrant increasing employment costs, by adding new employees (i.e. creating jobs). Furthermore, inasmuch as fully loaded employment costs (salaries, wages, benefits and allocable share of administrative costs) is oftentimes the largest component of Cost of Goods Sold, adding employees by definition directly reduces profitability.
On January 12th, in "Finally, Newt Gingrich Gets Two Things Right" I tried to draw a stark contrast between the cannibalistic Capitalism Mitt Romney practiced as founder and principal at Bain Capital with the kind of productive Capitalism most Americans associate with the Unites States of Opportunity, stating in relevant part:
There is no 'level playing field' because the largest corporations -- not the small businesses that account for the majority of jobs created in this country -- have an unfair competitive advantage over everyone else; only they can afford to pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually to lobbyists who write laws worth billions of dollars to them in revenue, and then get them passed through a corrupt legislative system where money talks. The 'Capitalism' that's practiced in this country is more like crony capitalism on the way up (where those with money, power or some combination of both reap the largest rewards through their undue influence over legislation and regulation), and Socialism on the way down (where the rich and powerful get the elected leaders in their back pockets to foist losses off onto the American people through bail-outs, new tax loopholes, and less regulation).
And finally, three weeks ago, I concluded this trilogy about what's wrong with the state of our capitalistic system with "It's the Inequality, Stupid': Mitt Romney's Failure to Comprehend the Plight of the 99%." In that January 20th blog entry I stated, among other things:
It's the Inequality, Stupid. As has been suggested in my last two blog posts, the GOP appears to be girding its collective loins to defend Capitalism to the death (the death of the 99%, of course; not their own) as their main response to every attack on Romney as being a rich, out-of-touch elitist whose wealth is a windfall from Bain's track record of engaging in Cannibal Capitalism; making extraordinary profits without regard to whether they were actually strengthening the companies in which they invested or not. [Emphasis added.]
And while I suspect I am not nearly done going after candidate Romney and his growing legion of GOP establishment surrogates and supporters on this issue, I have to acknowledge that he's far too easy of a target to keep this an intellectually stimulating endeavor. So this particular blog entry has nothing to do with the Bain Capital founder: It's about what the 99% can and should do to bring about the kind of Capitalism that made this country what it used to be. Much like my recent Capitalism trilogy then, this is the first in a series of three blog entries about how the 99% can, and should, work to change the system; to influence better outcomes for all. This is my Call to Action:
The fact of the matter is, the 99% account for the vast majority (but not proportionately so, of course) of domestic consumption in this country, yet the 99% exercise that consumptive power with little to no regard for the consequences of our purchases when either the means of production or the distribution of the profits are considered.
American consumers buy gas seemingly without regard to its price (as economists would say, gasoline is "price inelastic," at least to a point); without regard to the excessive profitability that rapidly rising prices create for Big Oil; without regard to the extent that unbridled consumption of gasoline fouls of air quality because we drive places to which we might have easily walked or taken public transportation.
NFL and collegiate football fans pay $300.00 for "authentic" Michael Vick, Philadelphia Eagles jerseys, without regard to Vick's heinous killing and torture of dozens and dozens of dogs, through his Bad Newz Kennels dog-fighting business (presumably, in Romney's world, a successful, entrepreneurial enterprise,... until it was shut-down by authorities).
American consumers of pop-culture make pseudo-celebrities out of people like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, who's only talents seem to be the possession of wealth or aspirations to acquire and display opulently the trappings of wealth, when there are real heroes like the men and women who've served in the U.S. military or important researchers and writers like Jeff D. Sachs and Mike Daisey (more on each of them in future blog entries), who receive an infinitesimally small fraction of the attention garnered by these pseudo-celebrities, despite the underlying merits of the former's daily endeavors.
American consumers love music and music videos, and often deify (or at least glorify) the bands and artists who write and perform the music they covet; nonetheless these same consumers routinely cheat their musical idols out of the fruits of their labor by not paying for the music they routinely download from "sharing" sites that facilitate the piracy of intellectual property.
And American consumers buy, in record numbers each year, new products like the iPhone4S and iPad2, without any regard whatsoever for how these products are produced or what this system of global production means for the workers and residents of the countries in which cheap labor means somewhat less-expensive U.S. products or for the larger, adverse consequences to our own economy.
The irony here then, is no matter how much others and I might decry, in the name of the 99%, the moneyed-maneuvering and influence-purchasing of those who practice variants of Capitalism predicated on gaming the system in their favor, only the 99% have the opportunity to fundamentally change these unpleasant outcomes.
So, it's time for the 99% to put up or shut up; time to "vote with our wallets and pocketbooks"; time to act as much like the "good global citizens" our rhetoric suggests we want everyone else in the world to be. This is my Call to Action: Watch this space.
Follow Peter Smirniotopoulos on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@PSmirn
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
History tells us this is true, including our "Good War" WWII, the situation resulted in the creation of what are now KBR (Brown&Root), Haliburton (Bush and Walker families) and Cargill (whose bloodlines I don't know--yet.)
The Constitution is about the debtors of the Colonial Government getting repaid (all signatories are major debtors), control of natural resources for the benefit of the signatories, and land ownership (only for the Crown, in England.) None of them felt "obliged" to end slavery ("our peculiar institution," Jefferson called it, banned a century earlier in England, another impetus to break from the Crown) and reap the monumental profits at incalculable cost to "the welfare" of the citizens who have been trapped for centuries in the American Lie.
America is a corporation, the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. For a contract to be enforceable, it must offer something to each party, quid pro quo. The Bill of Rights (which was almost left out) is the people's contractual "benefit", ergo, while the Constitution falsely posits the "welfare" concerns of the Founders as so important as to be definitively included in the preamble, it was just one small piece of bait on the hook for the immigrants who would eventually supercede slaves as a source of cheap, exploitable labor.
If we study the Constitution, the word meanings, the ideology--especially underlying feudal concepts--it becomes apparent that the elite, propertied Englishmen who re-wrote the Articles of Confederation, did so to secure their place as quasi-monarchs, e.g., *owners of real property and the machinery of production*. Capitalism is no different than feudalism, it's merely a matter of semantics.
A "landlord" is still a "lord"; our real-estate terminology derives from British Common Law; many of our legal constructs have been handed down from that source, itself borne of feudal relationships to property and obligation. It is this "obligation" that has not survived feudalism. Perhaps when the Constitution's preamble was written, the words "secure the welfare" had more import then, since the complaints enumerated in the Declaration were directed against one person, King George III; totally and completely unlike the Rights of Man that evolved from the French Revolution, in which the word "king" makes no appearance. (cont.)
Read the book Cannibal Capitalism and see what’s driving the “Occupy Wall Street” Movement, the “Real” Class Warfare that Warren Buffett talked about, how Cannibal Capitalism undermines our meritocracy and ideal capitalism, the keys to getting the millions of unemployed back to work, why housing must be subsidized, why those calling for a return to the gold standard don’t get it, the fiscally conservative, business case for universal healthcare, why “going green” must include hydrogen as a principle transportation fuel, and why and how American workers can embrace globalization.
I don't see a difference between the candidates in the US worth noting, to me watching this election is exactly like watching the Politburo select another anonymous old man to lead. If reality is a 180 degree spectrum, our political discourse takes place in 12 degrees of that spectrum and the difference between Gingrich and Romney is 1 degree. When no one can or will speak of the poisoning of our earth, the scarcity of resources, planning for the health of our grandchildren, the infection of money into democracy, the bloat of consumerism in our own souls, then what we have left over is a lot of fuss over relatively minor things.
Think big, Peter. Love and solidarity from Cambridge
Rachel
Because the problems that concern you cannot be addressed by laws and regulations until they are addressed in people's hearts. Until people see that the unthinking support of capitalism as now practiced has vastly immoral components. Over here in the UK there is basically a consensus among public figures that the government and the market both require a morality. Make no mistakes, it is about values everywhere, about how much you value your comfort over justice, about how much you are willing to stand up to the creeping monetization of medicine, law and happiness. How much are you, today, willing to shrink the consumerist in your own soul. This is some personal stuff!
I could list all the reasons why I would not ever support Obama as I have before on Facebook but I won't. I have reservations about all the candidates even Ron Paul. Possibly your call to action is to THINK before one writes, speaks, acts and buys. We live in the greatest country in the world--and we still have the right to squander and despoil as well as the prudency of the practice of stewardship--which is my preference and the right of free speech and freedom of religion--so far! Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts an an erudite manner once again.
Isabella Hale
I preface my comment to part three of your Trilogy about Capitalism; social experimentation with OP's money; support for the 99% with your very own words describing what you do for a living--obviously an attorney who moves large amounts of money in one direction or another. Since you live in Falls Church some of that money moves into your bank account.
I sincerely am trying to understand what your true call to action is, Peter. Ostensibly you do not consider yourself in the 1% group; then by default you are in the 99% group. Please don't quote failed economic theory, I lean towards the Austrian school of economics--long before Ron Paul mentioned it, I am a Von Mises Facebook. What is it you expect people to do? You buy music; you watch Football; you have a TV; you drive a car; you have a family to support; all that sounds like Capitalism to me Peter--what exactly is your call to action? Support Obama for four more years of left wing failed policy?
Furthermore, your presumption, that consumers could possibly nudge capitalism towards its fairy-tail ideal, does not hold up. The working class does not (yet) control enough capital to override the directives of the ruling class. Now, if they can become selective workers, in addition to becoming selective consumers, they stand a chance. But that means organization, industrial unions, general strikes, and other forms of resistance. It means overthrowing capitalism, via direct action, not reforming it.
Capitalism is not simply "what happens when people exchange goods and services." You described, albiet crudely, a market. Markets are not inherently capitalist as long as the participants only exchange the products of their own labor and not that which they have extorted or stolen. A capitalist market, on the other hand, is practically devoid of the products of honest labor. Rather, only those with sufficient capital may participate in them, and they do with with products that they have extracted from workers via exploitation.
I think by Soviet Socialist Union you meant the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If not I am curious to learn about the state that to which you referred. Anyway, please be aware that the USSR was, in fact, a capitalist state. What differentiated it from its rival capitalist empire, the United States of America, was that only the state could legally practice capitalism. Its citizens had a hard time organizing cooperatively. When they tried, their state would typically put them down. Why? Because the state was everyone's employer and would not stand to reliquish any of its authority. That employers in the United States operate in a similar way should not go unnoticed.
Capitalism is at its pure form one of the best systems. Reaching out to be the best you can be is what it stands for. Some are better at things than others. To say that everyone gets equal treatment is not what it is. some will naturally rise to the top and prosper. It is up to all, the top or bottom, to be the best they can be and do the best they can. The so called 99% do not exist anywhere except in someones mind. It is a made up number that you think classify's everyone not rich as one. That is not true on its face. There are more to the bottom numbers then anyone makes out. When the people stand up and are counted that fictitious number gets thrown out.
Noun:
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.