It’s What’s for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner

Neo-feudalism that is.

We have mentioned neo-feudalism here at Camelotkidd enough that I think an explanation is in order. Let’s start with feudalism.

My New Oxford American Dictionary, defines feudalism as: “Historically the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants or serfs were obliged to live on their lords land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.”

So what is neo-feudalism?

Neo-feudalism is the resort to a private-public structure of governance, where the wealthy and corporations use the government for their own devices. (The demonization of government since Reagan was always meant to obscure this)

In his masterpiece, “The Predator State“, James K. Galbraith refers to the merging of corporate and State power as that

“coalition of relentless opponents of the regulatory framework……whose major lines of business compete with or encroach on the principal public functions of the enduring New Deal. It is a coalition, in other words, that seeks to control the state partly in order to prevent the assertion of public purpose and partly to poach on the lines of activity that past public purpose has established. They are firms that have no intrinsic loyalty to any country. They operate as a rule on a transnational basis, and naturally come to view the goals and objectives of each society in which they work as just another set of business conditions, more or less inimical to the free pursuit of profit….. As an ideological matter, it is fair to say that the very concept of public purpose is alien to, and denied by, the leaders and the operatives of this coalition.”

According to Wikipedia, neo-feudalism: “is a division of labour in which the state remains a key source of security through its access to violence, while non-state resources are mobilized to establish security networks that operate according to risk management principles. Among the clearest indicators of this is the difference between the security strategies employed within the new feudal domains that the emergence of ‘mass private property’ has established — for instance the security practices within places like Disney World — and the way in which poor neighbourhoods are policed through the use of target hardening strategies by police agencies and by private security agencies contracted to state agencies.[1]

“–As such, the commodification of policing and security operates to cement (sometimes literally) and exacerbate social and spatial inequalities generated elsewhere; serving to project, anticipate and bring forth a tribalised, ‘neo-feudal’ world of private orders in which social cohesion and common citizenship have collapsed.[9]

This prescient Wikipedia depiction continues. “A primary characteristic of neofeudalism is that individuals’ public lives are increasingly governed by business corporations, as Martha K. Huggins finds:

Besides public and private property, there is now an intermediate status that Shearing and Stenning label “mass public property,” where public activities take place within privately owned facilities that are guarded primarily by private security backed up by the formal police system. […]
Whether in Los Angeles, New York City, or Sao Paulo, as increasing amounts of public space become the real or de facto property of privileged apartment owners and business-run complexes like shopping centers and malls, these areas come to be defined, adjudicated, and regulated by the laws on private property and commercial legislation and practices. With more and more public life now taking place on privately owned mass public property, the definition of “deviance” within such areas turns on the particular logic of private ownership, profit-making, and resource protection. With “security” tailored to protect such spaces, social control agents shift their attention “from discovering and blaming wrongdoers to eliminating sources of…threats in the future”. Thus, as relatively heterogeneous urban public spaces are transformed into symbolically gated homogeneous private regions, and overburdened and fiscally strapped governments transfer responsibility for protecting and regulating “mass private property” to the private security forces attached to it, a “new class of ‘offenders’ [emerges] — those who create opportunities for threats against the interests of the client”. Such special interest social control fosters regions that resemble the “free trade zones” in developing countries, where international and national industry receive generous tax and political incentives from nation-states to establish or expand their business operations. Within such areas — whether designated “free-trade zones,” or as is more common, simply city blocks and shopping malls — business and industry are the de facto government. Shearing and Stenning label this a “new feudalism” and characterize such areas as huge tracts of property and associated public spaces that are controlled and policed by private corporations. These corporations develop an extensive security apparatus there, of which “uniformed security personnel are only the supervisory tip of the iceberg.” Out of such a marriage of business and government, a symbiosis emerges between the commercial sector’s own private security forces and the local government’s police forces.”

A pre-Christmas release of FBI documents, in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit initiated by The Partnership for Civil Justice, shows how the FBI, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, engaged in a crackdown on Occupy Wall Street. The FBI collusion with the nations largest banks depicts an emerging neo-feudal structure that should be viewed with alarm. “If you’ve been following the story of the official response to Occupy Wall Street, it was apparent that the 17 city paramilitary crackdown was coordinated; it came out later that the Department of Homeland Security was the nexus of that operation. The deep FBI involvement is a new and ugly addition to this picture.”

Partnership for Civil Justice executive director Maya Verheyden-Hilliard says, “The documents we’ve obtained show that the FBI was acting as a private intelligence and protective agency for Wall Street and the banks against people who are engaged in First Amendment-protected free speech activities.”

Following this revelation about how the government is working at the behest of Wall Street and the financial industry, it’s fair to ask–so who are the new nobility in our milieu of neo-feudalism?

Michael Hudson, a research professor of economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, says that, of course, the new nobility is made up of members of the financial industry. “What’s basically wrong is that the financial system is running the government. For years, Republicans and Democrats have both said that a strong government, careful regulation and progressive taxation are markers on the road to serfdom. The politicians and neoliberal economists who write their patter say, “Let’s take planning out of the hands of government and put it in the ‘free market.’” But every market is planned by someone or other. If governments step aside, then planning passes into the hands of the bankers, because of their key role in allocating credit.”

Hudson goes on to show how they are impoverishing the rest of us in his latest series of articles at Naked Capitalism“So despite the fact that the financial system is broken, it has gained control over public policy to sustain and even obtain tax favoritism for a dysfunctional overgrowth of bank credit. Unlike the progress of science and technology, debt is not part of nature. It is a social construct. The financial sector has politicized it by pressing to privatize economic rent rather than collect it as the tax base. This financialization of rent-extracting opportunities does not reflect a natural or inevitable evolution of “the market.” It is a capture of market structures and fiscal policy. Bank lobbyists have campaigned to shift the economic arena to the political sphere of lawmaking and tax policy, with side battlegrounds in the mass media and universities to capture the hearts and minds of voters to believe that the quickest and most efficient way to build up wealth is by bank credit and debt leverage.”

Even with the “financial cliff” averted, President Obama is still calling for more deficit reduction. But what exactly does that portend for the economy going forward into 2013?

Economist, Michael Hudson explains: “Wall Street lobbyists blame unemployment and the loss of industrial competitiveness on government spending and budget deficits – especially on social programs – and labor’s demand to share in the economy’s rising productivity. The myth (perhaps we should call it junk economics) is that (1) governments should not run deficits (at least, not by printing their own money), because (2) public money creation and high taxes (at least on the wealthy) cause prices to rise. The cure for economic malaise (which they themselves have caused), is said to be less public spending, along with more tax cuts for the wealthy, who euphemize themselves as “job creators.” Demanding budget surpluses, bank lobbyists insist that austerity can enable private-sector debts to be paid.”

“The reality is that when banks load the economy down with debt, this leaves less to spend on domestic goods and services while driving up housing prices (and hence the cost of living) with reckless credit creation on looser lending terms. Yet on top of this debt deflation, bank lobbyists urge fiscal deflation: budget surpluses rather than pump-priming deficits. The effect is to further reduce private-sector market demand, shrinking markets and employment. Governments fall deeper into distress, and are told to sell off land and natural resources, public enterprises, and other assets. This creates a lucrative market for bank loans to finance privatization on credit. This explains why financial lobbyists back the new buyers’ right to raise the prices they charge for basic needs, creating a united front to endorse rent extraction. The effect is to enrich the financial sector owned by the 1% in ways that indebt and privatize the economy at large – individuals, business and the government itself.”

Welcome to neo-feudalism bitches! Eat up. But, don’t you dare protest. The FBI is watching.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bowling Alone for Columbine

The world hasn’t ended yet, it just sometimes feels like it has.

In reading about the terrible massacre in Newtown Connecticut, and the responses to it by various political actors, it struck me that the gun culture in this country has a direct relation to the neo-feudalism I discuss regularly here at Camelotkidd.

When I grew up here in America, it was common for one parent, usually a father, to have a good job that paid the bills, provided a pension and healthcare, and allowed the other parent to stay home and raise the kids. There was also enough time to volunteer for church or school, coach Little League or be a Cub Scout den-mother. No longer. These days, Americans are under tremendous economic stress with both parents having to work, leaving little time for child rearing let alone community activities. They have to labor in a workplace that doesn’t provide nearly enough jobs, deal with horrible bosses who treat them like shit, and a corporate employer  who is realizing all their gains in productivity. The neo-liberal solution has been to take on more and more debt, which adds to the stress. Consequently, we have a “pressure cooker society awash in guns.

Mark Ames trenchant tome about workplace shootings, Going Postal, makes the argument that these sort of mass shootings are a recent phenomenon. According to Ames, these sorts of massacres have only been occurring since the Reagan administration and the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies. These sorts of economic policies have hit white working-class males especially hard. And, no surprise, white males are the ones pulling the trigger in these, all too frequent, mass murders.

That is why I find it more than ironic that the father of Newtown killer Adam Lanza, was a highly paid executive at General Electric. General Electric, under former CEO Jack Welsh, led the way in the sorts of “downsizing” and “off-shoring” that has decimated the jobs of these white working class males. Welch was known as “Neutron Jack” for his propensity for firing workers and leaving behind the factories. Welch often spoke about how given the choice, all his factories would be located on barges, so they could be moved to wherever the most desperate, cheapest labor existed.

These economic policies that Jack Welsh and GE  pioneered have been extremely detrimental to the majority of Americans. Policies that were largely enacted by using the oldest trick in the ruling elite playbook–divide and rule. Americans have been pitted against each other by race, class, ethnicity, gender and political identity.

Books such as Bowling Alone, have missed the real ramifications of such an atomization in the larger political-economy–deliberate policies of control by our new class of neo-feudal rulers. Also ignored is the elite intellectual embrace of the sort of Randian hyper-individualism where everyone is responsible for their outcome in life. We got a glimpse of this sort of thinking in the recent presidential campaign, where Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made infamous remarks before donors about how they really feel about their fellow citizens. With the sort of elimination rhetoric like moocher and parasite bandied about, it’s no wonder that Americans view each other with suspicion and fear.

Firmin Debrubander, in his article entitled The Freedom of an Armed Society, argues that guns increase this polorazation and make us less free. “…nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism…political and corporate interests aim at nothing less than “individualization,” since it is far easier to manipulate a collection of discrete and increasingly independent individuals than a community. Guns undermine just that — community. Their pervasive, open presence would sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all emotions that are corrosive of community and civic cooperation. To that extent, then, guns give license to autocratic government.”

According to Debrubander, “our gun culture promotes a fatal slide into extreme individualism. It fosters a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power — and one another — and in the aftermath of shootings such as at Newtown, paralyzed with fear. That is not freedom, but quite its opposite. And as the Occupy movement makes clear, also the demonstrators that precipitated regime change in Egypt and Myanmar last year, assembled masses don’t require guns to exercise and secure their freedom, and wield world-changing political force.”

As we have deconstructed America, we have created an armed, fearful society. Quite the opposite of  the “land of the free–home of the brave.”

What can we do about our gun culture? Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism offers some thoughts.

And, Charles Pierce has an excellent idea on how to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the damage their products do.

Update: The NRA just called for more guns in schools to protect us from guns in schools. Who could have predicted–an organization that exists to lobby for the gun industry coming up with a plan to sell more guns?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Too Big to Jail

I swear to God, if anyone tells me that we are a “country of laws,” I’m going to punch them in the face!

Glen Greenwald has more on our two tiered system of justice. Much more.

Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism connects the dots and produces the reason for the lack of prosecution of the too big to jail banks. And surprise, surprise, little Timmy‘s fingerprints are all over the murder weapon.

“And it’s an even more pernicious manifestation of the Geithner Doctrine. Not only does it entail refusing to mete out fitting punishment to banks and their executives, it also apparently entails hiding their misdeeds to avoid the annoying game of having to discipline them. After all, if you’re not going to do anything about bad behavior, why do you need to acknowledge that it exists? It’s so much more convenient to maintain the fiction that banks can be relied upon to do the right thing because they’d never want to suffer the reputational damage of being caught out. But with enablers like him, bank criminality would never come to light, by design, ending the fear of reputational harm.

I had assumed the insufferable arrogance of top bankers, which was a pronounced shift from their fearful state in late 2008 and early 2009, was the result of the Administration’s body language that it was fully committed to throwing its weight behind boosting their profit and their asset prices. But it may have had at least as much to do with their recognition that Geithner would make sure that none of their bad deeds would be punished.”

So, what to you want to bet that when little Timmy leaves the Treasury Department, he goes to work for one of the too big to fail banks?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Neo-feudalism

I have two friends. Let’s call them Dick and Jane. Dick and Jane graduated from an elite liberal arts college where they met and married. They both went on to get advanced degrees: Jane, a masters in language and Dick a doctorate in geology, respectively. Presently they teach at our state university.

Now you would expect this couple to be among the winners in our new creative economy; they went to college, got advanced degrees and worked hard. But you would be wrong. Recently, Dick had his post-doc funding cut and hasn’t taught in months. Jane, as an adjunct professor, is teaching nearly every class in her language department, making squat.

I think Dick and Jane’s story is representative of a larger trend. Nationally, our economy is becoming more and more concentrated between the haves and have nots. And the cover story of the American Dream–where that if you invest in higher education and work hard you’ll succeed–becomes more fictional.

Princeton economist and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman is the latest to notice this trend. “If this is the wave of the future, it makes nonsense of just about all the conventional wisdom on reducing inequality. Better education won’t do much to reduce inequality if the big rewards simply go to those with the most assets. Creating an “opportunity society”, or whatever it is the likes of Paul Ryan etc. are selling this week, won’t do much if the most important asset you can have in life is, well, lots of assets inherited from your parents. And so on.”

“I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn’t seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism — which shouldn’t be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications.”

So, what can we do about it without going all revolutionary?

Tax the rich!

Taxes on the wealthy, those making above $250,000, are supposed to rise, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a return to pre-Reagan tax rates for the wealthy. After all, “they own the place.”

I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll say it again–neo-liberalism and neo-consevatism are bringing about neo-feudalism.

Can I has some more, please sir?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Problem with Full-Employment

Today is a national day of action sponsored by AFSCME to tell Congress to support jobs not cuts to social programs. I called my Senators and Representatives, but it got me to thinking. In the wake of a financial crash that brought about the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the election of  a Democratic President promising Hope and Change, why haven’t we had a jobs program?

This isn’t a new question, by the way. One of the most influential economists that you have never heard of attempted to answer this very same question back in 1943. Michael Kalecki’s Political Aspects of Full Employment, is worth examining to see what has changed and what is still the same. Kalecki was a Polish economist in the Keynesian tradition, who realized that many of the arguments made against full-employment were political in nature rather than economic.

“There is a political background in the opposition to the full employment doctrine, even though the arguments advanced are economic.”

Examining Kalecki’s thesis, it’s clear that the political objections to full employment remain in place. Yet it is mystifying because as Kalecki states– “Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but entrepreneurs as well, because the latter’s profits rise.  And the policy of full employment outlined above does not encroach upon profits because it does not involve any additional taxation.  The entrepreneurs in the slump are longing for a boom; why do they not gladly accept the synthetic boom which the government is able to offer them?”

Kalecki doesn’t come right out and say it but I can. The opposition to full employment is ideological.

“Every widening of state activity is looked upon by business with suspicion, but the creation of employment by government spending has a special aspect which makes the opposition particularly intense.  Under a laissez-faire system the level of employment depends to a great extent on the so-called state of confidence.  If this deteriorates, private investment declines, which results in a fall of output and employment (both directly and through the secondary effect of the fall in incomes upon consumption and investment).  This gives the capitalists a powerful indirect control over government policy: everything which may shake the state of confidence must be carefully avoided because it would cause an economic crisis.  But once the government learns the trick of increasing employment by its own purchases, this powerful controlling device loses its effectiveness.  Hence budget deficits necessary to carry out government intervention must be regarded as perilous.  The social function of the doctrine of ‘sound finance’ is to make the level of employment dependent on the state of confidence.”

Wow! We just had a Presidential election where one candidate made the argument that the economy remained sluggish because investors lacked “confidence.” His other implicit argument was that the “captains of industry,” like him, are the real job creators, not the evil government bureaucrats.

Kalecki continues to articulate more reasons for the resistance to full employment. “Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the ‘sack’ would cease to play its role as a ‘disciplinary measure.  The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow.  Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension.  It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests.  But ‘discipline in the factories’ and ‘political stability’ are more appreciated than profits by business leaders.  Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the ‘normal’ capitalist system.”

What are the business solutions to unemployment? Glad you asked. In Kalecki’s milieu as in ours there is always the tried and true.

” In current discussions of these problems there emerges time and again the conception of counteracting the slump by stimulating private investment.  This may be done by lowering the rate of interest, by the reduction of income tax, or by subsidizing private investment directly in this or another form.  That such a scheme should be attractive to business is not surprising.  The entrepreneur remains the medium through which the intervention is conducted.  If he does not feel confidence in the political situation, he will not be bribed into investment.  And the intervention does not involve the government either in ‘playing with’ (public) investment or ‘wasting money’ on subsidizing consumption.”

So what can we expect going forward?

“This state of affairs is perhaps symptomatic of the future economic regime of capitalist democracies.  In the slump, either under the pressure of the masses, or even without it, public investment financed by borrowing will be undertaken to prevent large-scale unemployment.  But if attempts are made to apply this method in order to maintain the high level of employment reached in the subsequent boom, strong opposition by business leaders is likely to be encountered.  As has already been argued, lasting full employment is not at all to their liking.  The workers would ‘get out of hand’ and the ‘captains of industry’ would be anxious to ‘teach them a lesson.  Moreover, the price increase in the upswing is to the disadvantage of small and big rentiers, and makes them ‘boom-tired.’

In this situation a powerful alliance is likely to be formed between big business and rentier interests, and they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound.  The pressure of all these forces, and in particular of big business — as a rule influential in government departments — would most probably induce the government to return to the orthodox policy of cutting down the budget deficit.  A slump would follow in which government spending policy would again come into its own.”

Amazingly prescient. No wonder you have never heard of Kalecki. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Things that make me want to guzzle anti-freeze

Taking Charles Pierces signature phrase out for a test drive.

Lately, the so-called “financial cliff” reporting makes me too want to guzzle anti-freeze. The dominant narrative every day about the scary, scary “financial cliff” drives home the fact that we really do have a horrible press. Let us count the ways:

1) We are not Greece. If I hear one more politician or reporter compare the US to Greece, I swear, I will scream.

2) Our budget is not like a family budget, in that it has to be balanced.

3) We have a fiat currency, in that we are sovereign in our own currency, and we can never go broke.

4) They–The Republicans–always run up the debt when in office, then scream about it as soon as a Democratic President is in office–see Bill Clinton.

5) They don’t really care about the debt–Cheney famously said that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

6) They only care about tax cuts for the wealthy, full stop.

7) Creating lots of Government debt as an excuse to cut social programs has been their plan since Reagan–“starve the beast”

8) In a related aside, They have been trying to undo New Deal and Great Society social programs–Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid–since the ink was dry. This is their latest attempt.

9) Austerity, ie. cutting social programs and benefits in an economic downturn has a proven track record of failure–see Keynes, John Maynard, and the recent experiences in Britain and Europe. Even the IMF belatedly agrees.

10) Embracing austerity is just a way to dismantle the welfare state, by using the “shock doctrine.” Erkine Bowles, chief deficit fetish groupie calls it the “Cialis project,” borrowing from the advertising slogan for an erectile dysfunction drug, “When the moment is right, will you be ready?”

But, of course, in our what passes for news, there is no context, no history. It’s all brand new, every day. And, all the serious people, both Republicans and cowardly Democrats, agree that the bold, brave course is to cut social programs that poor and middle-class Americans rely on.

Let’s end this screed by quoting the master. “Ever since the Powell memo set out the template for the rise of the modern infrastructure of the organized Right, one of that infrastructure’s great triumphs has been to channel what is perceived to be the acceptable national political dialogue ever to starboard, and to truncate severely the notion of what is an acceptable political idea…A lot of this falls on us. We can be better informed. We can stop believing in nonsense. We can be a more active citizenry. We can choose not to accept the limited parameters of our national debates by turning off the commentators who seek to reinforce them, and by turfing out the politicians who choose to work only within them. We can demand a better range of options. We can demand that obvious problems be confronted, and that real solutions to them be proposed. (Where is the outcry for a national policy on climate change from the drought-ravaged states of the west and the south?) We can demand a political imagination greater than the one currently evinced by our political elites, or we can tell them that we’re changing them out for better elites.”

Just give me a double Prestone.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bad Bet

Today on the Washington Post web site Ezra Klein interviews Chrystia Freeland, author of The Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. During the interview Chrystia makes an amazing claim about the super rich.

“Ed Conard, the Bain Capital guy expresses the commonly held view of the super rich that the highest and most important sphere of activity is the allocation of capital, that it is hard to do, that the people who do it well need to be rewarded and that is actually what drives the improvements in society, more than a lot of the do-goody stuff.”

I laughed out loud as I scrolled back to the top of the page to see if my eyes had deceived me. You see the title of Ezra’s interview is–“Romney is Wall Streets worst bet since the bet on subprime”

Fucking hilarious! The idea that these guys are efficient allocators of capital is belied by the title of the article. Not just one epic screw-up, but two.

Since the reelection of President Obama one of the dominant narratives has been of the wealthy living in an alternative reality. My personal favorite, is the story of the Boston’s Logan Airport running out of parking spaces for the jets of wealthy donors coming to celebrate Mittens awesome victory. “Private jets were streaming into Boston’s Logan International Airport Tuesday afternoon, officials said, as Mitt Romney’s well-heeled supporters arrived for his post-election party in the Seaport District.” And these people are the “masters of the universe?

The super rich Wall street crowd likes to think that they are so smart and talented and that they are the job creators. But what they really have been doing for the last 40 years is looting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Winter Blogger

I’m back!

Having two professions is nice in that I get to do something different every fall and every spring. Working as an irrigation contractor allows me to pay the bills. Instructing skiing allows me time to blog.

Easing back into the swing of things, I want to link to an interesting article by one of my favorite historians–Rick Perlstein–author of Nixonland, and Before the Storm. In the latest issue of The Baffler, Perlstein explores how conservative propaganda works, and why conservatives respect a liar like Mittens. “It’s hard for either them or us to discern where the ideological con ended and the money con began.”

My brother has been working on a series of posts examining the history of propaganda and public relations, specifically by looking at Walter Lippman.

So Wart, here’s a little something that can hopefully assist your project.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fairy Tales

What if the whole Protestant work ethic is a crock of shit?

According to Wikipedia, the Protestant work ethic a set of values based on hard work and diligence. “It is also a belief in the moral benefit of work and its ability to enhance character.” The foremost proponent of the Protestant work ethic is Max Weber. “To emphasize the work ethic in Protestantism relative to Catholics, Weber notes a common problem that industrialists faced when employing precapitalist laborers: Agricultural entrepreneurs will try to encourage time spent harvesting by offering a higher wage, with the expectation that laborers will see time spent working as more valuable and so engage it longer. However, in precapitalist societies this often results in laborers spending less time harvesting. Laborers judge that they can earn the same, while spending less time working and having more leisure. He also notes that societies having more Protestants are those that have a more developed capitalist econonomies.”

In a developed capitalist economies like the United States, we have elevated this notion of the Protestant work ethic to near mythical status. Our leaders are only too fond of castigating the lower classes to be more industrious, with the clear undertone being that it is their own damn fault if they are poor.

And this brings us to the fascinating history of how early industrialists were  able to enlist workers to toil in their factories. Yasha Levine, in his Recovered Economic History series: Everyone But An Idiot Know That The Lower Classes Must Be Kept Poor, Or They Will Never Be Industrious, says that it wasn’t Protestant work ethic that led people to the factories. Quoting from economic historian Michael Perelmen’s book, entitled: The Invention of Capitalism, it is clear that early capitalists used “brutal government policies to whip the English peasantry into a good capitalistic workforce willing to accept wage slavery. The transition to a capitalistic society did not happen naturally or smoothly…English peasants didn’t want to give up their rural communal lifestyle, leave their land and go work for below-subsistence wages in dangerous factories being set up by a new, rich class of landowning capitalists.”

“Using Adam Smith’s own estimates of factory wages being paid at the time in Scotland, a factory-peasant would have to toil for more than three days to buy a pair of commercially produced shoes. Or they could make their own traditional brogues using their own leather in a matter of hours, and spend the rest of the time getting wasted on ale. It’s really not much of a choice, is it?”

“But in order for capitalism to work, capitalists needed a pool of cheap, surplus labor. So what to do? Call in the National Guard!”

“The brutal acts associated with the process of stripping the majority of the people of the means of producing for themselves might seem far removed from the laissez-faire reputation of classical political economy,” writes Perelman. “In reality, the dispossession of the majority of small-scale producers and the construction of laissez-faire are closely connected, so much so that Marx, or at least his translators, labeled this expropriation of the masses as ‘‘primitive accumulation.’’

Of course, some policies never go out of style. The language employed by the elites of the era are eerily familiar to the laments heard from western leaders on the need for pain and suffering to be borne by the common people. English merchant Patrick Colquhoun summed up the popular elite sentiment that is still true today–“Poverty is therefore a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society…It is the source of wealth, since without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of wealth.”

The embrace of austerity across much of the developed world makes a lot more sense when one understands the real economic history, rather than the fairy tale of Protestant work ethic leading one straight to heaven.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

State Sponsored Terrorism

To anyone knowledgeable of the history of America’s covert operations, this latest expose from Seymour Hersh should come as no surprise. It turns out that the US has been secretly training terrorists, to attack countries we oppose.

From 2005 to 2007, the US Joint Special Operations Command, using the Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site, trained the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, “a dissident Iranian opposition group known in the West as the M.E.K. The M.E.K. had its beginnings as a Marxist-Islamist student-led group and, in the nineteen-seventies, it was linked to the assassination of six American citizens.”

While this training took place under the Bush Administration, support for the MEK continues today. In fact many prominent American anti-terrorist experts, who demonize terrorism when employed by Muslims, or brown foreigners, have become well compensated lobbyists for the MEK, designated a “foreign terrorist organization” by the US State Department in 1997.

Allan Gerson, a Washington attorney for the M.E.K., notes that the M.E.K. has publicly and repeatedly renounced terror. And he asks a good question–” How can the U.S. train those on State’s foreign terrorist list, when others face criminal penalties for providing a nickel to the same organization?”

All this raises an interesting question. When is a terrorist not a terrorist? That, of course is obvious. When they’re our terrorists, silly.

The War on Terror has always been a sick joke, and the hypocrisy among our erstwhile leaders is stunning. How the fuck can you have a war against a unconventional method of war, when it’s something the US uses when it suits them?

In our Humpty-Dumpty milieu, where words are malleable, and the rule of law is for the little people, I often turn to Lewis Carroll for clarity.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment