RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Why Financial Markets Won't Solve the Climate Crisis Print
Monday, 28 December 2015 13:56

Brown writes: "According to a new book, the profit motive drives capitalism above all other considerations. It forces us to extract everything from the planet that will generate a surplus at the expense of real benefits to humans and ecosystems."

Leading thinkers on the left think that capitalism may be the cause of climate change and that to save the planet the system needs fundamental reform. (photo: Shutterstock)
Leading thinkers on the left think that capitalism may be the cause of climate change and that to save the planet the system needs fundamental reform. (photo: Shutterstock)


Why Financial Markets Won't Solve the Climate Crisis

By Valerie Brown, Climate News Network

28 December 15

 

t may not be polite to mention Karl Marx in America, but leading thinkers on the left think that capitalism may be the cause of climate change and that to save the planet the system needs fundamental reform.

According to a new book, the profit motive drives capitalism above all other considerations. It forces us to extract everything from the planet that will generate a surplus at the expense of real benefits to humans and ecosystems.

Fossil Capital: the Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming by Andreas Malm, out in hardback from Verso in January 2016, analyzes capitalism’s role in global warming by delving into its past.

The book builds on the work of Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Both asked whether catastrophic climate change can be averted without at least a major makeover—or the outright elimination—of capitalism.

Malm, a professor of human ecology at Sweden’s Lund University, started with James Watt’s patenting of the rotating steam engine in 1784. This was also the first year that rising carbon dioxide and methane levels were observed in polar ice.

First Malm attacked the accepted theories of David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, who developed and reinforced the capitalist notion that markets are the cure for all social ills. He showed that mills adopted coal power instead of water only because it enabled mill owners to move to populated areas to find docile and skilled workers, who were in short supply in the countryside.

More Biddable

Coal enabled this move because, once out of the ground, it is highly portable. The machines, of course, eliminated many jobs and made others both simpler and more difficult. Owners started hiring women and children because they were easier to control than adult men.

My latest review: Andreas Malm's superb account of why capitalism is fossil fuel mad: "Fossil Capital" https://t.co/S3aadjcIkQ @VersoBooks

— Resolute Reader (@resolutereader) December 16, 2015

The demands of the machines set the pace of work and it was only after massive strikes and riots in the 1840s that a 10-hour workday was established. But this, Malm showed, only caused the mill owners to speed up the machinery and make workers adapt further, producing more in less time.

This, in turn, increased the demand for coal. The energy transition fostered a “bourgeois fantasy” that self-sustaining machines, godlike in their power but also biddable, would create a golden age.

Malm framed non-fossil energy—air, water and light—as “the flow”: a constant movement of forces not generated by humans that can sometimes be harnessed for human ends. Coal, and by extension, all further fossil fuels, is “the stock,” something manufacturers can buy, accumulate and use at need.

Humans were extremely vexing to the industrialists because they behaved more like the flow than the stock. Coal-powered engines drastically reduced manufacturers’ dependence on human workers.

Dispensing With People

“The engine is much more tractable and civil than the hod-man,” Edward Tufnell, a member of the Factories Enquiry of 1833, wrote. “Easier managed, keeps good hours, drinks no whiskey and is never tired.”

Thus, Malm asserted, capital’s switch from water to coal and even later to oil resulted fundamentally from an attempt to dispense with the services of human workers to the greatest possible extent. “Some humans introduced steam power against the explicit resistance of other humans,” he wrote.

On @NaomiAKlein, Andreas Malm's Fossil Capital and #COP21 at @ppesydney https://t.co/Nz0VesOMHW pic.twitter.com/RTPFx8QNVQ

— Verso Books (@VersoBooks) December 3, 2015

Workers were aware of this from the beginning. The millions who flocked to northern British cities, dispossessed by enclosures of formerly public lands, nonetheless hated the factories.

Scotsmen, Malm noted, viewed factories as prisons—and for good reason: the average temperature inside a steam-powered textile factory was 84 to 94 degrees Fahrenheit (about 29 to 34 degrees Celsius).

Levels of carbon dioxide in the air could reach 2,800 parts per million—ten times the atmospheric levels at the time. The faster the mill owners pushed their machines, the more boiler explosions occurred, killing nearly one person per day in the 1850s.

But labor was eventually crushed with the aid of government soldiers. Coal was king and the rest is history. This should be a cautionary tale for the present—if government allies with capital rather than the citizenry, Malm asserted, there will be no stopping climate change.

The grandiose schemes for geo-engineering and other technical fixes bankrolled by the likes of Bill Gates, the major oil companies and the American Enterprise Institute, said Malm, would keep mitigation in the wrong hands—and in any case are too dangerous to try.

Insisting that the real authors of the climate crisis comprise a tiny, all-male, all-white fraction of the planet’s population, Malm objected to calling this the Anthropocene epoch. He would rather call it the “Capitalocene.” And capital, he insisted, is not capable of solving the crisis it created.

What we need instead, he wrote, is a return to “the flow”: distributed solar, wind and water power. Moreover, in order to avoid severe damage to civilization, we need to abandon carbon immediately. This can be accomplished only by intentional and decisive governmental action.

The governments that are doing best at this, Malm observed, are state and city governments, which have no obligation to generate profits and are not owned by big capital.

Malm recognized that “socialism is an excruciatingly difficult condition to achieve.” He’s not envisioning a new Stalinist nightmare to replace runaway capital. For one thing, Malm observed, capitalist ideology is so deeply ingrained in society that, quoting Marxist theorist Fredric Jameson, “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”

Still, he says, people must try at least to modify free-range capitalism, echoing the cries of workers who challenged capital in the world’s first general strike in 1842: “Go and stop the smoke!”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Terror Fear Trumps Populist Anger: A Corporate Media Triumph Print
Monday, 28 December 2015 13:43

Street writes: "Fear of terrorism has Trumped (pun intended) economic inequality and insecurity as the electorate's primary concern, potentially helping the rightmost wing of the nation's corporate and imperial two party system."

Donald Trump. (photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
Donald Trump. (photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)


Terror Fear Trumps Populist Anger: A Corporate Media Triumph

By Paul Street, teleSUR

28 December 15

 

Good news for Trump and Hillary, bad news for Bernie.

recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll notes a recent development in the opinion and focus of the United States electorate.  

“Heightened fear of terrorism is rippling through the electorate, thrusting national-security issues to the center of the 2016 presidential campaign…, Some 40% of those polled say national security and terrorism should be the government’s top priority, and more than 60% put it in the top two, up from just 39% eight months ago. More than one quarter worry they or their family will be a victim of a terror attack. The most prominent news event of 2015, in the public’s mind, was the terrorist attack in Paris…‘For most of 2015, our country’s mood and thus the presidential election was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery, and now that has abruptly changed to fear,’ said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who conducted the survey...That undercurrent of anxiety…has the potential to reshape the 2016 policy landscape, shifting attention to national-security issues that traditionally are Republicans’ strong suit and away from the economic issues that Democrats prefer to spotlight.”

A recent New York Times/CBS poll found the same thing, leading CNN to issue the following “Breaking News” flash two Fridays ago: “Terrorism has eclipsed the economy as voters’ top pick for the biggest issue facing America.”

Fear of terrorism has Trumped (pun intended) economic inequality and insecurity as the electorate’s primary concern, potentially helping the rightmost wing of the nation’s corporate and imperial two party system. Good news for the leading Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump (advocate of a ban on Muslim immigration) and Ted Cruz, bad news for Bernie Sanders. It’s good news also for Sanders’ Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton. As New York Times political correspondent Patrick Healy notes:

“Mr. Sanders’…progressive political message, so popular with liberals for much of 2015, now seems lost in a fog of fear. Americans are more anxious about terrorism than income inequality. They want the government to target the Islamic State more than Wall Street executives and health insurers. All of this plays to Mrs. Clinton’s strengths — not only as a hawkish former secretary of state but also as a savvy politician who follows the public mood. After months of pivoting to the left on domestic issues to compete with Mr. Sanders for her party’s base, she is now talking about security and safety far more than Mr. Sanders — and solidifying her lead in opinion polls.”

Never mind that everyday Americans are more likely to be killed by an asteroid than by a terror attack.  Or that those Americans are at much greater risk to mortality from the nation’s current savage “New Gilded Age” levels of economic inequality – a leading factor behind the recent striking rise in white middle aged and working class mortality in the U.S.  (Or that insofar as Americans are right to be afraid of terror attacks, the threat traces largely to “their” nation’s criminal and petro-imperialist wars in the Middle East.)

The polls are ironically juxtaposed with a recent Pew Research report on the economic disparity that ends and ruins far more American lives than Islamic terrorism. Middle class Americans now comprise less than half, or 49.9%, of the nation’s population, down from 62% in 1970, Pew finds. For Pew, middle class Americans live in households earning between two-thirds to two times the nation’s median income ($41,900 to $125,600 for a three-person household). For decades, the middle class thus defined had been the majority of the country.  No longer.  Since 1970, Pew solemnly informs us, “the nation’s aggregate household income has substantially shifted from middle-income to upper-income households, driven by the growing size of the upper-income tier and more rapid gains in income at the top.”

Pew deleted a couple of relevant things from its report.  First, as the French economist Thomas Piketty recently reminded us, this is capitalism returning to its longstanding inegalitarian norm after an anomalous thirty or so years of socioeconomic levelling inside the world’s rich nations following World War II. Second, reversing the ongoing decline of the U.S. middle class and reducing inequality is the central and recurrent theme of a major party presidential candidate who has been surprising the media by drawing large crowds and record small campaign contributions while calling himself a democratic socialist.  I am referring, of course, to Sanders (imagine a study of rising white xenophobia that made no reference to Donald Trump.)

Speaking of things left out, there’s something missing from the recent media reports on how fears of terrorism have trumped anger over economic inequality in the U.S. These reports ought to include statements of self-congratulation. The outcome they describe is a central part of amehttps://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-nature-and-mission-of-u-s-corporate-mass-media/ricide.docx, after all. Apparently, that media is successfully doing its ruling class owners’ bidding by saturating airwaves, Internet, and newsprint with sensational, blood-soaked fear-mongering news content on real and alleged terrorist threats (rendered absurdly mysterious given the reigning media’s refusal to honestly cover U.S. epic and ongoing imperial crimes in the Muslim world) while marginalizing discussion of the outrageous inequalities that do far more to kill, maim, and cripple Americans than the Islamic State or “radicalized” Muslims residing in “the homeland.” One among many symptoms of this biased content is the contrast between the outsized attention that media gives to every outrageous statement of the white nationalist Trump and the minimal attention it gives to Sanders’ populist campaign.

It’s nothing new.  As Sheldon Richman recently explained on Counterpunch:

“We’ve been through this before. In the 1980s a group of right-wing ‘experts,’ aided by the media, tried to scare Americans into believing that Soviet-trained terrorists were among us. If so, they preferred living here peacefully to creating mayhem….Why do the government, the media establishment, and an assortment of consultants traffic in fear? It’s not a hard question. Many people profit from fear-mongering about terrorism. Politicians and bureaucrats gain more power. They also gain access to more money… …ends up in the terrorism industry, a constellation of firms that sell the government endless quantities of goods and services.”

The fear-mongering adds to the economic inequality from which it diverts citizen attention and concern by increasing profits for the owners and managers of the high-tech permanent war-and security-industrial complex.

It’s not all that unlike the chilling nightmare portrayed in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, wherein a totalitarian government kept the masses poor and quiescent with regular hate- and fear-mongering war and terror propaganda.   Orwell’s warning was relevant not only to the tyrannical “socialist” governments of the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and “Marxist-Lenninist” North Korea.  It applied as well to the “democratic” capitalist West and indeed to world history’s greatest military empire the United States, where history’s richest war masters collude with state-capitalist media giants and dollar-drenched politicians to keep the citizenry cowering in dread of Muslim terrorism while the top U.S. 1% owns more than 90% of U.S. wealth (along with probably at least half the nation’s “democratically elected” officials) and as more than 16 million children – 22 percent of all US children – live below the federal government’s notoriously inadequate poverty level. The billionaires and millionaires – including the top owners of leading terrorist “defense” and “security” firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrup Grumman – are cowering and clucking all the way to the bank.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Doubling Down on W Print
Monday, 28 December 2015 11:56

Krugman writes: "You might have expected the debacle of George W. Bush's presidency to inspire some reconsideration of W-type policies. What we've seen instead is a doubling down."

Paul Krugman. (photo: Getty Images)
Paul Krugman. (photo: Getty Images)


Doubling Down on W

By Paul Krugman, New York Times

28 December 15

 

2015 was, of course, the year of Donald Trump, whose rise has inspired horror among establishment Republicans and, let’s face it, glee — call it Trumpenfreude — among many Democrats. But Trumpism has in one way worked to the G.O.P. establishment’s advantage: it has distracted pundits and the press from the hard right turn even conventional Republican candidates have taken, a turn whose radicalism would have seemed implausible not long ago.

After all, you might have expected the debacle of George W. Bush’s presidency — a debacle not just for the nation, but for the Republican Party, which saw Democrats both take the White House and achieve some major parts of their agenda — to inspire some reconsideration of W-type policies. What we’ve seen instead is a doubling down, a determination to take whatever didn’t work from 2001 to 2008 and do it again, in a more extreme form.

Start with the example that’s easiest to quantify, tax cuts.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Another Step Toward Oligarchic Control of America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Monday, 28 December 2015 09:41

Reich writes: "In the early 21st century, a billionaire class emerged. Their agenda was to reduce their taxes, enhance their wealth, and buy up the nation's major assets."

Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


Another Step Toward Oligarchic Control of America

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

28 December 15

 

ight-wing mega-donor Sheldon Adelson has just bought the biggest newspaper in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal -- just in time for Nevada's becoming a key battleground for the presidency and for the important Senate seat being vacated by Harry Reid. It’s not quite like Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, but Adelson's purchase marks another step toward oligarchic control of America – and the relative decline of corporate power.

Future historians will note that the era of corporate power extended for about 40 years, from 1980 to 2016 or 2020. It began in the 1970s with a backlash against Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA and OSHA). In 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell warned corporate leaders that the “American economic system is under broad attack,” and urging them to mobilize. “Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.” He went on: “Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”

Soon thereafter, corporations descended on Washington. In 1971, only 175 firms had Washington lobbyists; by 1982, almost 2,500 did. Between 1974 and 1980 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doubled its membership and tripled its budget. In 1972, the National Association of Manufacturers moved its office from New York to Washington, and the Business Roundtable was formed, whose membership was restricted to top corporate CEOs.

The number of corporate Political Action Committees soared from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 in 1980, and their spending on politics grew fivefold. In the early 1970s, businesses spent less on congressional races than did labor unions; by the mid-1970s, the two were at rough parity; by 1980, corporations accounted for three-quarters of PAC spending while unions accounted for less than a quarter. Then came Ronald Reagan's presidency, corporate control of the Republican Party, and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and its "Citizens United" decision.

But in the early 21st century, a billionaire class emerged that didn’t want or need to share political power with large corporations. Their agenda was to reduce their taxes, enhance their wealth, and buy up the nation’s major assets. The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, and about three dozen other oligarchs began to wrest power away from the Republican business establishment by funding their own candidates, buying their own media outlets, and even running for office themselves.

The rest is history. Or may be.

What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
$250,000 a Year Is Not Middle Class Print
Monday, 28 December 2015 09:35

Covert writes: "Hillary Clinton is using a definition of middle class that has long been popular among Democratic policy makers, from her husband to Barack Obama when he was a candidate: any household that makes $250,000 or less a year. Yet this definition is completely out of touch with reality."

People waited in line at the post office to file their taxes before the April 15 deadline. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
People waited in line at the post office to file their taxes before the April 15 deadline. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)


$250,000 a Year Is Not Middle Class

By Bryce Covert, New York Times

28 December 15

 

illary Clinton has vowed not to raise taxes on the middle class.

It’s a pledge that has worked well for others on the campaign trail before her, a resonant assurance to voters who saw themselves as middle class or aspired to be. But it’s a bad promise.

Mrs. Clinton is using a definition of middle class that has long been popular among Democratic policy makers, from her husband to Barack Obama when he was a candidate: any household that makes $250,000 or less a year. Yet this definition is completely out of touch with reality. It also boxes her in.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 Next > End >>

Page 2207 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN