Gibson writes: "Now that we're having a serious conversation about capitalism, we can also have a conversation about solutions. Along with calling out flaws of capitalism, I'm proposing four solutions that would fix the most glaring problems in capitalism and blaze a new path forward for the next generation."
(photo: file)
Four Ways to Evolve Beyond Capitalism
07 March 14
n my previous article, I explained how all of the economic problems we currently face are natural results of capitalism. From rising poverty in the midst of record-high corporate profits, polluted air and dwindling water, private prison systems that rely on mass incarceration, students going deep into debt while the government books student loan profits, foreclosures, stagnant wages, all of these economic problems can be addressed once we acknowledge our seriously flawed economic system and vow to fix it.
Now that we're having a serious conversation about capitalism, we can also have a conversation about solutions. Along with calling out flaws of capitalism, I'm proposing four solutions that would fix the most glaring problems in capitalism and blaze a new path forward for the next generation.
1. Break Corporate Monopolies and "Free Trade" Agreements
There's nothing wrong with starting a business to make and sell goods that people want to buy. But the problem begins when large corporate giants force local small businesses to shutter their operations. This peer-reviewed study looked at data from 3,000 counties and found that, on average, each new Walmart that opens kills approximately 150 retail jobs in the county. This means that for every job created by a new Walmart, 1.4 jobs on average are lost.
The explosion of corporate giants swallowing up small business competition and killing jobs is a consequence of "free trade" entities like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is currently being negotiated behind closed doors.
At the time NAFTA was signed, there was no trade deficit between the United States and Mexico. As of 2012, that trade deficit has ballooned to $276 billion in lost jobs and wages as a result of skyrocketing imports and stagnant exports. While the Clinton administration promised 1,000,000 new jobs because of NAFTA, over 1,000,000 jobs had been lost by 2004.
The trade deficit between the US and China reached a record $30.1 billion as of July 2013. In the ten years that passed between China joining the WTO in 2001 and 2011, the US lost $37 billion in wages, mostly in the manufacturing sector. As manufacturing workers who lost jobs were re-employed in other sectors, an average of $13,504 in wages was lost for each displaced worker.
One main argument used by defenders of capitalism is that consumer spending dictates the market, so bad corporate actors will be punished by more consumers buying from their competitors. Advocates of capitalism also argue that if pay or work conditions are insufficient, workers will logically quit their jobs and seek employment elsewhere.
But when the new Walmart shuts down the local grocery, hardware, and auto parts stores, workers who are upset with being paid poverty wages have nowhere else to work if they want to quit. When the local auto manufacturing plant gets outsourced to Mexico, those auto workers have no other choice than to work at a place like Walmart. And when consumers have nowhere else to spend their money but at places like Walmart, then Walmart gets all the business.
2. Guarantee Full Employment
While defenders of capitalism oppose almost any regulation of business, such regulations were largely responsible for the long period of economic prosperity that followed World War II. During FDR's administration, there was full employment in the United States, and everyone had an income.
Increased public investment meant Americans all had jobs that provided them with steady income. As a result of direct government involvement in the economy, FDR inadvertently created the middle class just a decade after the Great Depression robbed most Americans of their jobs, homes, and savings. When more people had more money to spend, local businesses thrived on the extra demand, and more jobs were created to meet the increased demand.
Jobs that were created as a result of public investment, like FDR's New Deal, injected new money into the economy as programs like the Works Progress Administration put 3 million people to work rebuilding critical infrastructure. Congressional obstruction of New Deal programs and neoliberal economic advisers convinced FDR to scale back government spending, sending the country into recession in 1937-38. The US only bounced back from that recession due to tight economic controls in place during the war effort.
The government became the prime buyer of half the goods manufactured in the US. When ALCOA's monopoly on the aluminum market became a threat, the government subsidized Reynolds aluminum to force ALCOA to compete fairly, and also got into the aluminum manufacturing business to make sure raw materials were in steady supply. When Ford refused to abide by the National Labor Relations Act that gave private sector workers the right to organize unions, FDR cancelled a top-dollar contract. A wartime tax on windfall profits prevented corporations from becoming large enough to absorb competitors.
While President Eisenhower didn't regulate business as tightly as FDR did during World War II, he did make huge investments in public infrastructure. In building the 46,000-mile interstate highway system, creating NASA, and expanding national parks, the government put 3.5 million people to work during the Eisenhower years. The interstate highway system alone cost $114 billion then, which would be roughly $450 billion in new government spending today. Such projects were made possible by keeping the top tax rate on the richest households and corporations at a 90 percent rate - the interstate highway was made possible by drivers paying an extra penny per gallon in gas taxes. The tax code was also much simpler in the Eisenhower years, without any of the special exemptions, loopholes, credits, subsidies, and other giveaways that corporate lobbyists have inserted in the tax code today.
3. Wage War on Climate Change, Poverty, Inequality and Greed
FDR and Eisenhower's economic controls were the result of war; FDR wanted to create national solidarity around the war effort, and Eisenhower wanted the interstate highway system built to better move troops and supplies during war. By drastically changing what we value in society and fostering the political will to change it, we can also change our economic circumstances through a new war effort - call it the war on climate change, the war on poverty, the war on inequality, and the war on greed.
In a winner-take-all system like capitalism, in which the biggest and baddest reap all the rewards, there must be strict regulations and high taxation on multinational corporations, and numerous subsidies and tax benefits for small businesses. This has to also be combined with the complete reinstatement of tariffs on foreign exports to the US that were eliminated in free trade agreements, uninhibited rights for all workers to organize unions, and strict penalties for companies who attempt to crush those unions.
In waging a war on climate change and poverty, we can create millions of new jobs by making heavy public investments in creating a widespread sustainable energy grid, powered by wind turbines and solar farms. A side effect of that will be lower greenhouse gas emissions, and decreased consumption of the planet's finite resources. A new Works Progress Administration could stay in business permanently, providing a never-ending supply of jobs repairing not just schools, roads and bridges, but building and maintaining broadband internet infrastructure, high-speed rail, city parks, bike paths, community gardens, housing cooperatives, and other projects. These jobs can never be outsourced.
We can win the war on inequality and greed by instituting a maximum wage for executives of all companies that get any tax credits or do any business with the government, making sure that no CEO makes more than 50 times what their lowest-paid worker makes. We could also double the tax rates of those who make more than $5,000,000 a year, those who inherit their wealth from previous generations, and those who make money from having money (capital gains). However, merely taxing income isn't sufficient enough to melt the glacier of wealth that the wealthiest 0.1 percent have amassed. When such a small number of people have accumulated such a vast amount of resources, such one-sided distribution has to be corrected.
While some defenders of capitalism would call this unwarranted class warfare, the only ones affected by such a tax increase would be, in 2007 numbers, just 46,000 taxpayers who collectively had over $670 billion in taxable income. Since over 96 million people filed taxes that year, that amounts to just one-half of the top one percent of taxpayers. And out of those 46,000 taxpayers, less than 14,000 estate tax returns were filed in 2008. That means only one-sixth of the top one percent of taxpayers would be affected by this tax increase. Daily Kos diarist "clammyc" originally proposed this idea, and called it the "fat cat," "rich brat," and "trust fund baby" tax. Over $100 billion could be generated each year with these new taxes, which would go a long way in paying for the aforementioned public investments.
4. Build a New Populist Political Party
Several readers responded to my previous article about capitalism by asking me if I favored socialism or communism. I honestly don't know what -ism I would use to describe the economic system described above, and I don't personally believe in communicating values and goals through -isms.
And while this may look to some like pie-in-the-sky utopianism, it can be achieved if we start building populist political power now. My anarchist friends advocate living off the grid, generating their own solar powered-electricity, hunting and gathering their own food, and self-governing through tribal principles. While I don't oppose that, I also recognize that there are those of us who want to see truly systemic change in our lifetimes.
Both Democrats and Republicans have become captive to the same industries and oligarchs responsible for the rampant climate change, poverty, inequality, and greed destroying our economy. And the only alternative parties that currently exist don't propose any real challenge to the Democratic/Republican stranglehold on our politics. These parties are usually led by a figurehead who runs as a perennial candidate in presidential elections, meaning none of these parties really exist outside of presidential elections. These figureheads are almost always white males, and come from positions of privilege, widening the disconnect between themselves and the rest of the population. The currently existing alternative parties also have to battle with being branded as perennial losers, steering people away before their candidates even have a chance to make their case.
However, a new party that actively opposes capitalism and unites people around the basic ideas of meeting human needs would be widely respected and immediately acknowledged. This new party could stand apart from the two corporate-owned parties by refusing to take campaign donations from corporations, banks and developers, standing up for the rights of immigrants and indigenous people, calling for sustainable energy and development, making education for all a top priority, and believing in universal access to healthcare as a human right. While it would take time, focusing on building power first at the local and county level is the surest way to make lasting change.
Who's in?
Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
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. |
Comments
A note of caution regarding our comment sections:
For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.
It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.
We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.
It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.
Adapt and overcome.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
The Cows need to wake up and challenge the fence. So long as the Cows expect the Ranchers and the Cowboys to represent their best interest, the Cows are going to be sorely disappointed.
And with that name, it will never, ever be a factor at the national level.
We have an INSTITUTIONALIZ ED 2-Party Political System in the USA, a 3rd Party is contrary to the institutionaliz ed nature of the USA Political System and is therefore designed to fail.
Change the sublated dialectic balance of government in the USA to include all who are represented by government as a separate and equal branch of government that can enable the making and enforcing of equal legislated law and order to effect REAL MEANINGFUL CHANGE.
Ask your legislators to give you a written commitment from the political party they represent to make and enforce equal legislated law and order in the USA. You will find, as I have, after many years of trying as a Democratic Party member that they will not commit to the making and enforcing of equal legislated law and order in the USA, will not give you anything in writing regarding whether or not they will or will not and will ignore you if you persist in your request that your legislators make and enforce equal legislated law and order in the USA.
The way to fix Capitalism is to put Private Capitalism in competition with Public Capitalism. Here's how to get started by using the Public Banking Institute http://publicbankinginstitute.org/ and the State Owned Bank of North Dakota http://banknd.nd.gov/
It's "Goldman Sachs", Tom. With an H. And if we had "let the banks fail," they'd have dragged down everything else with them. If enough had gone down, the FDIC, which insures my checking account and, I presume, yours (unless you've got more than $100,000 in a single account), would have ben sucked dry, and of course commercial lending would have evaporated. Welcome to 1933.
The government could have "foreclosed" on those banks and guaranteed any deposits that the bank didn't have funds to cover. I'm guessing that would have cost taxpayers less than the $14 trillion or so we apparently gave to the banksters. But even if not, at least the nation and world would have been free of those blood suckers.
The banks were bailed out, but how do you justify the taxpayer funds provided for the bastard's bloated bonuses—in the millions!
Of course they failed. The American populace in the USA bailed them out -- Privatized Zombie Capitalism, duh!!!!!!!
If we want to change the system, we will have to just change the system: we will have to produce an alternative economy by starting lots of worker-owned cooperatives and buy locally, starving the big corporations by not patronizing them. Take our money out of the big banks and put it into consumer-owned credit unions. Pay attention to building local economies that pay decent wages to everyone. Maybe even use a local currency or script. It can be done. If we don't do it, we are sunk.
But can we get enough people to boycott capitalist corporations? A couple years ago, I moved to a small town. There is a very strong sense of community here. And yet, our City Council is vigorously working to get WalMart to open a store in town. I testified to my council member about how WalMart decimates local businesses, relies on Federal subsidies, lowers local wages and outsources production to "Red China."
He said, well that all may be true, but the townspeople want to be able to buy products cheap.
It will take a fundamental change in consumer culture to convince people that it's better in the long run to pay a bit more today to support one's community than to save a few bucks at Wally World or Amazon.
You say "Social & Fascism differ little." Is your perspective the perspective of the Rancher, the Cowboy or the Cows? And, do you know the difference?
To think in terms of replacement, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of social evolution. What, after all, "created" capitalism in the first place? Understand that and you might begin to understand what will bring about its collapse.
As for a third party alternative, there have been all sorts of third parties - but none have been successful apart from occasional local victories. A city councilor here, Bernie Sanders there ...
If, however, you look elsewhere you might find intimations of what you're looking for.
In Britain, the Labour Party has replaced the old Liberal Party and is holding off the Liberal Democrats. In Canada, the New Democratic Party has (at least temporarily) replaced the federal Liberals as the Official Opposition, and has at one time or another formed the government of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.
BUT, the price of success seems always to be compromise and accommodation.
On the one hand, Labour and NDP strength brought universal, single-payer health insurance to Britain in the 1950s and to Canada in the 1960s - The US still lacks this obvious and important "reform."
On the other hand, not many members and fewer leaders of these parties talk much about "socialism" anymore.
As one NDP apostate put it: "the question isn't whether to have capitalism or socialism, but what kind of capitalism to have."
Do you suppose that "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" by Emmanuel Goldstein might contain the answers to the questions raised in your post? If not, you may want to talk to Big Brother about it.
I am merely remembering Marx's comment that "revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door."
Capitalism may be "rotten" from a moral standpoint, but it is not yet collapsing of its own "internal contradictions."
Marx may well turn out to be right and, if so, it will be for profoundly Marxist reasons - not least the vast changes in technology (the means of production) that are visible today - but the time of transitional change is not yet apparent.
This, of course, doesn't mean that people shouldn't do most (or all) of the things recommended in the original article. It does mean that these reformist gestures must be carried out with open eyes about what they really mean - not the overthrow of capitalism, but merely creating "capitalism with a human face."
Capitalism in and of itself cannot collapse because capital is as much a part of nature as humankind itself, but Private Capital and Privatized Capitalism can collapse and does so cyclically, because Privatized Capitalism is a byproduct of "Engineered Artificial Scarcity" which is a bastardization of nature.
Public Banking [Example: The Bank of North Dakota http://banknd.nd.gov/ ] and the use of public capital can be used to harness the greed of private capitalists to massive loan payments of principal and interest to the public sector to bail themselves out, so that John Q. and Jane D. Public Citizen does not have to continue to provide LIFE SUPPORT to private capitalists without benefit, bailout of PUBLIC WELFARE to private capitalists on a cyclical basis is a "MORAL HAZARD" that MUST END; the only way that that "MORAL HAZARD" will end is if private capitalists run on the hamster wheel of massive principal and interest payments on long term loans to the public sector in the same way that John Q. and Jane D. Public Citizen are made to do to the private sector.
The choice with regard to CAPITAL ASSETS and CAPITALISM is not whether or not to get rid of capital, because the only way that could be done would be to dispose of mankind, all of the land, and natural resources attendant to and derived from the land of the earth because ALL are CAPITAL ASSETS of mankind.
The choices available in regard to Capitalism are:
Choice 1) - Public Capital and Public Capitalism,
Choice 2) - Private Capital and Private Capitalism,
Choice 3) - Combination of Public and Private Capital and Public Capitalism and Private Capitalism in Competition.
The 3 choices above are HOW TO HARNESS CAPITALISM.
Mankind has tried Choice 2) and Choice 2) has proven to be ineffective for the public welfare of mankind as a whole.
The remaining choices are Choice 1) and Choice 3). I favor Choice 3).
"Getting rid of capitalism is much less drastic than abandoning the idea of capital." -- ericlipps 2014-03-08 05:58 am
Other than you, who said anything about abandoning the idea of capital? Certainly not me, because it is not even possible to get rid of capital assets, so long as people exist and continue to use assets in nature that provide a revenue stream of benefit. I choose public capital competing with private capital.
What you have stated, ericlipps, is a good rendition of Cold War Propaganda, but what you said is ultimately meaningless.
Use of the concept of what Capital IS; i.e., an asset that provides a revenue stream, IS what Capitalism IS, and nature is replete with capital assets, so much so that it would be impossible to dispense with capital assets.
The private use of private capital has CYCLICALLY FAILED so many times that the private capitalist textbooks call the FAILURE and RESURRECTION of private capitalism an Economic Cycle; i.e., Private Economic "Zombie Capitalism" Resurrection Cycle of Private Capital and Privatized Capitalism at PUBLIC EXPENSE by PUBLIC WELFARE ------- Go figure ------- How does the cyclical failure of private capital owned by private capitalists practicing PRIVATIZED Capitalism equate with an economic cycle other than GREED and FAILURE?
With regard to the use of public assets and public money as public capital in public banking to provide a public revenue stream of benefit from interest on loans made to the Private Sector, Public Banking has been in use in the USA since 1919 by the State of North Dakota, Dba The Bank of North Dakota, and the system has NEVER failed, or had to be bailed out; Public Banking can and should be used by the Public Sector to finance the resurrection of Private Capitalists' private capital and Privatized Capitalism with long term high interest loans, so that the concept of "Engineered Artificial Scarcity," that empowers Private Capital, can be applied to Public Capital and Public Banking that will put Private Capitalists on the same Hamster Wheel of Debt to finance their American Dreams for Public Benefit, the same way that John Q. and Jane D. Public Citizen are forced to run on the Hamster Wheel of private debt to the Private Sector.
The USSR did not even have a banking system, but you say that the USSR practiced State Capitalism; how on earth do you equate the USSR practicing "State Capitalism" without a banking system to administer state capital; i.e., make loans to both the private and public interests to finance business endeavor???????
The State of North Dakota USA dba The Bank of North Dakota practices State Capitalism, and other than being more stable than Private Capitalism and providing benefit to the public sector rather than the private sector, there is no discernable difference in the use of capital and ownership by the public and private sectors in North Dakota than any other state in the USA.
The example you gave of the USSR being a Model of State Capitalism is a falacious example; the example of North Dakota as a Model of State Capitalism is an appropriate and successful Model of State Capitalism Established in 1919 and as American as "Apple Pie."
One more suggestion would be to put a spending cap on political campaigns similar to those in major league sports and have it low enough that people other then the 2 party's candidates could afford to run for national office and make it mandatory that with a reasonable amount of signatures the third party candidates be included in any national debates.
With State Capitalism nationwide in the USA there should be no need of Income Taxes at all, because the revenue stream of public capital on a national basis will provide more than adequate funding to both state and national governments in the USA without taxes.
Any firm that is new to the county and offers product (goods and services) at increased value for the price will take customers from the older establishments that offer similar products. Assume that the value increase can be called efficiency; of capital or labor use.
It seems that efficiency increase will result in some mix of increased quality and increased product volume; the former leads to increased life satisfaction for all; the latter to increased satisfaction to all but those who lose employment when the county population demand for product is satisfied by a smaller workforce.
In a county of diminishing population there may be a balance. In a county of level or increasing population individuals find themselves out of work. New products due to a new technology will cause a sudden over demand for labor and skills—a boon for workers—until the mass of the population’s demand for the technology is sated and efficiency takes over again.
This “boom and bust” must be managed and business is not in a position to fulfill both, its need for profit and the population’s need for moderation. Government needs to enter as the regulator; not as regulator of business but as the supplier of employment when business fails to employ sufficiently.
I don't think I have to look it up. Happy (and healthy and well educated) countries include Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark + smaller parts of continental Europe such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and probably Lichtenstein.
Key issues: less rampant economic inequality, well-designed social programs, good public health care, good education (including good wages and public respect for teachers) and, of course, a dearth of energy-draining professional sports franchises (and higher taxes on the rich and infamous).
The outrageously and blindingly simple mechanism for this alteration is one that everybody agrees needs to be done anyway - reforming the tax system. The simple solution is the Footprint Tax. Each person is taxed according to the use each person makes of the ecosystem and ecology that gives life to all. We rightly should taxed according to our tax upon nature and not upon the income or profit we receive from our own effort.
see next post.
The underlying fundamental of Capitalism is "Engineered Artificial Scarcity" and this fundamental of Capitalism can be used in support of public capital as well as private capital.
These principles were first written in 1879 by Henry George and can be downloaded free as an audio book abridgment by Bob Drake.
See the above post to you at 2014-03-08 18:23 pm. "Engineered Artificial Scarcity" empowers both State Capitalism and Private Capitalism and this fundamental can be used by the State as well as the Private Sector, as demonstrated by the State of North Dakota dba as The BANK OF NORTH DAKOTA http://banknd.nd.gov/ and the Public Banking Institute http://publicbankinginstitute.org/ "Banking in the Public Interest" - "Public Banking -- it already works in the United States and is catching on! 20 States are considering some form of state banking legislation." And, Public Banking in America http://www.publicbankinginamerica.org/
But this has not been done, so Gibson and many others in the comments section have blithely offered remedies that have been proven time and again unworkable. Unworkable, not because those who tried them did not know what they were doing, rather because the capitalists will not allow them to be implemented. And most, even if they were implemented are mere tinkering which would change nothing anyway. But the first reason is the important one. (continued)
The important thing that has been learned from history, as it relates to the current discussion, is that the capitalist class also owns or controls the state. The state is made up of the armed forces, the police (including the spy agencies), the judiciary, the legislative and executive branches of government and the media.
(continued)
The other thing that history clearly shows is that if the capitalist class really feels that their control is being challenged, they will do away with pretense of democracy and rule by force (capitalist ruling by force is called fascism, not just some mean nasty ruler or dictator). That is what happened in German, Austria, Italy and other countries and what the US capitalist class considered when they approached retired Marine Corp General Smedley Butler and asked him to carry out a coup of the US government in the ‘30’s.
I think the whole idea of social class is medieval. In the Middle Ages, people were by and large born into a particular class and had to stay in it. We have never had class in that sense in the United States.
Let me raise another conceptual problem with your Marxist view. If there is a ruling class, how did they get the power they have? In the Middle Ages, the aristocracy got their lands and titles because they offered their services to fight for the king. They were the chief warriors of the realm. Don't you think that somewhere, sometime, those capitalists must have done something productive?
But once again, there's nothing that guarantees capitalism is moral. It can be highly corrupt. The power of money over our politics must be reduced.
I offered another analogy: what if a teacher had an "equal opportunity cheating" policy. After the test papers were passed out, the teacher would leave the room, and the students were allowed to cheat for 10 minutes. There would be no break for students who somehow didn't finish cheating by the end of the 10 minutes. And no break for people who got the answers wrong. But everyone could cheat for those 10 minutes. I think that's quite analogous to crony capitalism. It's organized cheating.
You say "Social & Fascism differ little." Is your perspective the perspective of the Rancher, the Cowboy or the Cows? And, do you know the difference?
Do you suppose that "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" by Emmanuel Goldstein might contain the answers to the questions raised in your post? If not, you may want to talk to Big Brother about it.
Of course they failed. The American populace in the USA bailed them out -- Privatized Zombie Capitalism, duh!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------
What planet are you on? Americans don't hate capitalism. While they don't like its excesses and extremes they don't want to abolish free enterprise either.
Such a party that you describe would probably do well maybe in college towns like Amherst, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Boulder, Cambrdige, and Madison. It might do well in parts of Manhattan, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. But beyond those areas such a party would go nowhere.
I'm not going to vote third party either as long as the US electoral system is winner-take-all and not proportional. If it were proportional then fringe parties, which the one you propose would be, would likely be able to win a few seats her or there. But so too would the Libertarians, US Taxpayers, Socialist Workers, American Independent, New Alliance, Green, Natural Law, and other obscure parties I've forgotten to mention.
"1. Break Corporate Monopolies and "Free Trade" Agreements"
Indeed, this private corporate bureacracy must be broken down, and in turn eliminate private monopoly.
"2. Guarantee Full Employment"
Employment is a right, a necessity to earn a reasonable imcome, according to occupation and skills.
"3. Wage War on Climate Change, Poverty, Inequality and Greed"
Yes, and to do that, the very nature of capitalism must be opposed.
"4. Build a New Populist Political Party"
Yes, another party is needed, but with principles that are by nature incompadible with capitalism. The idea that reforms for democratic change under capitalism won't work in the long term. The idea, that, once and for all, we have to move further beyond the capitalist epoch and into an epoch with a nature that promotes permanent, social ethical ends.
A Left/Progressiv e party and/or coalition could do the trick.
"Employment is a right, a necessity to earn a reasonable imcome, according to occupation and skills."
I would change it to say instead:
"Employment is a right to anyone who wants to work hard and do well."
1) There will always be people in low-wage jobs.
2) And we need to ensure that they have a decent enough salary so that they can have basic necessities.
But what I would be careful with messaging is that, while "full employment" is a great goal, it should be available to those "who are willing to work hard and do well". We should stress equality of opportunity, but not equality of condition.
Simply put, all people, despite different occupations, having reasonable living standards.
, lie and instill fear on the citizens and Constitution of the country he swore to represent, come within a tiny hair of economically collapsing the country, and not be brought to justice their is a problem with the. System and the mass media that helped aid and abett them. The people need to start demanding truth in our journalists for starters. Why? Because that is where most people get their information. How? Right now we have the internet, the truth is out there, information can be found, advocacy groups need to be formed and made themselves heard. If people don't make demands nothing will change.
, lie and instill fear on the citizens and Constitution of the country he swore to represent, come within a tiny hair of economically collapsing the country, and not be brought to justice their is a problem with the. System and the mass media that helped aid and abett them. The people need to start demanding truth in our journalists for starters. Why? Because that is where most people get their information. How? Right now we have the internet, the truth is out there, information can be found, advocacy groups need to be formed and made themselves heard. If people don't make demands nothing will change.
A Congress who has no desire to make any change in their cozy relationship with the elites will be required to make the changes. How to convince a corrupt, greedy Congress working solely for the elite to give up their gravy train will take more than I can imagine.
His four points amount to only nibbling around the edges of a corrupt system and lack specifics about how any of this is to do any good.
I have to remind him to actually explore proposals that would do what he dreams about but can't obtain.
Those proposals are in the book "Saving America: Using Democratic Capitalism to Rescue the Nation from Economic Folly."
Read it, Carl, and you might recognize your proposals lack substance.
Your post is about private capital, private capitalists and privatized capitalism; what your post and the posts of others need to focus on is State Capitalism and Public Banking to finance Private Capitalism, so that Private Capitalists can be forced to borrow money to finance the Economic Cycles of the collapse of Private Capital from Public Banking Institutions with long term loans at high interest rates that will put Private Capitalists on the Hamster Wheel of debt in pursuit of their dreams of world domination in the same way that John Q. and Jane D. Public Citizen are put on the Hamster Wheel of debt in pursuit of their American Dream of home ownership and a good life; this is the way to harness private capitalists and private capital, so that private capitalists pay their own way, rather than to continue to be dependent on the Public Sector. It is time for a change. It is time to end "Dead Zombie Capitalism and the eternal resurrection of Dead Zombie Capitalism at public expense without public benefit."
RSS feed for comments to this post