Archive for the ‘Capitalism’ Category


ETHICAL, adj. An archaic term. In the world of commerce, it has been supplanted to some extent by the concept “legal,” and to a great extent by the concept “detectable.”

The Devil’s Dictionaries. Definition by Chaz Bufe.

The Devil's Dictionaries front cover

 



Graphic from Show Me the Money

Graphic from Tony Honnicutt’s always entertaining and informative ‘zine — yes! ‘zines still exist! — Show Me the Money. Available from Show Me the Money, P.O. Box 48161, Coon Rapids, MN 55448. Donations appreciated.


Provocations, by Chaz Bufe, front coverby Chaz Bufe, author of Provocations: Don’t Call Them Libertarians, AA Lies, and Other Incitements

The Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014 can be traced to the waning months of 2008. That was when Obama fired his progressive economic advisors, the first sign of Obama’s coming wholesale betrayal of those who elected him. Out went Robert Reich and Robert Rubin and in came Wall Street insiders Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.  When Obama needed economic campaign rhetoric, he turned to the progressives. When he needed to set economic policy, he turned to Wall Street. This is prima facie evidence of deliberate betrayal.

The progressives had been pushing for a huge stimulus–somewhere around $2 trillion, which would have been enough to jump start the economy and put people back to work in short order. Instead, Obama asked for and got an $800 billion stimulus package (much of it in the form of tax reductions, one of the least efficient ways to stimulate the economy), which was enough to keep the economy from totally collapsing, but not enough to put significant numbers of people back to work.

The House and Senate Democratic “leadership” (an oxymoron on the level of “ex-gay,”  “humble televangelist,” or “compassionate conservative”) was more than happy to play along. In particular, Harry Reid could have changed the rules of the Senate and run it on the basis of simple majority rule. He didn’t. Instead, he left the old rules in place, which in effect required a super-majority (60 votes) to pass any significant legislation.

We all know what followed economically: continued massive unemployment; continuation of the decline in median wages that began near the time Bush took office; creation of relatively few new jobs, mostly low wage jobs; millions of people losing their homes in the foreclosure crisis; tens of millions more losing a major part of their savings as their home equity declined–and a huge rebound in stock prices and record corporate profits.

At the same time, Obama and the Democrats in Congress did nothing to investigate, let alone prosecute, the banksters responsible for crashing the economy, the banksters responsible for the greatest financial fraud in world history. And there were plenty of bank and other criminals to prosecute, if the Obama Administration had wanted to; it didn’t. (If you doubt this, read Matt Taibbi’s works on the topic, particularly Griftopia.) As Attorney General Eric Holder stated last year–demonstrating in a single phrase why he’s unfit to hold office–the major banks are “too big to jail.”

The Obama Administration and its minions in Congress also did nothing to investigate, let alone prosecute, those responsible  for lying the U.S. into an illegal, disastrous war of aggression in Iraq. Its record on torture is similarly shameful. Even as I write, the Obama Administration is trying to bury a Senate report on torture under the Bush/Cheney Administration.

What did Obama do instead? What did Obama deliver? About the only thing he delivered on was a healthcare plan, and even there he didn’t even try to deliver what was needed: a single-payer or some other type of public plan. Instead, he delivered a half-assed–more accurately, quarter-assed–plan that let the insurance companies continue to siphon billions from the healthcare system and that has left tens of millions uninsured.

At the same time, despite promises that he’d have “the most open administration in history,” Obama almost from day one began to ruthlessly persecute whistle blowers and journalists.  He also ramped up the the mass surveillance of American citizens begun under Bush, to the point where nearly everyone is under constant surveillance by the NSA and other government agencies.

In the face of this wholesale betrayal, Obama appeared stunned at the Republican rout of Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. In 2008, a majority of the country wanted major change, which Obama promised. Instead, he cynically betrayed those who had voted for him in almost every single particular.

And he thought he could get away with it. His attitude prior to the midterms seemed to be, “Hey punks! Who you gonna vote for? The Republicans? Huh?  I don’t think so. You’re gonna take what I’m dishing out, and like it!”

Well, a lot of people didn’t like it; they decided not to reward betrayal with their votes, setting the stage for what followed: Republican takeovers of state legislatures across the country, voter suppression on a mass scale, and widespread gerrymandering, which ensured continuing Republican dominance in both state legislatures and Congress. (For example, in Ohio, which Obama carried in both 2008 and 2012, Republicans hold 12 of the 16 congressional seats.)

With Obama continuing his hypocritical, corporate-toadying, anti-civil liberties, war criminal-coddling policies since the 2010 debacle, it’s little wonder that progressives are disillusioned and apathetic. It’s little wonder that Republicans have continued to cement their hold on power.

Right-wingers are fond of pointing out Barack Obama’s middle name: “Hussein.” What they fail to point out is that that middle name is inappropriate: it should be “Judas.”



Graphic by Tony Hunnicutt

Graphic from Tony Honnicutt’s always entertaining and informative ‘zine — yes! ‘zines still exist! — Show Me the Money. Available from Show Me the Money, P.O. Box 48161, Coon Rapids, MN 55448. Donations appreciated.


Provocations, by Zhaz Bufe, front cover(This is a slightly edited version of a piece from our new book, Provocations: Don’t Call Them Libertarians, AA Lies, and Other Incitements, by Chaz Bufe. It’s available as both a trade paperback and as an e-book.)

 

Politicians, the corporate media, and the miseducation system routinely present voting as the only legitimate route to political and social change.

But is it? Because of if its very nature, voting cannot lead to fundamental change. No matter who you elect, no matter if you elect “better people,” there will still be some giving orders and others forced to take them, because of the threat, and often the application, of institutionalized violence (police, prisons, the military). When you vote, all you’re doing is choosing who’s in charge of the inherently repressive state apparatus. If your goal is a noncoercive, free and equal society, you cannot get from here to there; you cannot get there through voting.

A brief glance at the Western democracies confirms this. No one in his or her right mind would contend that centuries of electoral politics have brought anything approaching full freedom and equality to the US or the UK. The best that voting seems capable of producing is the social-democratic systems of the Scandinavian countries. But even there, you still have government (organized coercion) and capitalism–an ecocidal system of economic inequality, with some giving orders and others forced to take them–overlaid by a veneer of social welfare measures.

Of course, this veneer matters. It reduces–but doesn’t come close to eliminating–the economic inequality inherent to capitalism. Publicly funded healthcare, education, childcare, food assistance, public transit, unemployment benefits, and retirement benefits all make the day-to-day lives of poor and working people in capitalist countries much more bearable than they would otherwise be. But at the same time, such social welfare measures are almost certainly at the outer limit of what electoral politics can deliver. Centuries of cumulative experience in dozens of electoral democracies strongly suggest this is so.

If you’re content with that, fine. But don’t pretend that that’s freedom and equality. Even in the best social-democratic system, you’ll still have a relatively small number of politicians, bureaucrats, and capitalists giving orders and the vast majority of people forced to take them. In other words, you’ll still have ruling elites.

Given this, is voting a useless or worse-than-useless activity? No. It’s silly to pretend that it is. The social welfare programs mentioned above are worthwhile, and were achieved in good part through the electoral process. As well, initiatives and referendums–for example, on marijuana legalization–can clearly be of public benefit. One might also ask, if voting is useless, why are theofascist Republicans so intent on denying black people, latinos, the poor, and young people the right to vote?

At the same time, belief that voting is the sole legitimate means of social change is harmful. It induces many idealistic young people to waste huge amounts of time on political campaigns. A great many, probably most, eventually recognize the ultimate futility of electoral politics and burn out. Believing that there are no other means to social change, they lapse into cynicism and inactivity. This cycle repeats decade after decade after decade.

But that’s not to say voting is entirely useless. It can produce limited reforms. Recognizing its marginal utility, Howard Zinn once remarked that voting takes five minutes, so why not?

Just don’t waste much time on it, and don’t expect it to fundamentally change anything.


Publishing industry newsletter Shelf Awareness reports that in the third quarter Amazon lost a staggering $437 million, compared with a $41 million loss a year ago, while net sales were up 21.6% over the same period in 2013 to $20.58 billion., which was below industry forecasts. (The losses were in part due to the total flop of Amazon’s  Fire phone, which was years in development and cost Amazon untold millions in R&D.) As a result of its continuing losses (95 cents a share in the third quarter), its below-forecast sales growth, and its continued large issuings of stock to itsexecutives  ($1.4 billion worth over the last year, with another $470 million coming in the fourth quarter), Amazon–which has never paid a dividend to its stockholders–has seen its stock price drop over 30% since its all-time high of $408.06 in late 2013 to $279.75 now.

Summing up the situation, Matthew Finston, on the financial site SeekingAlphawrites:  “The company gets to handsomely award management, exploit its employees, short-change investors [by diluting stock], and when all is said and done Amazon gets a nice little tax deduction from Uncle Sam.”

Interestingly, Amazon’s media sales (books, e-books, movies, tv shows) grew only 4.8% over its third-quarter 2013 sales. One suspects that physical book sales were the least robust in that area, likely because of the huge amount of adverse publicity Amazon generated for itself via its very public dispute with Hachette over e-book pricing. This 4.8% growth is by far the slowest Amazon has ever experienced in that area, and is far from impressive given the ever-expanding number of titles in all of its “media sales” categories.

Finally, one  factor nobody in the book biz is talking about that accounts in part for Amazon’s previously very robust growth in book sales is, quite probably, falling working and middle class income. Average income fell again last year by a small amount ($79), but median income (half above, half below) has fallen a staggering 12% since G.W. Bush took office in 2001, and it has not recovered under Obama’s corporate-friendly regime. When people are feeling pressured economically, they cut back on spending, and they become very price conscious.  In the case of books, that pushes them into the arms of Amazon, which uses books (7% of its total sales) as loss leaders. (A great many of the other products Amazon offers are not bargains.)

For another take on Amazon, we’d recommend Jim Hightower’s piece on Alternet.

 


Alexander Berkman“The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.

“But did you really consent?

“When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You “consent” all right…

“Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman’s gun,

–Alexander Berkman, What Is Anarchism?