Financial Times’ attack on Piketty under fire

By Nick Beams, Political Contributor, wsws.org

Chris Giles: Arranging a late-day coverup of capitalism's numerous vices.

Apologist Chris Giles: Arranging a late-hour coverup of capitalism’s numerous vices.

The campaign by the Financial Times against economist Thomas Piketty and his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century appears to be unravelling less than a week after its launch last Friday.  

In an article posted on May 28, the Financial Times’ economics editor, Chris Giles, the author of the attacks, sets out to address what he calls “a few misunderstandings” and some “very legitimate questions” that have been raised since the publication of the newspaper’s anti-Piketty articles.

The overwhelming response has been support for Piketty’s central thesis that income and wealth inequality is on the rise in both Europe and the United States, coupled with criticism of the Times and its motivations for the attack.

As Giles himself notes: “Many people online have suggested that the articles were a premeditated attack on Prof. Piketty, with suggestions that the FT’s motives were in making a splash or pursuing a political agenda.”

 

While acknowledging that the FT “likes making a splash,” Giles claims that his “true motivation” was much more mundane, namely that he was concerned by what he saw as discrepancies in Piketty’s data and his use of it.

This assertion that there was no wider agenda does not square with the record.

Giles’ criticisms concerned one chapter, some 40 pages long, dealing with the inequality of capital ownership, in a book of 577 pages.

On the basis of some apparent mistakes in the transcription of data onto spreadsheets (a problem that is clearly not confined to Piketty, as Giles had to acknowledge mistakes in his own work) and Piketty’s failure to use a statistical series the Times favoured, the newspaper denounced the entire book and its key findings.

The headline of the initial article was “Thomas Piketty’s exhaustive inequality data turn out to be flawed,” while an editorial was entitled “Big questions hang over Piketty’s work.”

There is no mistaking the intent of such an approach: it was aimed at calling the entire analysis into question. According to the FT, its criticisms were “sufficiently serious to undermine” Piketty’s claim that the “share of wealth owned by the richest in society has been rising.”

As a number of critics of the FT have pointed out, when Giles used an alternative series based on other sources of data for France and Sweden, the results turned out to be almost identical to Piketty’s.

The main difference was in the figures for Britain. According to Giles, Piketty cited a figure showing that the top 10 percent of the British population held 71 percent of the wealth, whereas the latest survey by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) put the figure at only 44 percent.

Piketty will no doubt provide details of his approach. But there are compelling reasons for seeking data sources other than those provided by the ONS. The series was started only in 2006 when the previous Inland Revenue figures for United Kingdom wealth were abandoned because they were regarded as unreliable. And it appears that the ONS itself has considerable doubts over the new series. Newsweek reports that the ONS told it that its data series was still in an “experimental” stage. “In other words,” Newsweek continued, “these figures, according to the office doing the survey, are not yet ready for prime time.”

Researchers in the field of economic inequality have sided with Piketty’s findings against the attacks of the Financial Times.

A typical response was set out in a letter to the newspaper by David R. Cameron from the Department of Political Science at Yale University. He wrote that while there were “flaws in the data,” noting the considerable difficulties in comparing the extent of inequality across time and across countries, Piketty’s conclusions stood up.

“[Y]our reporters are wrong to say there is little evidence to support Prof. Piketty’s thesis that an increasing share of total wealth is held by the richest few and that the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970. And they are most certainly wrong in claiming that the US data are too inconsistent to draw a single long series and that none of the sources supports the view that the wealth share of the top 1 percent in the US has increased in the past few decades,” he wrote.

In its initial response to the FT’s attack, the World Socialist Web Site noted that while Piketty made it abundantly clear that he was not an opponent of capitalism, “the material he has gathered and presented in coherent form has clearly made the FT, and those for whom the newspaper speaks, very nervous.”

Even as that assessment was being issued, it was confirmed by remarks made at a London conference held Tuesday evening by International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney.

Lagarde told the conference that progress in building a safer financial system was being held back because of “fierce industry pushback” against the introduction of new regulations.

Carney went much further, warning that the entire capitalist system is at risk. Unbridled faith in financial markets, corruption and rising inequality had damaged the “social fabric,” he said. Inequality was “demonstratively” growing and risked undermining what he called the “basic social contract” based on fairness.

“We simply cannot take the capitalist system, which produces such plenty and so many solutions, for granted,” he declared. “Prosperity requires not just investment in economic capital, but investment in social capitalism.”

Unchecked market fundamentalism, he warned, could “devour the social capital essential for the long-term dynamism of capitalism itself.”

In its editorial on Piketty, the Financial Times asserted that if there were problems in the accumulation of extraordinary wealth derived from “monopoly profits,” then “enlightened governments” should step in and “remove barriers to entry so that unfair rents disappear.”

In other words, let the “magic of the market” and competition do their work in lessening inequality.

The fundamental flaw in this analysis was exposed by Marx more than 160 years ago. As he explained, the very aim and logic of competition is not more competition, let alone fairness, but the creation of monopoly as “one capitalist kills many.”

The present economic situation, in which a few dozen major banks and transnational corporations monopolise and dominate the world economy, providing ever greater wealth to the ruling corporate and financial elites and their hangers-on, is precisely the outcome of the “free market” and competition.

The FT’s attack on Piketty is an attempt to deal with social inequality and its explosive political consequences by denying it.

Carney has decided to follow a different course in an attempt to head off deepening opposition and hostility to the capitalist system.

He is calling on the very financial interests that have plundered the wealth of society for their own benefit to undergo a miraculous transformation and become more socially responsible, in order to prevent political and social upheaval. Both efforts are doomed to failure as social reality brings an intensification of the class struggle.




Ukraine military helicopter shot down as battles flare in the east

ukraine-Mi-24-helicopter.shotDown

By Patrick Martin, Senior Political Analyst, wsws.org

Rebel fighters in the city of Slavyansk shot down a Ukrainian military helicopter Thursday, killing 14 soldiers, including an army general, according to press reports from eastern Ukraine that were confirmed by government officials in Kiev.

 

Acting president Oleksandr Turchynov told parliament that a shoulder-launched air defense missile was used to shoot down the Mi-8 helicopter. It was ferrying troops into the outskirts of Slavyansk, a stronghold for pro-Russian separatists opposed to the fascist-backed government in Kiev.

The general killed was identified as Maj. Gen. Vladimir Kulchytsky, a former officer in the Soviet military who was in charge of combat training for Ukraine’s National Guard. The National Guard has become the vehicle for the mobilization of fascist and ultra-nationalist gunmen against the population of Ukraine, drawing new recruits from the Right Sector and the Svoboda (Freedom) party, two groups that hark back to the pro-Hitler Ukrainian nationalists of the World War II era.

Six of the dead were members of the National Guard, while the other eight were from a special forces unit of the Interior Ministry—all evidently picked for their willingness to go into combat against their own people.

Turchynov described those who shot down the helicopter as “terrorists” and “criminals,” the terms used by the Kiev regime to describe all its political opponents in eastern and southern Ukraine. He claimed that air strikes and artillery strikes had destroyed the insurgent unit responsible for shooting down the aircraft.

Addressing the parliament, Turchynov threatened sweeping military vengeance against those who resisted Kiev’s dictates. “Our armed forces, our security forces will complete their job against terrorism,” he said. “And all the criminals who are now funded by the Russian Federation will be destroyed or sit in the dock.”

Press reports spoke of heavy fighting around Slavyansk, including artillery bombardments of residential neighborhoods in the city—a true act of terrorism, perpetrated by the government forces. There were no confirmed reports of casualties on either side, behind the death toll from the helicopter shoot-down.

The Associated Press quoted one resident, Olga Mikailova, who said she was leaving the city for her family’s safety. “They are shooting at us from grenade launchers. We hear explosions. The windows of our house are shaking,” she said. “I have four children. It is terrifying being here, because I am afraid for their lives.” USA Today cited comments from Olga Oliker, an analyst at Rand Corp. familiar with the capabilities of the Ukrainian army. She said that it lacked the ability to gather intelligence, conduct precision strikes and avoid civilian casualties, concluding with the remarkably open admission, “They are fighting a domestic population.”

The Russian broadcast NTV reported popular opposition to the intensified warfare in the east, expressed in the actions of parents of conscripts who went to the Ukrainian Interior Ministry base in the Luhansk region to take their sons home.

In Donetsk, the capital of the eastern region, funerals were taking place for many of those killed in fighting near Sergei Prokofiev airport just outside the city. After separatist fighters seized control of the airport, the Ukrainian regime called in airstrikes, incinerating as many as 50 people, including both local residents and volunteers who had crossed the border from Russia, a few miles away.

Billionaire chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko, who won the gunpoint election held Sunday in the government-controlled portions of Ukraine, hailed the bloodbath in Donetsk, declaring the fight to reestablish Kiev’s control over the eastern region “has finally really begun.”

Poroshenko’s comments were echoed by US President Obama in his commencement speech at the US Military Academy Wednesday, where he announced that he had spoken to the incoming Ukrainian president and condemned what he called “armed militias in ski masks”—not the fascist thugs who spearheaded the overthrow of Yanukovych, but the people of eastern Ukraine opposed to the ultra-right regime in Kiev.

The US-backed regime has now set June 7 for Poroshenko’s inauguration, although there will be no significant change in either the policy or the personnel in control in Kiev. Poroshenko said he would keep Arseniy Yatsenyuk as premier, while delaying any parliamentary election until the end of the year.

The Party of Regions, the organization previously headed by the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, has a plurality in the current parliament, although many of its legislators have stayed away from Kiev for fear of violence by Right Sector and Svoboda thugs.

In an interview Wednesday with Germany’s Bild newspaper, Poroshenko said that he would ask the US government for military supplies and training. It is not clear where this training would take place, raising the possibility of stationing US “advisers” on Ukrainian soil.

Poroshenko issued a statement Thursday saying he would sign an economic agreement with the European Union as soon as he takes office next week. Yanukovych’s balking at such an agreement—which includes drastic austerity measures that will devastate the Ukrainian economy and drive up unemployment—was the occasion for the US-backed drive to remove him from office.

“The signing and enactment of the agreement … is part of Ukraine’s modernization plan,” Poroshenko said, adding that he hoped to “implement the reforms package within a very short period of time.”

He also said that he would hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in July. Russia has effectively halted all support to the separatist forces in the east and recognized Poroshenko’s election. As the fighting in the east flared, Putin travelled to Central Asia Thursday, signing an economic agreement to establish a “Eurasian Union” with Kazakhstan and Belarus.

 




America, an Irresistible Force, Confronts China, an Immovable Object

By Michael Payne

U.S., China and the world by worldnewscurator.com

Photo credit: U.S., China and the world by worldnewscurator.com

A tale of two countries: some years ago China and the U.S. were traveling down the same road, with America in the lead, when they came to a fork in the road. The U.S., saw the sign marked “military dominance”, and rushed down the left branch. China, after studying both options, traveled down the right branch marked “Economic supremacy.”

This tale accurately describes how China and America are rapidly heading in totally opposite directions, with two different objectives and two distinctly different strategies. China is using its resources to become the world’s #1 economic power while those of the U.S. remain largely concentrated on remaining the world’s military superpower.

What we have here is a growing confrontation between these two world powers and their opposite philosophies in critically important regions of the world, specifically, Eurasia and Central and South Asia. Now while this would appear to be a struggle for supremacy between China and the U.S. recent events are making it very clear that far more is involved.

There is another player in this geopolitical chess game. Russia has now joined with China, thus forming a very powerful alliance to resist the U.S.’s intentions in this resource rich region of the world. Either one of these countries would present the U.S. with a formidable challenge to achieving its objectives but, together, they could be considered an immovable obstacle.

If we think more deeply about what is going on and how this situation has reached this tenuous point, the reasons become quite clear. For some time now the U.S. has been attempting, with its NATO partners, to encircle Russia with its military power. And more recently it has also decided to follow that same strategy relative to China when President Obama initiated his Asian Pivot to begin the process of encircling China with military power. Good luck with that.

Just recently, reacting to the mounting influence of the U.S. in Ukraine affairs, Russia’s President Putin, without causing any military confrontation, greatly strengthened his country’s alliance with Crimea and, thereby, assured Russia’s continuing control over its strategic naval base at Sebastopol, as well as its access to the Black Sea and beyond. While this clever chess move was being made the U.S. and NATO could only stand by and watch.

So while the U.S. pursues its objective of encircling China and Russia with military power those two adversaries are reacting to these moves with their own counter-strategy, that is, encircling the U.S. interests across Eurasia and Central Asia with their growing economic power. They have no intention of challenging America with military power because they are not about to ignite a world war but they are doing it with the force of their economic power that they strongly believe is a far better strategy.

What we have here could be accurately described as: America, the irresistible force confronts China and Russia, two immovable objects. Now let’s take a look at how these two distinctly opposite geopolitical strategies are working and the probability of success for each.

Everything the U.S. does in these increasingly important regions of the world revolves around military power; from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the southern Asian region, to the alliance with NATO countries to the West and those in between. China, on the other hand, is concentrating on positive and constructive development projects in various countries, making friends, not enemies.

China is following a concrete plan to build, construct, and expand its economic presence all over the world and especially in these regions; some might refer to what they doing as building an economic empire. As a recent article in the Asian Times article states, “It’s building not one, but myriad Silk Roads, far-reaching webs of hi-speed railways, highways, pipelines, ports, and fiber-optic networks across huge parts of Eurasia. These include a Southeast Asian road, a Central Asian road, an Indian Ocean ‘maritime highway’ and even a high-speed rail line through Iran and Turkey reaching all the way to Germany.”

For those who are not familiar with the term Silk Road here’s a definition from thefreedictionary.com: “An ancient trade route between China and the Mediterranean Sea extending some 6,440 km (4,000 mi) and linking China with the Roman Empire. Marco Polo followed the route on his journey to Cathay.”

What China is doing, its relentless march to world economic supremacy, is reminiscent of a quote from an old horror movie when the really scary main character makes this statement, “Step by step, inch by inch.” That’s China, low key but relentless in advancing its economic agenda. Meanwhile the U.S. government goes around the world acting like a bull in a china shop, from one military confrontation to another, seemingly obsessed with spreading its military presence.

Here’s an article that indicates that China is now in the process of implementing its 12th Five Year Plan. Talk about planning ahead, China seems to be following a technique that has been commonly used in the corporate world called Management by Objectives, which is self-explanatory. Does America have a Five Year Plan? Well, based on this government’s reactive rather than proactive way of doing things, I would venture to say that such planning is non-existent.

Trying to encircle China and Russia with military power is most certainly a totally misguided plan and strategy which might be called biting off far more than you can chew. Or it might be like trying to wrestle a crocodile and an alligator at the same time. When in American history have we seen a foreign policy that is, by its very actions, not only helping to creating a close alliance between two adversaries but seems to be greatly strengthening it at every turn?

Russia and China are using their economic powers and growing mutual cooperation to convince numerous countries to side with them, enticing them with Russia’s massive energy resources and China’s developmental prowess; making these countries dependent upon them and, thereby, cementing relationships; and with every one of these steps they take they are diluting America’s influence in the region.

As the U.S. increases its efforts to try to intimidate China and Russia the alliance between them becomes stronger and stronger. Here’s a linkto an article which reports on a monumental agreement by which Russia will be supplying China with natural gas worth $400 billion over 30 years. This is but one of many such trade agreements to follow between China, Russia and the other members of the BRICS group which also includes India, Brazil and South Africa, all of which are intended to be conducted with currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

China is, unquestionably, on the rise; it has a clear vision for the future and it wisely uses its resources to strengthen its interests all over the world. America is caught up in a state of stagnation with a dying manufacturing sector, and a hollow, lifeless economy. The U.S. government no longer has a vision for the future; it cannot see the handwriting on the wall that says, “Stop”, you’re going the wrong way, reverse direction before it’s too late.

So what is the lesson to be learned in this confrontation between great powers? It’s simply this. In the short term military hubris may dominate but, in the longer term, economic supremacy will prevail.

—M.P.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 




US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

by Eric Zuesse


 In America, money talks… and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)plutocracySuit.shutterstock_126271541-638x425

[dropcap]A [/dropcap]study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, “Who governs? Who really rules?” in this country, is: 

To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.

The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled “Testing Theories of American Politics.” The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:

Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.

Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. “Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.” That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied.

What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, [a plutocracy in more precise terms] no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia [France, Britain, Italy] or most other dubious “electoral” “democratic” countries.* We weren’t formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That’s it, in a nutshell.


 

They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


* Nations in which the so-called capitalist democracy model operates, and the economy and the political system and media are virtually completely controlled by the top 1% or less of the population. 

[printfriendly]



 


What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?






 




Hope, Change, and Pissing in the Wind

By Patrice Greanville with Jason Miller
Note: This is a repost.  This essay was written by TGP’s editor in chief in 2008, years before the founding of The Greanville Post. 


obama-newTribuneofthePeople

Obama at the Democratic National Convention, 2004. The corporate media and fellow politicos simply consecrated him, overnight, as the new “tribune of the people.” His nomination was more like a coronation.

 

Bstcyrano.org/ Thomas Paine’s Corner
3/19/08

“Of Obama, Democrats, and the Power Elite”

Barack Obama is the living embodiment of his vague, ethereal, and tantalizing messages of “hope” and “change.” To the millions upon millions of US Americans desperate to purge the naked imperialism and blatant criminality of the Bush administration from the White House, Obama IS hope and change. Yet like many establishment liberals before him, Obama is no cure for the malignant creep toward fascism plaguing our nation. If elected, at best he will merely serve to postpone the inevitable a bit.

To understand why Obama and the ilk he took with him to DC would be little or no better than the human excrement currently occupying the tangible, visible positions of power in the US, let’s examine various facets of Obama(1) and of our rotten-to-the-core sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems.

Issue one is that Obama or no Obama, we are still stuck with a bourgeois democracy. Which means that despite all the rhetoric and mythologies about equality, freedom, meritocracy, opportunity, and a host of other lies that placate the masses and maintain the social order, the United States is a nation of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Even if we suspend our critique of Obama for a moment and pretend he is a man of saintly virtue, trusting an Obama or a JFK or whomever to do the right thing by the nation, the environment, the people, etc. rests on the assumption that the American president is indeed an all-powerful figure capable of enacting or precipitating policies of tremendous consequence for the country. This illusion holds when the person in the executive office is moving within the traditional confines, values and methods of the capitalist system, which even such a “radical” as FDR observed. It would not hold for long, or at all, should the miracle happen and a true radical was actually elected.

In the case of a within-the-system-boundaries reformer of FDR’s magnitude, the media would not align and uniformly attack him and there would not be a capital strike (as savage capitalism has waged against true left reformers like Allende); we’d just see a sectoral division within the ruling class, and factions would develop—but the policy dialogue would remain within the historically acceptable parameters of capitalists elites. This is in fact what happened during the FDR years. Their principal interest would be to maintain and preserve as many of their privileges and as much of their way of life as possible. That was fine for FDR’s time.

However, let’s look at the larger picture we traverse today.

In the current circumstances we face we see a rapidly degenerating empire, in which the logical evisceration of FORMAL aspects of democracy proceeds accordingly. The prospect is for endless wars, more super-exploitation of the planet, and so on. If any “remedial” policies are implemented against judicial abuse, planetary death, or human/non-human animal exploitation in various contexts, these cannot take hold and neutralize the overarching slide toward worse because “toward worse” is embedded in the dynamics of the system—and how could it be otherwise in a socioeconomic structure premised on greed and selfishness? There are systemic contradictions at play that almost force the hand of capitalists to do what they do–for example they are now trying to roll back the social democratic gains of the European working class during the postwar period. Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy are no accidents. They represent the concerted effort of the European bourgeoisie, egged on by the American elites(2), to push back on the working class and take it all back under the pretext of “remaining competitive” and a plethora of other fraudulent reasons.


In the current circumstances we face we see a rapidly degenerating empire, in which the logical evisceration of formal aspects of democracy proceeds accordingly. The prospect is for endless wars, more super-exploitation of the planet, ore immiseration, and so on.


 

Capitalism faces insoluble issues. As the world’s population continues to grow, it cannot hope to cure unemployment—ever– because the dynamic of modern capitalist industry is toward ever larger portions of machine labor replacing human labor. Neither science nor technology can be stopped. And advancing technology naturally makes work production routines continuously more efficient, thereby reducing the need for human workers. This phenomenon can be seen nearly everywhere now (it was always there lurking right under the surface, but remained hidden from most via cultivated ignorance, lies, and the complicity of the media) including in “cheap labor” zones such as India and China, which at last count had more than 150 million unemployed. In many places in Europe one paycheck has to be spread among 2 or even 3 “employed” workers. That means that 2 jobs have vanished and the fiction of smaller unemployment is kept alive by musical chairs, a trick which is becoming increasingly transparent to many.

The American people, in keeping with their reputation as the most misinformed people on the planet, have been the slowest to recognize that as citizens of a clearly fibrillating bourgeois democracy they are perpetually teetering on the brink of fascism. Meanwhile, while the world edges ever closer to the edge, the media–including those revered phonies on the PBS Lehrer Newshour—rarely talk about these things and the politicians even less (both out of sheer ignorance and a sense that such topics are taboo), which enables the cancer to grow unchecked. What we do receive are fictions like those of Robert Reich and his ilk, who go about preaching the pseudocure of “better education” and job retraining for technological unemployment. Reich–a terrifically intelligent fellow—may really believe his own message, but either way, it doesn’t matter because the solution is no solution. This is not to say that under any and all circumstances it’s not better to be educated. However the structural aspects of a capitalist economy at this point make that posture moot: all the titles in the world will not get you a job when the economy says it needs only 5 PhDs and 10 skilled technicians while there are 25,000 PhDs and 15 million technicians clamoring for jobs. (Check out Jeremy Rifkin’s THE END OF WORK, to get a taste of what this is all about).

Those who bank on stopping the slide to fascism through a liberal president are deluding themselves, because the American president is powerful ONLY when he’s playing with the consent of most of the ruling class and the institutions it controls. Such personal power deflates rapidly when playing against the values and consensus of the US power elite, at which point a “rogue president” would likely suffer a wave of opposition that would literally bring them down–via impeachment or through a coup orchestrated during a state of tumult created by capital strikes, agents provocateurs, and the media. Not to mention even a military takeover.

Further, we must recall that the slide to fascism is both a witting and unwitting choice by the bourgeoisie in power. The very essence of capitalism is anarchy: anarchy in production, anarchy in distribution and so on. Military precision may rule the day within each business entity, but from the larger societal perspective there is little coordination, and much waste of resources and human power, inherent in the selfish dynamic of the companies in play. Hence the horrific duplication and waste we see. For example, in the health care sector up to 1/3 of costs are squandered on paper-shuffling and marketing alone. None of this is likely to change until one deals with the fatal flaws of capitalism, which an Obama is about as likely to do as a lion is to go vegetarian.

Remember that FDR’s reforms (FDR representing the classic example of the “savior” liberal president), radical as they seem now (and denounced at the time by many fellow capitalists as sheer communism and rank “class betrayal”) were never such; they were simply realistic measures to save the store that remained at all times totally respectful of the rights of private big business property. Thus FDR never really went deep into the question of workplace democracy, production choices, income distribution, or many other issues that would have meant a true clash of class interests. And WWII of course obscured all that. Sure, FDR entered the war against the Axis, and MOMENTARILY a segment of official propaganda shifted to demonize the Germans and Japanese insteads of the “Reds”, but those were not so much antifascist/anti-imperialist sentiments as nationalist power calculations.


obama-and-bill-clinton-at-democratic-national-convention-2012

The above means that if the ruling cliques deem it necessary to take the “nice mask” of democracy off (a big gamble since they may never restore the “legitimacy” they retain through this ruse), it will happen, no matter who’s nominally in charge at the White House. In the case of the Bush/Cheney duo, they were born to stage the perfect friendly fascist coup and have almost pulled it off in slow motion over the last eight years. But if confronted with a less cooperative president, the power elite would find a way to neutralize him. We’re dealing with a huge cast of actors here, many with colossal stakes, and who have enormous resources at their disposal to create all sorts of mischief, which they have done at taxpayer expense all over the world for years. These criminals will not give up their accustomed ways without a fight. In fact, they will do as Bush/Cheney have done and go on the offensive in a nearly transparent way.

What the world needs—desperately (and we are using this word sans hyperbole here) are dramatic changes in policies and top personnel and new models of advanced democratic enfranchisement. That means real democratic restructuring, proportional representation, certifiable elections, workplace democracy, a disenfranchisement of the power and income rights of the reigning plutocracy, and an effective global program of ecological respect and sanity. Do you see that being initiated under ANY establishment politico, including “Mr. Change” himself? Do you see any of these radical (yet utterly necessary) changes being implemented without a HUGE fight from capital and its affiliated elites around the globe?

Even if, and that is a big if, Obama wanted to institute beneficent change, he would be facing impossible odds. Need proof? Consider one of the ugliest and most absurd contradictions of American capitalism. Despite frontpage acknowledgment by the crypto-fascist WSJ in 1973 that 68% of US Americans supported a universal, single-payer healthcare system, the fact that even fellow capitalist nations have such a system, and the reality that our existing health care system is ruining many capitalists in the US (especially those in the small and middle sectors but even making corporate giants like GM uncompetitive), the health of the masses remains tertiary to the profits of health-care industry giants and to the availability of the gold standard in health care to a relative few. Think Obama and his family don’t have the best medical care known to man?

The American people must de-link themselves from our farcical presidential election circus, turn their eyes to a different kind of electoral politics, leave electoral politics entirely, or develop and field new forms of oppositional struggle. This may and will probably entail the formation of mass mobilization instruments such as a real popular party. In all these tasks, the Democrats like Obama just stand in the way, beguiling the people with illusions and sucking up precious oxygen. That long journey has to be made, and the sooner the better. Trying to avoid the arrival of fascism by appealing to the “good cop” of the bourgeoisie is an illusion; fascism can only be stopped when the masses are organized—and fully aware.

Some think we gain time for such organization under the Democrats. Problem is, the Democrats and their half measures that appear to thwart the capitalist juggernaut are what keeps the masses enthralled with the system and in effect dissuade them from joining the struggle against it. The public will not do what needs to be done until professional and charismatic charlatans like Obama are revealed for what they are. Band-aid solutions by the Democrats will not stop the slide toward the disaster and chaos guaranteed by the dynamics of the system.

Simply look at what has happened with the subprime crisis, an abortion that wriggled and writhed its way directly from the foul womb of a freewheeling, mature, ultra-cynical crony capitalism. It was a deep-rooted phenomenon that happened as inevitably as the transformation of undifferentiated cells into cancers. Politicians could not see it or stop it because that’s not their job under the traditional task distribution of the system.

Obama or anyone else in the establishment can’t cure the myriad ills of capitalism. These ills can never be cured from within or through playing by the accepted rules of the world’s plutocracy. That’s why all American politicians are into tinkering and superficialities. Their programs and “solutions” to the most glaring and obvious aspects of a severely broken system are complex, almost ludicrous Rube Goldberg contraptions (the health system comes to mind yet again). Obama and his fellow liberals are incredible illusionists: they give the people the distinct impression they are acting to cure the very disease that provides the life-blood to the opulent class whose interests they strive so hard to preserve. This would be obvious to most US Americans and the WaPo, the WSJ, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, the NY Times and even the CIA headquarters would have been stoned and razed to the ground already if so many of us were not braindead and kept in that vegetative state by the corporate media, an entity that more aware Latin Americans justly call, the “falsimedia.”

So if Obama–let alone Hillary–won’t and can’t guarantee the defeat of friendly-fascism in America, what’s the point? Sure, Obama very intelligently trades on HOPE. And many people, us included, are always loath to give up on hope. Hope is a powerful drug. Cyrano is in itself a work of HOPE. So this is tricky territory.

But hope must always be tempered with reason, especially in politics and war. And no reasonable human being could conclude that putting Obama at the helm of the USS Titanic will avert disaster for anyone but him and his cronies in the first class berths.

Suddenly Ralph Nader doesn’t sound like such a ridiculous option, unless you’re a plutocrat or a corporado.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Patrice Greanville is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s founder and editor in chief. Jason Miller is CJO’s Associate Editor and Editorial Director of Thomas Paine’s Corner, Cyrano’s largest blog.

Further Reading:

(1) Check out radical historian and activist Paul Street’s thorough deconstruction of Obama at: http://www.bestcyrano.org/p.streetonObama2.2.07.htm

(2) For a penetrating analysis of the power structure of our bourgeois democracy, take a look at this excerpt from C Wright Mills’s “Power Elite:” http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/HigherCircles_PE.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


 

APPENDIX: On the next page we present a great example of modern, p.r. managed, snake oil. Read and see how convincing this kind of oratory can be in the hands of an expert and gifted demagog.


 

Barack Obama’s Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

July 27, 2004 at 12:00 AM EST

TRANSCRIPT

BARACK OBAMA: On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place; America which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton’s army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or “blessed,” believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential. They are both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.

I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody’s son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted — or at least, most of the time.

This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.

Don’t get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they’ve defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.

John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he’ll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never be the first option.

A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, 6’2” or 6’3”, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!

Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do — if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.


 

 

 

 

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.