As the super-power and its sub-super-power friends rain bombs and missiles on Libya, we face a new crisis of clarity and courage in the US. While many in the world recoil from the destruction and human toll of this un-provoked assault by foreign powers on a small, relatively defenseless country, most of our fellow citizens, without much thought, buy into the government and the slavish media’s spin on this aggression.
From a far-off planet, beings would trust their instincts and see the massive military force unleashed on a section of North Africa as the criminal violation of Libyan air space and territoriality that it is. They might wonder what possibly could justify this aggressive action, even what could motivate seemingly senseless economic and human destruction.
But in our corner of the world, words like “No Fly Zone,” “human rights,” “democracy” and “humanitarian intervention” are drained of any credible meaning and cynically repeated by perpetrators who know that, if they are repeated enough and echoed by a subservient media, they will cow masses into thoughtless compliance.
Libya is in the throes of a civil war. Unlike other risings in the Middle East, the opposing forces have resorted to armed confrontation, resolving to settle the affair violently. On one side is a once-popular nationalist leader credited with overthrowing an absolute, but “pro-Western” monarch. He has vacillated between hostility to Western interests and mutual, cooperative relations. Up until the uprising, he had many European friends and corporate collaborators attracted to Libya’s energy resources.
Gadhafi has the dubious distinction of being perhaps the first international leader openly targeted by the US Government for assassination. In 1986, the Reagan administration launched an overt air attack upon him that resulted in the death of numerous civilians. Formerly, government-sponsored international assassination was couched in deniability and reserved for US security services. With little significant domestic opposition, the precedent has encouraged subsequent administrations to expand these illegal murders, most recently with the wide-spread drone attacks embraced by the Obama Administration.
Gadhafi has created his own unique state structure that claims a “democratic” and “socialist” character, a matter best left to be judged by the Libyan people.
Arrayed against Gadhafi in the civil war is a resistance movement that embraced armed struggle and occupies key cities in the Eastern part of Libya. Nominally leading this movement is the former Libyan Justice Minister and a largely anonymous, secretive council that has yet to reveal either a clear program or ideological commitments. Interestingly, they fight under the flag of the old pre-Gadhafi monarchy. Many left commentators have exposed financial ties and covert contacts with Western intelligence agencies and covert organizations. The impact of these charges is difficult to assess since such contacts are widespread, infecting almost all of the oppositional movements in the Middle East, including those in Egypt and Tunisia. Subsequent news reports have confirmed a significant and growing engagement by US and British security forces, including the embedding of a top military leader with undeniable ties to the CIA and the US foreign policy establishment. Anti-imperialists should well remember the covert assistance delivered to Islamic fundamentalists throughout the Middle East by US and Israeli intelligence as a backstop to secular left movements, a devious tactic that spawned a new oppositional movement that turned against its sponsors. Nonetheless, the kept media has, with little evidence, proclaimed the anti-Gadhafi forces “democratic.”
No-Fly Zones
US and European intervention in Libyan affairs hides under the cover of a UN resolution authorizing a “No-fly zone.” A no-fly zone was a formal devise contrived in 1991 to pressure Iraq under the guise of protecting human rights. Forcing a resolution through the UN Security Council, the US and its allies “interpreted” the resolution to allow the policing of Iraqi air space, denying Iraqi military planes or missiles any activity in much of its territory. In fact, this maneuver was an attempt to provoke a response that would lead to an escalation of US military action. Interestingly, US policy assumed that pre-emptive strikes were unnecessary because the US maintained such an overwhelming military and technological advantage.
Facing little effective international or domestic opposition to the Iraqi venture, the US and its allies again went to the UN well for approval of air power to secure “human rights” in the ongoing dismantling of Yugoslavia. From 1993 on, NATO conducted air strikes to influence the outcome. Emboldened by the success of the “humanitarian intervention” ruse and confident of their domination of the UN, the Western allies nakedly used air power to shape the post-Soviet world in their own interests, but at the cost of thousands of innocent lives and massive economic destruction. With most opinion makers in the Western capitalist countries seduced by the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention,” a new tool of imperialism was born.
Now the tool has been unsheathed against Libya. Rushing through another “No-fly” UN resolution with the shameful acquiescence of some abstaining “progressive” states, the US and its allies are again seeking to dictate the fate of a sovereign state. In this case, they have shed even the illusion of disinterested humanitarian intervention by actively coordinating with and supporting the military operations of the anti-Gadhafi forces. The initiative for this aggression was eagerly assumed by France and the UK, a development that likely reflects their reliance on Libyan energy resources.
Like a petulant child, the Western powers – the US and its NATO allies – press the limits of tolerance. From its malign origins as a maneuver to influence regime change in Iraq, the “no-fly zone” tactic has morphed into a scheme to dismantle the former Yugoslavia and, now, a transparent cover for naked, unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation. The full might of Western military power has wrecked havoc upon the civilian population to sheer away Gadhafi supporters through terror. While paying lip service to the UN resolution, NATO spokespeople have endorsed this terror campaign as the strategic goal – an updated version of “shock and awe.”
Imperialism
Imperialism makes adjustments. After the demise of the Cold War, US imperialism structured a new world order. With the absence of a formidable military and economic counter-force, policy makers were emboldened to take direct, overt action to shape the world in a way agreeable to capitalist economic interests. During the Cold War, these goals were sought through covert action, subservient regional watch dogs, and surrogate armed forces, rarely through direct military engagement; fear of the military might of the socialist community foreclosed direct intervention. With those barriers removed, the imperialist countries are now feasting on weaker countries through open military action.
In order to dampen popular resistance, imperialist aggression is clothed in the lofty humanitarian language of democracy and human rights. With a tame, compliant mass media, aggression is readily postured as fostering democracy and promoting human rights, oblivious to the very lives of hundreds of thousands of those who disagree or are merely bystanders.
Unfortunately, many progressives and leftists have failed to adjust to the adjustments of imperialism; they have been blinded by the cynical, empty slogans proclaimed by imperialist aggressors. They refuse to see those resisting aggression as anti-imperialists, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or now Libya. Instead, they are side tracked by cultural, religious or political differences not palatable to smug, all-knowing Westerners.
The crucial and fundamental right of national self-determination, so crucial to the oppressed and scorned by imperialism, has been cast aside. For most of the twentieth century, this principle was the cornerstone of liberation from big power domination. In today’s world, it is expressed as non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Throughout the world - from Cuba and Venezuela to Georgia, from Iran to Peoples’ China – the US violates this principle on a daily basis. However we may personally judge the practices or political systems of our neighbors, they are for them to determine. It is surely not a matter to be decided by the great powers of our time. Their sanctimony thinly disguises their own imperial interests.
Indifference or willful consent to imperialist aggression is not an honest option.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Search This Blog
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Unwanted Advise
When in doubt about how to channel the movement forward, I suggest asking someone standing in the way of change. Do the opposite of what they advise.
Fortunately, we have unsolicited advise from William McGurn, a corporate Vice President of News Corporation, the giant media conglomerate that, under the ownership of Rupert Murdoch, brings the world the right-wing, pro-corporate, anti-democratic slant through familiar vehicles like Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. McGurn is an especially important voice since he writes the speeches for CEO Murdoch and, before that, he was the chief speechwriter for George W. Bush.
He regularly writes the folksy WSJ column called “Main Street,” though it is doubtful that McGurn often visits “Main Street,” except when he mistakes it for “Wall Street.”
Most recently, McGurn penned a column entitled “Rules for Wisconsin Radicals”, offering “…ten rules for Wisconsin protesters…” (Wall Street Journal, 3-15-2011) Undoubtedly, he didn’t write these rules to seriously direct those fighting to preserve the wages, benefits, and rights of Wisconsin public sector workers, but rather to provide a moment of jocularity for his Wall Street pals and other moguls. (We used to call them “fat cats,” but they’ve joined the fitness craze; they still smoke fat cigars and belong to private clubs, though.)
McGurn begins with a rule that, should anyone take it seriously, guarantees a tame and ineffective movement: No more Jesse Jackson. Apart from its embedded racism, this rule is a recipe for dissipating the energy that street action generates. Lurking behind this advice is a fear that a movement can grow and develop into a real threat to corporate power and elite politics. Jackson’s rhetorical powers and ability to unite seemingly varied interests might “suggest to people... that the protesters may be more radical than they claim,” quoting McGurn.
Precisely.
And it is exactly the fire and brimstone and ability to link causes brought by people like Jesse Jackson that promise to mold a particular struggle into a national movement attracting millions. Mainstream McGurn’s rule reveals his own thinly concealed image of the average US citizen as dumbly sitting in front of the TV watching the demonstrations on Fox News and frowning at the sight of Jesse Jackson. Sure, that may be true of many Fox News viewers, but millions of people – certainly most African Americans – remember the picket lines, voter registration projects, protests and demonstrations that Jesse Jackson has enlivened.
Rule Two proscribes other figures associated with the left: Ditto for Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Tony Shaloub. While they and other activists may get under the skin of those trawling Fox News for wisdom, they bring together others who will recognize the connections between many and varied movements: health care, women’s issues, repression of Arab Americans, and immigrant rights. It is through these connections that recognition of a common foe creates the conditions for a united movement, something that Mainstream McGurn profoundly fears.
Sadly, many on the left have fallen into McGurn’s trap by narrowing the focus of struggles in order to court the illusory mainstream. Elements of the anti-war movement have excluded “controversial” leaders and issues so as not to alienate fair-weather friends in the Democratic Party or those they imagine too dumb to gauge their own stakes in various issues. Implicit in this tactic is contempt for people’s ability to learn and grow. Implicit in this approach is a lack of the ability to imagine a unified, diverse movement emerging. Cynically, this is often presented as an attempt for “broad unity.” Instead, as we have seen, this results in vague, tepid and uninspiring demands.
Lose the peace signs, McGurn admonishes, that would suggest “a hankering for the anti-middle class 1960’s.” This third rule is an odd twist on history. The movements of the sixties produced an end to legal segregation in the South, civil rights legislation, anti-poverty programs, Medicare, the collapse of a President’s re-election bid, and enormous pressure to end an unjust war. While the peace sign was just one of the symbols of the time, it is hard to envision how these gains were achieved while offending the “middle class.”
The simple truth is that McGurn fears a repeat of the movements that swept the sixties; he fears that the peace sign and its broad appeal might unify those seeking peace with those promoting other causes for social justice.
Put out more flags and sing “a few verses of ‘God Bless America.’” Sure, flags, like peace symbols, are welcome, but turning the Wisconsin struggle into an orgy of patriotism and chest-pounding loyalty is a sure-fire way to divert a movement that shows a glimmer of recognition of class oppression into a celebration of common destiny and the mirage of shared sacrifice. Whenever the moguls sense a stirring of resentment among their vassals, they bring out the flag and patriotic songs to remind the downtrodden of how they are all part of “…one nation, invisible…” I doubt if McGurn would invite a band of workers carrying flags into the corporate board room to remind the directors that we are “…one nation, indivisible…” and entitled to jobs and fair and equitable treatment. Maybe that’s where we most need more flags and patriotic songs.
Rule Five: Respect the law. Paraphrasing Marx, agents for change shouldn’t interpret the law, but force the legal system to embrace social justice – to change it. This is rarely possible without defiance of the law. All the successful movements that have made the US a better nation have challenged the law when it was a barrier to advancing the struggle. From the slavery abolitionists to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, principled fighters for justice have energized movements with their determination to go beyond the constraints of polite discourse and even the laws. One of our great democratic achievements – the elimination of legal segregation – would have failed if the civil rights movement abided by the laws of the time.
Mainstream McGurn scolds the Wisconsin teachers with his sixth rule: If you are teachers, don’t call in sick as a group so you can all protest. McGurn’s concerns about cancelled classes and student welfare would be touching if he showed the same concern for teachers’ unions and their welfare. Once again, he shows scorn for the intelligence and integrity of the “mainstream” students and parents who value the well being of teachers and identify with their needs. (In every opinion poll, teachers are among the most respected segments of society—well above corporate bigwigs, politicians, and even pundits!)
McGurn is especially appalled by the incivility of the demonstrators. No more Hitler moustaches on Governor Walker, he exclaims. “…Hitler analogies are tired.” Or do they touch a raw nerve? In any case, my own survey of the multitude of homemade signs suggests that McGurn’s imagination is even greater than his indignation. But in any case, policing the signs and images is merely a distraction from the work of nurturing a dramatic fight back against his friend, Governor Walker. Where McGurn sees a public relations spectacle, others see the kindling of class struggle, a fire that McGurn deeply dreads.
Rule Eight: Make local workers your public face: real teachers, real cops, real firemen. “… [T]hey make a much more sympathetic case than the professional union leaders.” While “professional union leaders” are struggling to shed the rust of class collaboration, dividing them from the rank-and-file is a sure way to derail a movement. When masses are in motion, even the most cautious, backward union leaders will jog to keep up. They pose a real danger, however, when their fears of worker militancy threaten to clear the streets in favor of political maneuvers and back-room deals. But the spotlight is large enough for everyone to stand in it.
If you want to cripple a movement, take McGurn’s Rule Nine to heart: Don’t call for grand actions only likely to confirm your weakness. Certainly modest, polite and limited requests will hearten the moguls and elites who are only too happy to dismiss them. This brand of pre-destined defeatism limits the horizon of victory before the battle is waged. Surely, the decades-long, one-sided class war waged by corporations and their minions must be met with more than the threat of minor, tentative skirmishes. Unquestionably, great victories require thorough and thoughtful preparation, but they are foregone if couched in timidity. Lenin said it well: “Only struggle discloses to it [the masses] the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will.” For Lenin and other peoples’ leaders, weaknesses are not to be heeded, but to be overcome through action.
The “business unionism” practice of offering concessions before confrontation has proven to be bankrupt. The prospect of “grand actions” should be on the agenda.
Lastly, McGurn admonishes protesters to [s]how some sympathy for the tax payers. In McGurn’s world, public sector workers are merely burdens on taxpayers and not the essential elements of a functioning and hospitable society. It never crossed his mind that they may be more socially useful than stock brokers, Wall Street managers or CEOs. Workers’ struggles to maintain and advance a modest standard of living is seen by him and those like him as a personal burden rather than compensation for the education, protection and services that they provide for the vast majority. In his world of gated communities, mansions, private jets and limousines, private schools, private clubs and the other privileges of wealth, the public services that sustain the work, security and private lives of most of us is of little consequence.
Of course we are all taxpayers and most of us are grateful for the social benefits that public workers provide. We wish that less of our tax burden were wasted on destructive wars, subsidies for giant corporations and fixing the messes left in the wake of corporate irresponsibility and crime. For McGurn and his friends, these are tolerable uses of taxpayers’ dollars; for the rest of us, they are not.
Thanks, but no thanks, William McGurn. As the battle for justice for public sector workers grows in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and most other states, we’ll find our own way.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Fortunately, we have unsolicited advise from William McGurn, a corporate Vice President of News Corporation, the giant media conglomerate that, under the ownership of Rupert Murdoch, brings the world the right-wing, pro-corporate, anti-democratic slant through familiar vehicles like Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. McGurn is an especially important voice since he writes the speeches for CEO Murdoch and, before that, he was the chief speechwriter for George W. Bush.
He regularly writes the folksy WSJ column called “Main Street,” though it is doubtful that McGurn often visits “Main Street,” except when he mistakes it for “Wall Street.”
Most recently, McGurn penned a column entitled “Rules for Wisconsin Radicals”, offering “…ten rules for Wisconsin protesters…” (Wall Street Journal, 3-15-2011) Undoubtedly, he didn’t write these rules to seriously direct those fighting to preserve the wages, benefits, and rights of Wisconsin public sector workers, but rather to provide a moment of jocularity for his Wall Street pals and other moguls. (We used to call them “fat cats,” but they’ve joined the fitness craze; they still smoke fat cigars and belong to private clubs, though.)
McGurn begins with a rule that, should anyone take it seriously, guarantees a tame and ineffective movement: No more Jesse Jackson. Apart from its embedded racism, this rule is a recipe for dissipating the energy that street action generates. Lurking behind this advice is a fear that a movement can grow and develop into a real threat to corporate power and elite politics. Jackson’s rhetorical powers and ability to unite seemingly varied interests might “suggest to people... that the protesters may be more radical than they claim,” quoting McGurn.
Precisely.
And it is exactly the fire and brimstone and ability to link causes brought by people like Jesse Jackson that promise to mold a particular struggle into a national movement attracting millions. Mainstream McGurn’s rule reveals his own thinly concealed image of the average US citizen as dumbly sitting in front of the TV watching the demonstrations on Fox News and frowning at the sight of Jesse Jackson. Sure, that may be true of many Fox News viewers, but millions of people – certainly most African Americans – remember the picket lines, voter registration projects, protests and demonstrations that Jesse Jackson has enlivened.
Rule Two proscribes other figures associated with the left: Ditto for Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Tony Shaloub. While they and other activists may get under the skin of those trawling Fox News for wisdom, they bring together others who will recognize the connections between many and varied movements: health care, women’s issues, repression of Arab Americans, and immigrant rights. It is through these connections that recognition of a common foe creates the conditions for a united movement, something that Mainstream McGurn profoundly fears.
Sadly, many on the left have fallen into McGurn’s trap by narrowing the focus of struggles in order to court the illusory mainstream. Elements of the anti-war movement have excluded “controversial” leaders and issues so as not to alienate fair-weather friends in the Democratic Party or those they imagine too dumb to gauge their own stakes in various issues. Implicit in this tactic is contempt for people’s ability to learn and grow. Implicit in this approach is a lack of the ability to imagine a unified, diverse movement emerging. Cynically, this is often presented as an attempt for “broad unity.” Instead, as we have seen, this results in vague, tepid and uninspiring demands.
Lose the peace signs, McGurn admonishes, that would suggest “a hankering for the anti-middle class 1960’s.” This third rule is an odd twist on history. The movements of the sixties produced an end to legal segregation in the South, civil rights legislation, anti-poverty programs, Medicare, the collapse of a President’s re-election bid, and enormous pressure to end an unjust war. While the peace sign was just one of the symbols of the time, it is hard to envision how these gains were achieved while offending the “middle class.”
The simple truth is that McGurn fears a repeat of the movements that swept the sixties; he fears that the peace sign and its broad appeal might unify those seeking peace with those promoting other causes for social justice.
Put out more flags and sing “a few verses of ‘God Bless America.’” Sure, flags, like peace symbols, are welcome, but turning the Wisconsin struggle into an orgy of patriotism and chest-pounding loyalty is a sure-fire way to divert a movement that shows a glimmer of recognition of class oppression into a celebration of common destiny and the mirage of shared sacrifice. Whenever the moguls sense a stirring of resentment among their vassals, they bring out the flag and patriotic songs to remind the downtrodden of how they are all part of “…one nation, invisible…” I doubt if McGurn would invite a band of workers carrying flags into the corporate board room to remind the directors that we are “…one nation, indivisible…” and entitled to jobs and fair and equitable treatment. Maybe that’s where we most need more flags and patriotic songs.
Rule Five: Respect the law. Paraphrasing Marx, agents for change shouldn’t interpret the law, but force the legal system to embrace social justice – to change it. This is rarely possible without defiance of the law. All the successful movements that have made the US a better nation have challenged the law when it was a barrier to advancing the struggle. From the slavery abolitionists to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, principled fighters for justice have energized movements with their determination to go beyond the constraints of polite discourse and even the laws. One of our great democratic achievements – the elimination of legal segregation – would have failed if the civil rights movement abided by the laws of the time.
Mainstream McGurn scolds the Wisconsin teachers with his sixth rule: If you are teachers, don’t call in sick as a group so you can all protest. McGurn’s concerns about cancelled classes and student welfare would be touching if he showed the same concern for teachers’ unions and their welfare. Once again, he shows scorn for the intelligence and integrity of the “mainstream” students and parents who value the well being of teachers and identify with their needs. (In every opinion poll, teachers are among the most respected segments of society—well above corporate bigwigs, politicians, and even pundits!)
McGurn is especially appalled by the incivility of the demonstrators. No more Hitler moustaches on Governor Walker, he exclaims. “…Hitler analogies are tired.” Or do they touch a raw nerve? In any case, my own survey of the multitude of homemade signs suggests that McGurn’s imagination is even greater than his indignation. But in any case, policing the signs and images is merely a distraction from the work of nurturing a dramatic fight back against his friend, Governor Walker. Where McGurn sees a public relations spectacle, others see the kindling of class struggle, a fire that McGurn deeply dreads.
Rule Eight: Make local workers your public face: real teachers, real cops, real firemen. “… [T]hey make a much more sympathetic case than the professional union leaders.” While “professional union leaders” are struggling to shed the rust of class collaboration, dividing them from the rank-and-file is a sure way to derail a movement. When masses are in motion, even the most cautious, backward union leaders will jog to keep up. They pose a real danger, however, when their fears of worker militancy threaten to clear the streets in favor of political maneuvers and back-room deals. But the spotlight is large enough for everyone to stand in it.
If you want to cripple a movement, take McGurn’s Rule Nine to heart: Don’t call for grand actions only likely to confirm your weakness. Certainly modest, polite and limited requests will hearten the moguls and elites who are only too happy to dismiss them. This brand of pre-destined defeatism limits the horizon of victory before the battle is waged. Surely, the decades-long, one-sided class war waged by corporations and their minions must be met with more than the threat of minor, tentative skirmishes. Unquestionably, great victories require thorough and thoughtful preparation, but they are foregone if couched in timidity. Lenin said it well: “Only struggle discloses to it [the masses] the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will.” For Lenin and other peoples’ leaders, weaknesses are not to be heeded, but to be overcome through action.
The “business unionism” practice of offering concessions before confrontation has proven to be bankrupt. The prospect of “grand actions” should be on the agenda.
Lastly, McGurn admonishes protesters to [s]how some sympathy for the tax payers. In McGurn’s world, public sector workers are merely burdens on taxpayers and not the essential elements of a functioning and hospitable society. It never crossed his mind that they may be more socially useful than stock brokers, Wall Street managers or CEOs. Workers’ struggles to maintain and advance a modest standard of living is seen by him and those like him as a personal burden rather than compensation for the education, protection and services that they provide for the vast majority. In his world of gated communities, mansions, private jets and limousines, private schools, private clubs and the other privileges of wealth, the public services that sustain the work, security and private lives of most of us is of little consequence.
Of course we are all taxpayers and most of us are grateful for the social benefits that public workers provide. We wish that less of our tax burden were wasted on destructive wars, subsidies for giant corporations and fixing the messes left in the wake of corporate irresponsibility and crime. For McGurn and his friends, these are tolerable uses of taxpayers’ dollars; for the rest of us, they are not.
Thanks, but no thanks, William McGurn. As the battle for justice for public sector workers grows in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and most other states, we’ll find our own way.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Class Solidarity: The Road to Unity
Some see the description “Marxist” as an anachronism. Certainly much has changed in the world since the times of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Indeed, capitalism – the object of their study – has evolved strickingly from the socio-economic order they sought to understand in the nineteenth century. Yet we are constantly reminded of the fruitfulness of their key analytical tools: class, exploitation and profits.
We find these tools useful in some of the most unlikely places, as demonstrated by a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. Writing on the Journal’s refreshingly eccentric sports page, author Matthew Futterman tackles the political economy of the National Football League (The NFL’s $1 Billion Game of Chicken (2-17-11). Futterman states: “The League has run out of new ways new ways to make another quick $1 billion, so its turning its focus to the biggest piggy bank of all: its own players.” Within the next two weeks, the player contract expires and NFL management will likely lock out – call a management strike on – the players and their union.
Futterman adds that behind this threatened lockout is “a notion that’s familiar to investors, but that represents a radical notion in professional sports: the idea that a sports league, like a giant company, must show steady growth over time. And more radically, a slowdown in the rate of growth, even without actual losses, is sufficient grounds to ask labor to make concessions.” In other words, professional football is a giant monopoly business with its own unique expressions of class, labor exploitation and profit accumulation.
Of course this backdrop of social confrontation and the drive for greater profits is not readily apparent to the average fan. Professional football occupies a special place in US culture. On one hand, it postures as a “pure” sport with great athletes – athletes bred, trained and motivated for most of their young lives – competing in a brutally violent game. On the other hand, it is presented as capturing the US ethos: overwhelming power, domination, confident cockiness, as well as respect for authority and unquestioning patriotism. Unmistakably, this representation is a profoundly conservative ethos.
But as Futterman’s candor shows, the NFL is far more than this popular image. From tickets to television, from media noise to gear, from advertising to fantasy football, the NFL both occupies a huge chunk of US cultural life and stands as a profit-generating behemoth.
It is this last aspect that draws little attention. Even less attention is given to the conflict between owners and workers, especially the players.
Between 2000 and the 2010 season, revenues have grown from about $4 billion to $9 billon. While every NFL team is highly profitable, owners view their protected franchises – their teams – as their major source of wealth. Just as stock market investors have come to place equity value over dividend return, team owners are most interested in seeing their team’s worth grow. For example, the NY Jets were purchased in 2000 for $635 million. Ten years later, another comparable franchise - the Miami Dolphins - sold for $1.1 billion.
The explosion of revenue in the NFL has come from several inter-connected sources. From 1993 to 2005 NFL owners extorted massive public funding for new stadiums. By threatening to move franchises, team owners and compliant city and regional officials have contrived a massive public welfare program for the benefit of the wealthy owners; the WSJ estimates that public subsidies averaged $500 million per year over the 13-year span.
Thanks to brand new stadiums with not-too-subtle class divisions (end-zone seats vs. luxury sky boxes), ticket revenues exploded, doubling between 1997 and 2007. Today, the average ticket costs $76 per game. It’s an unspoken truth that most season ticket holders are far removed from the working class who largely follow their team from in front of their television sets.
But competing media conglomerates have been the most kind to the NFL owners. Media rights to NFL broadcasts and properties have jumped from $2.6 billion annually in 2005 to $3.8 billion in 2010.
One might think that the NFL team owners would be quite satisfied with their lofty financial achievements, but like all capitalists they have an unquenchable thirst to accumulate. But as Futterman cogently puts it, they are looking for new ways to “make a quick $1 billion…” With new stadiums built and steadfast resistance to further subsidies on the part of the public, the team owners have turned away from the public troughs. With ticket prices sky high, they are afraid of squeezing fans further. And media contracts will increase only modestly over the next three years.
Therefore, owners are turning to the tried-and-true, centuries-old capitalist tactic: increase labor productivity by reducing wages and increasing the workload. They hope to add two more games per season to increase revenue. Thus, players will work 1/8th more for the same salaries. Standing in the way of this intensification of the owners’ exploitation of the players is their union’s resistance. Consequently, the lockout threatens to cancel the next season and pressure the players’ ability to earn a living.
As much as fans admire NFL players, they show little sympathy for their economic plight. Attention to the mega-salaries of superstars blinds them to the facts of an NFL career. The average median salary of an NFL player in 2009 was $770,000. But the average career lasts only 3 years, giving the average player a lifetime earning of $2 million plus from the NFL. Most players come from modest backgrounds and, unlike autoworkers or plumbers, have devoted fully 10 previous years of intense, competitive training without compensation beyond athletic scholarships. Thus, a 24-year-old average NFL retiree has earned well under $200,000 a year over his career, leaving his job often with debilitating injuries and little skill for any later opportunities. The media-hyped splendor of the super-star masks the far less glamorous status of the NFL’s ordinary player. Clearly, a lost season for players who only average three productive years is a powerful economic blow.
So, yes, players are workers, though unusually well paid for a brief time, and workers with their own unique advantages and difficulties. Players, like most fans, have drunk the cultural kool-aid that elevates all NFL players to elite status. The players don’t want to be seen as workers, but neither do many other well paid professionals or craftsmen for that matter.
For those of us who are consumers of the players’ product – fans – we need to take sides in a struggle between admittedly well-off players and the handful of mega-rich owners who seek to get more for less from their employees. In the end, that is the central question of Marxist and scientific socialist theory: exploitation. Exploitation defines class position as well as the distribution of the surplus, in this case NFL earnings. Unfortunately, the market determines the consumer’s place in this arguably decadent and politically numbing exercise in primitivism and violence – we lose a bit of our souls every Sunday in the fall. And our dollars combine to generate the $9 billion that the owners are so greedily striving to stuff into their pockets. But behind our shared football mania is an exploitative socio-economic system, just as ancient slavery stood behind the entertainments of the Roman circuses and the encounters of gladiators.
The lesson here is not that we should drop all activities to organize huge rallies in support of the small number of NFL professionals who are exploited by their employees, though there is much that we can easily do to show our solidarity with them. We certainly have more urgent priorities in supporting the public employees in the class war now raging in Wisconsin and breaking out in numerous other states. The living standards of all government employees –federal, state and local – as well as their union rights are under assault from many quarters, an assault that presages further attacks upon all workers. Instead, we must recognize that the Marxist notion of class – employees versus employers – trumps all other notions that divide workers by strata, job description, race, gender or nationality. It is “class,” as Marxists understand it, which serves as a basis for unity, and not some bogus unity forged from artificial ties with fickle friends in bourgeois politics or opportunistic, tenuous common interests. Those loose ties maybe be useful and even tactically desirable, but not at the expense of class partisanship.
A healthy sign of this class solidarity is the recent open letter from several current and former members of the Green Bay Packers professional football team urging support for Wisconsin’s embattled public workers. Is it an accident that they played for the only publicly owned team in the National Football League?
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
We find these tools useful in some of the most unlikely places, as demonstrated by a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. Writing on the Journal’s refreshingly eccentric sports page, author Matthew Futterman tackles the political economy of the National Football League (The NFL’s $1 Billion Game of Chicken (2-17-11). Futterman states: “The League has run out of new ways new ways to make another quick $1 billion, so its turning its focus to the biggest piggy bank of all: its own players.” Within the next two weeks, the player contract expires and NFL management will likely lock out – call a management strike on – the players and their union.
Futterman adds that behind this threatened lockout is “a notion that’s familiar to investors, but that represents a radical notion in professional sports: the idea that a sports league, like a giant company, must show steady growth over time. And more radically, a slowdown in the rate of growth, even without actual losses, is sufficient grounds to ask labor to make concessions.” In other words, professional football is a giant monopoly business with its own unique expressions of class, labor exploitation and profit accumulation.
Of course this backdrop of social confrontation and the drive for greater profits is not readily apparent to the average fan. Professional football occupies a special place in US culture. On one hand, it postures as a “pure” sport with great athletes – athletes bred, trained and motivated for most of their young lives – competing in a brutally violent game. On the other hand, it is presented as capturing the US ethos: overwhelming power, domination, confident cockiness, as well as respect for authority and unquestioning patriotism. Unmistakably, this representation is a profoundly conservative ethos.
But as Futterman’s candor shows, the NFL is far more than this popular image. From tickets to television, from media noise to gear, from advertising to fantasy football, the NFL both occupies a huge chunk of US cultural life and stands as a profit-generating behemoth.
It is this last aspect that draws little attention. Even less attention is given to the conflict between owners and workers, especially the players.
Between 2000 and the 2010 season, revenues have grown from about $4 billion to $9 billon. While every NFL team is highly profitable, owners view their protected franchises – their teams – as their major source of wealth. Just as stock market investors have come to place equity value over dividend return, team owners are most interested in seeing their team’s worth grow. For example, the NY Jets were purchased in 2000 for $635 million. Ten years later, another comparable franchise - the Miami Dolphins - sold for $1.1 billion.
The explosion of revenue in the NFL has come from several inter-connected sources. From 1993 to 2005 NFL owners extorted massive public funding for new stadiums. By threatening to move franchises, team owners and compliant city and regional officials have contrived a massive public welfare program for the benefit of the wealthy owners; the WSJ estimates that public subsidies averaged $500 million per year over the 13-year span.
Thanks to brand new stadiums with not-too-subtle class divisions (end-zone seats vs. luxury sky boxes), ticket revenues exploded, doubling between 1997 and 2007. Today, the average ticket costs $76 per game. It’s an unspoken truth that most season ticket holders are far removed from the working class who largely follow their team from in front of their television sets.
But competing media conglomerates have been the most kind to the NFL owners. Media rights to NFL broadcasts and properties have jumped from $2.6 billion annually in 2005 to $3.8 billion in 2010.
One might think that the NFL team owners would be quite satisfied with their lofty financial achievements, but like all capitalists they have an unquenchable thirst to accumulate. But as Futterman cogently puts it, they are looking for new ways to “make a quick $1 billion…” With new stadiums built and steadfast resistance to further subsidies on the part of the public, the team owners have turned away from the public troughs. With ticket prices sky high, they are afraid of squeezing fans further. And media contracts will increase only modestly over the next three years.
Therefore, owners are turning to the tried-and-true, centuries-old capitalist tactic: increase labor productivity by reducing wages and increasing the workload. They hope to add two more games per season to increase revenue. Thus, players will work 1/8th more for the same salaries. Standing in the way of this intensification of the owners’ exploitation of the players is their union’s resistance. Consequently, the lockout threatens to cancel the next season and pressure the players’ ability to earn a living.
As much as fans admire NFL players, they show little sympathy for their economic plight. Attention to the mega-salaries of superstars blinds them to the facts of an NFL career. The average median salary of an NFL player in 2009 was $770,000. But the average career lasts only 3 years, giving the average player a lifetime earning of $2 million plus from the NFL. Most players come from modest backgrounds and, unlike autoworkers or plumbers, have devoted fully 10 previous years of intense, competitive training without compensation beyond athletic scholarships. Thus, a 24-year-old average NFL retiree has earned well under $200,000 a year over his career, leaving his job often with debilitating injuries and little skill for any later opportunities. The media-hyped splendor of the super-star masks the far less glamorous status of the NFL’s ordinary player. Clearly, a lost season for players who only average three productive years is a powerful economic blow.
So, yes, players are workers, though unusually well paid for a brief time, and workers with their own unique advantages and difficulties. Players, like most fans, have drunk the cultural kool-aid that elevates all NFL players to elite status. The players don’t want to be seen as workers, but neither do many other well paid professionals or craftsmen for that matter.
For those of us who are consumers of the players’ product – fans – we need to take sides in a struggle between admittedly well-off players and the handful of mega-rich owners who seek to get more for less from their employees. In the end, that is the central question of Marxist and scientific socialist theory: exploitation. Exploitation defines class position as well as the distribution of the surplus, in this case NFL earnings. Unfortunately, the market determines the consumer’s place in this arguably decadent and politically numbing exercise in primitivism and violence – we lose a bit of our souls every Sunday in the fall. And our dollars combine to generate the $9 billion that the owners are so greedily striving to stuff into their pockets. But behind our shared football mania is an exploitative socio-economic system, just as ancient slavery stood behind the entertainments of the Roman circuses and the encounters of gladiators.
The lesson here is not that we should drop all activities to organize huge rallies in support of the small number of NFL professionals who are exploited by their employees, though there is much that we can easily do to show our solidarity with them. We certainly have more urgent priorities in supporting the public employees in the class war now raging in Wisconsin and breaking out in numerous other states. The living standards of all government employees –federal, state and local – as well as their union rights are under assault from many quarters, an assault that presages further attacks upon all workers. Instead, we must recognize that the Marxist notion of class – employees versus employers – trumps all other notions that divide workers by strata, job description, race, gender or nationality. It is “class,” as Marxists understand it, which serves as a basis for unity, and not some bogus unity forged from artificial ties with fickle friends in bourgeois politics or opportunistic, tenuous common interests. Those loose ties maybe be useful and even tactically desirable, but not at the expense of class partisanship.
A healthy sign of this class solidarity is the recent open letter from several current and former members of the Green Bay Packers professional football team urging support for Wisconsin’s embattled public workers. Is it an accident that they played for the only publicly owned team in the National Football League?
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Vulgar Burlesque and High Drama
The last week in January proved to be eventful. First, President Obama gave a State of the Union address on Tuesday that set a new standard of empty rhetoric and low customer satisfaction. Most notably, for skirting any important issues of the day, the address left both left and right uncomfortably disturbed by its lack of red meat. Perhaps in looking for a signal of surrender to the right, Conservative pundit, Peggy Noonan, called it “unserious,” “mushy,” and “barely relevant.” These non-ideological descriptions could equally serve the left.
Of course that was the point of the speech; the image crafters around Barack Obama are now engaged in a re-election campaign and that is exactly the porridge that best serves a sitting President.
For those on the right, it would be naïve to believe that Obama would come over to their side publicly, antagonizing the traditional Democratic base. Otherwise, there would be no political space for the AFL-CIO head, Richard Trumka, to praise Obama as “heading in the right direction.” Obama will appease his potential corporate contributors with deeds and not words.
For those on the left who remain expectant that Obama will break away from his corporate tether, call for a renewed commitment to progressivism, and propose even a weak anti-corporate, pro-people program, one can only prescribe new medication and a history lesson.
Many in our left – level-headed folks with an understanding of the two-party charade – expected to see an exposure of Obama’s perfidy in embracing debt hysteria and chopping essential public services. But eight years of Bill Clinton slipperiness should have taught that a clever elected official never shows his hand in public statements. And Barack Obama is certainly clever.
Putting aside naïve expectations, the real Obama message is that elections are serious business. Far too serious to engage in the posturing that feeds the punditry. Instead, a far-off election in 2012 calls exactly for a speech like the one Obama gave on Tuesday night, a speech that reaches the clouds in airy rhetoric referencing common sacrifice, noble goals and moving anecdotes. Its genius lies in placing seduction over substance.
Beyond the noise of the media gasbags, beyond the shallow electoral rhetoric, a different message has been delivered. Knowing corporate Republicans have gotten it.
The dry conservative wit Ben Stein spoke on CBS news (1-23-11) with only a touch of frivolity:
In a more serious vein, the retired University of Chicago colleague of conservative icon Milton Friedman, Robert Z. Aliber, opined in a MarketWatch.com interview (1-28-11):
Of course these reliable conservative voices are not advocating that Obama run for the Republican endorsement. Instead, they are affirming that corporate power is perfectly happy with an Obama second term. They are signaling that behind the curtain of tea-bagger histrionics, media antics, and poll-driven faux populism, core corporate Republicans would live happily with Obama at the executive helm. Having passed the test of corporate fealty, the President presents a more reliable, focused option over the theatrics of Palin and the other Republicans of dubious distinction and unproven corporate worthiness.
For Republicans, the 2012 Presidential campaign presents a problem: With a growing strength in Congress, they risk a setback comparable to the Barry Goldwater debacle - a quixotic campaign dominated by the crackpot right - if they sign on with Sarah Palin or her ilk.
Expect the corporate coffers to flow generously and overwhelmingly to Obama with only token support for the Republican outliers. If the Republican primaries produce a more centrist Republican, a more dedicated corporate type, he or she will likely fare poorly against a well funded incumbent. But the conservative Republican establishment seems pretty comfortable with such an outcome.
Of even more potential importance, the uprisings in the Middle East may well usher in changes that seriously challenge the stability of US imperialism. In the post-war period, the US has sought to establish a gendarmerie in the Middle East from friendly client states. In place of the traditional imperialist colonial structures, US policy shifted to establishing reliable and militarily powerful overseer states that would guarantee US economic domination while concealing the deep structure of neo-colonialism. For decades, Israel and Iran, under the Shah, performed this function in return for massive US aid, largely in the form of the most sophisticated US military weaponry.
For Israel, the deal guaranteed military advantage over any other Middle Eastern country. For the Shah, the compact funded a massive security apparatus against domestic opposition as well.
With the deposing of the Shah, the US lost its reliable partner, replacing it with Egypt. Now the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East, Egypt is responsible for containing Arab outrage with Israel and guaranteeing safe oil shipment through the Suez Canal and the Sumed pipeline.
But the successful uprising against the corrupt, reactionary government of Tunisia has inspired the Egyptian masses to rise as well against the brutal government of Mubarak. As this is written, his regime hangs by a thread. While events are confusing and fast moving, several points are apparent:
●The uprising seems to be popular, secular, broad-based and fueled by poverty, increasing food prices, and unemployment. Opposition seems to cut across classes.
●Mubarak has demonstrated no reliable base of support beyond his security services. Despite warm, close relations with its US counterparts, the military has yet to take strong action against the activists, even, in some reported cases, showing rank-and-file sympathy for the demonstrators.
●Slogans appear largely limited to the removal of Mubarak, often identifying him with the US and Israel, but with little to suggest a conscious program or unified leadership. Theocratic themes have been noticeably absent.
●The best gauge of the character of the revolt remains the US reaction: Confusion seems to have seized the US government caught between preserving a “democratic,” “human rights” image and defending its interests in Egypt and the guarantee of stability that Mubarak brought. Press Secretary Gibbs suggested that the US might withdraw aid; Secretary of State Clinton stated that there was no threat to do so. Government Officials call for “reform,” “change” and “peace,” but Clinton has assured the press that they have not sought Mubarak’s departure. Obama spoke to Mubarak, but only adding to the impression of diplomatic confusion.
●The US contingency plan in case of Mubarak’s departure seems to be based on the quick ascendancy of Mohamed El Baradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. While reviled by the Bush administration for his opposition to the Iraq invasion, he has apparently developed warm relations with the Obama Administration, according to The Wall Street Journal. That same WSJ (11-29/30-11) issue notes that he has little connection to the uprising and even less credibility with the Egyptian masses. Nevertheless, El Baradei has returned to Egypt and insinuated himself into the role of opposition spokesperson - doing so with a remarkable speed, strongly suggestive of the assistance of US and possibly Egyptian security services. Counter-factually, the capitalist press has sought to portray the Johnny-come-lately ElBaradei and the previously stand-offish Muslim Brotherhood as the leadership of the movement.
Given the panic occupying US officials, the hitherto manageable stability of the Middle East seems to be in jeopardy. The outcome is far from decided, but certainly the risings are threatening to imperial domination of the region and promising for the national democratic processes that were far from completed in the region after the Second World War. Time will tell if the US and its allies will be able to quell the risings or turn them to their own advantage, but the rising masses in the region deserve our solidarity.
An eventful week, indeed.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Of course that was the point of the speech; the image crafters around Barack Obama are now engaged in a re-election campaign and that is exactly the porridge that best serves a sitting President.
For those on the right, it would be naïve to believe that Obama would come over to their side publicly, antagonizing the traditional Democratic base. Otherwise, there would be no political space for the AFL-CIO head, Richard Trumka, to praise Obama as “heading in the right direction.” Obama will appease his potential corporate contributors with deeds and not words.
For those on the left who remain expectant that Obama will break away from his corporate tether, call for a renewed commitment to progressivism, and propose even a weak anti-corporate, pro-people program, one can only prescribe new medication and a history lesson.
Many in our left – level-headed folks with an understanding of the two-party charade – expected to see an exposure of Obama’s perfidy in embracing debt hysteria and chopping essential public services. But eight years of Bill Clinton slipperiness should have taught that a clever elected official never shows his hand in public statements. And Barack Obama is certainly clever.
Putting aside naïve expectations, the real Obama message is that elections are serious business. Far too serious to engage in the posturing that feeds the punditry. Instead, a far-off election in 2012 calls exactly for a speech like the one Obama gave on Tuesday night, a speech that reaches the clouds in airy rhetoric referencing common sacrifice, noble goals and moving anecdotes. Its genius lies in placing seduction over substance.
Beyond the noise of the media gasbags, beyond the shallow electoral rhetoric, a different message has been delivered. Knowing corporate Republicans have gotten it.
The dry conservative wit Ben Stein spoke on CBS news (1-23-11) with only a touch of frivolity:
But wait a minute! Isn't there someone out there who is Obama's equal in oratory, charisma, and ability to draw votes who COULD run as a Republican?
Why, yes there is: Barack Obama, his own self.
YES!
Think about it: Since the election of 2010, he is clearly moving in the direction of the Republican Party. He has completely signed on to the Republican position on tax cuts and kicking the deficit can down the road.
In a more serious vein, the retired University of Chicago colleague of conservative icon Milton Friedman, Robert Z. Aliber, opined in a MarketWatch.com interview (1-28-11):
Not only is Obama serious about reducing our trade deficit with China, but he is also reviewing onerous business regulations. He hired big, bad banker Bill Daley as his chief of staff; he put cost-cutting General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE - News) Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt in charge of a "jobs committee;" and he even invited Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS - News) Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein, Wall Street's prince of darkness, to the White House when Chinese President Hu Jintao was in town.
"There's no need for the Republicans to put up a candidate in 2012," Aliber added. "The Republican candidate is President Obama."
Of course these reliable conservative voices are not advocating that Obama run for the Republican endorsement. Instead, they are affirming that corporate power is perfectly happy with an Obama second term. They are signaling that behind the curtain of tea-bagger histrionics, media antics, and poll-driven faux populism, core corporate Republicans would live happily with Obama at the executive helm. Having passed the test of corporate fealty, the President presents a more reliable, focused option over the theatrics of Palin and the other Republicans of dubious distinction and unproven corporate worthiness.
For Republicans, the 2012 Presidential campaign presents a problem: With a growing strength in Congress, they risk a setback comparable to the Barry Goldwater debacle - a quixotic campaign dominated by the crackpot right - if they sign on with Sarah Palin or her ilk.
Expect the corporate coffers to flow generously and overwhelmingly to Obama with only token support for the Republican outliers. If the Republican primaries produce a more centrist Republican, a more dedicated corporate type, he or she will likely fare poorly against a well funded incumbent. But the conservative Republican establishment seems pretty comfortable with such an outcome.
Of even more potential importance, the uprisings in the Middle East may well usher in changes that seriously challenge the stability of US imperialism. In the post-war period, the US has sought to establish a gendarmerie in the Middle East from friendly client states. In place of the traditional imperialist colonial structures, US policy shifted to establishing reliable and militarily powerful overseer states that would guarantee US economic domination while concealing the deep structure of neo-colonialism. For decades, Israel and Iran, under the Shah, performed this function in return for massive US aid, largely in the form of the most sophisticated US military weaponry.
For Israel, the deal guaranteed military advantage over any other Middle Eastern country. For the Shah, the compact funded a massive security apparatus against domestic opposition as well.
With the deposing of the Shah, the US lost its reliable partner, replacing it with Egypt. Now the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East, Egypt is responsible for containing Arab outrage with Israel and guaranteeing safe oil shipment through the Suez Canal and the Sumed pipeline.
But the successful uprising against the corrupt, reactionary government of Tunisia has inspired the Egyptian masses to rise as well against the brutal government of Mubarak. As this is written, his regime hangs by a thread. While events are confusing and fast moving, several points are apparent:
●The uprising seems to be popular, secular, broad-based and fueled by poverty, increasing food prices, and unemployment. Opposition seems to cut across classes.
●Mubarak has demonstrated no reliable base of support beyond his security services. Despite warm, close relations with its US counterparts, the military has yet to take strong action against the activists, even, in some reported cases, showing rank-and-file sympathy for the demonstrators.
●Slogans appear largely limited to the removal of Mubarak, often identifying him with the US and Israel, but with little to suggest a conscious program or unified leadership. Theocratic themes have been noticeably absent.
●The best gauge of the character of the revolt remains the US reaction: Confusion seems to have seized the US government caught between preserving a “democratic,” “human rights” image and defending its interests in Egypt and the guarantee of stability that Mubarak brought. Press Secretary Gibbs suggested that the US might withdraw aid; Secretary of State Clinton stated that there was no threat to do so. Government Officials call for “reform,” “change” and “peace,” but Clinton has assured the press that they have not sought Mubarak’s departure. Obama spoke to Mubarak, but only adding to the impression of diplomatic confusion.
●The US contingency plan in case of Mubarak’s departure seems to be based on the quick ascendancy of Mohamed El Baradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. While reviled by the Bush administration for his opposition to the Iraq invasion, he has apparently developed warm relations with the Obama Administration, according to The Wall Street Journal. That same WSJ (11-29/30-11) issue notes that he has little connection to the uprising and even less credibility with the Egyptian masses. Nevertheless, El Baradei has returned to Egypt and insinuated himself into the role of opposition spokesperson - doing so with a remarkable speed, strongly suggestive of the assistance of US and possibly Egyptian security services. Counter-factually, the capitalist press has sought to portray the Johnny-come-lately ElBaradei and the previously stand-offish Muslim Brotherhood as the leadership of the movement.
Given the panic occupying US officials, the hitherto manageable stability of the Middle East seems to be in jeopardy. The outcome is far from decided, but certainly the risings are threatening to imperial domination of the region and promising for the national democratic processes that were far from completed in the region after the Second World War. Time will tell if the US and its allies will be able to quell the risings or turn them to their own advantage, but the rising masses in the region deserve our solidarity.
An eventful week, indeed.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Is Obama Wall Street’s New Best Friend?
Is President Obama Wall Street’s best friend? CNBC seems to think so.
In the column “Talking Numbers” posted on Yahoo Finance (“Why Obama May be Wall Street’s New Best Friend”, 01-18-10), CNBC pundits postulate that President Obama has swiftly moved into bed with Wall Street financiers and corporate moguls. They opine:
Like Paul on the road to Damascus, President Obama has been struck with the recognition that economic recovery must come from obeisance to the corporate agenda. Or at least that’s the way that Wall Street sees it. CNBC writers smugly cite Wall Street colleagues to bolster their claim:
Some may find it puzzling that banks and companies have had two years of bailouts and loans followed by soaring productivity and exploding profits and have yet to lend or hire, yet Obama is said to believe that more warmth and fuzzy “accommodation” will produce results. Is this really what is going on?
Perhaps the truth is suggested by a few other slippery quotes from the posting:
And:
Would it be cynic to suggest that the cozy relation that Obama is fostering with Wall Street and corporate executives has more to do with his re-election effort than economic policy?
Would it be mean-spirited to suggest that Obama has started his 2012 fund-raising campaign in earnest?
I’m afraid that is my view. In any case, Obama’s embrace of the interests of monopoly capital is now more than the suspicion raised by hard-lefties and fellow Marxists that called him out two years ago as another –albeit softer and slipperier – bourgeois candidate. As hard as it is to swallow by those once intoxicated with Obama-mania, the truth is now out in the open: On Monday, President Obama offered his contrition to the temple of Wall Street, The Wall Street Journal with an op-ed piece pledging a campaign of de-regulation for US corporations. Yes, de-regulation of those formerly lured by previous de-regulation into catastrophic speculative ventures – a jail break for financial criminals with deep pockets for potential campaign contributions.
Obama’s new-found love fest with business interests should not come as a shock. It is hardly a betrayal to those who studied his early career, his campaign, and the first two years of his Administration – a history of friendliness to power and means, occasionally masked with vague, highly rhetorical homage to popular causes seductive to voters.
With Obama’s public hug from Wall Street, two dangers arise. Some may now be inclined to turn towards cynicism, walking away from struggles that they thought Obama would lead. They may fail to draw the lessons of bourgeois politics, repeated since the beginnings of the Republic: change emanates and succeeds only through independent, popular pressure.
Others may repeat the failed strategy of the past and argue once again that Obama, despite his shortcomings, is still better than Palin, Romney, or whatever candidate the Republicans offer. While this will undoubtedly be true, it consistently leaves working people with a smaller piece of the pie. Decades of preferring death by a thousand cuts over a brutal coup de grace hardly seems worthy of a democracy.
It is neither a time to despair nor a time to retreat, but a time to fight. But this time, our fight must not invest all in the “hope” and “change” promised by a media-savvy politician hand-picked by a corrupted, corporate-owned political party. It won’t be an easy step for many.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
In the column “Talking Numbers” posted on Yahoo Finance (“Why Obama May be Wall Street’s New Best Friend”, 01-18-10), CNBC pundits postulate that President Obama has swiftly moved into bed with Wall Street financiers and corporate moguls. They opine:
Candidate Obama was an anti-tax cut, pro-regulation, anti-big business populist ready to take on Wall Street and any fat-cat CEO who stood in his way. President Obama? A bit of a different story.
The president's tack to the middle began with a trickle last year when he made some key concessions on health care policy and financial reform.
But since the November election, after which he famously described his Democratic Party's defeat as a "shellacking" at the hands of reformist Republicans, the move has become even more pronounced.
The post-campaign president has hired Wall Street insider William Daley as his chief of staff in an apparent means to ingratiate himself with the leaders of corporate America, struck a high-profile bargain on tax cuts, and now has put burdensome job-killing regulations on the table.
While it remains to be seen how sincere the president's conversion is, it's been a winning ticket for investors so far.
Like Paul on the road to Damascus, President Obama has been struck with the recognition that economic recovery must come from obeisance to the corporate agenda. Or at least that’s the way that Wall Street sees it. CNBC writers smugly cite Wall Street colleagues to bolster their claim:
"It's amazing how far he has moved off his campaign promises to the left, and moved over to the center-right," says Gary Hager, president of Integrated Wealth Management in Edison, N.J. "The White House is definitely going to be more accommodative of Wall Street, because they see the absolute big enchilada on the ground is unemployment. The only real way to tackle unemployment is to get banks lending and companies hiring."
Some may find it puzzling that banks and companies have had two years of bailouts and loans followed by soaring productivity and exploding profits and have yet to lend or hire, yet Obama is said to believe that more warmth and fuzzy “accommodation” will produce results. Is this really what is going on?
Perhaps the truth is suggested by a few other slippery quotes from the posting:
After all, the president barely hid his contempt for Wall Street during the campaign even as many of its workers were pumping money into his campaign coffers. Employees of Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS - News), for instance, contributed nearly $1 billion[sic] to the Obama campaign. (my italics)
And:
"He had a come-to-Jesus meeting with some major leaders in this country, most of them running big corporations. I think he came out of there impressed that he needed to take a different view toward business," says Rob Lutts, CIO and president of Cabot Money Management in Salem, Mass. "If you analyze his speeches, it was always 'us and them.' What he didn't realize was those are the people who are going to create the jobs, create the environment so he can get re-elected." (my italics)
Would it be cynic to suggest that the cozy relation that Obama is fostering with Wall Street and corporate executives has more to do with his re-election effort than economic policy?
Would it be mean-spirited to suggest that Obama has started his 2012 fund-raising campaign in earnest?
I’m afraid that is my view. In any case, Obama’s embrace of the interests of monopoly capital is now more than the suspicion raised by hard-lefties and fellow Marxists that called him out two years ago as another –albeit softer and slipperier – bourgeois candidate. As hard as it is to swallow by those once intoxicated with Obama-mania, the truth is now out in the open: On Monday, President Obama offered his contrition to the temple of Wall Street, The Wall Street Journal with an op-ed piece pledging a campaign of de-regulation for US corporations. Yes, de-regulation of those formerly lured by previous de-regulation into catastrophic speculative ventures – a jail break for financial criminals with deep pockets for potential campaign contributions.
Obama’s new-found love fest with business interests should not come as a shock. It is hardly a betrayal to those who studied his early career, his campaign, and the first two years of his Administration – a history of friendliness to power and means, occasionally masked with vague, highly rhetorical homage to popular causes seductive to voters.
With Obama’s public hug from Wall Street, two dangers arise. Some may now be inclined to turn towards cynicism, walking away from struggles that they thought Obama would lead. They may fail to draw the lessons of bourgeois politics, repeated since the beginnings of the Republic: change emanates and succeeds only through independent, popular pressure.
Others may repeat the failed strategy of the past and argue once again that Obama, despite his shortcomings, is still better than Palin, Romney, or whatever candidate the Republicans offer. While this will undoubtedly be true, it consistently leaves working people with a smaller piece of the pie. Decades of preferring death by a thousand cuts over a brutal coup de grace hardly seems worthy of a democracy.
It is neither a time to despair nor a time to retreat, but a time to fight. But this time, our fight must not invest all in the “hope” and “change” promised by a media-savvy politician hand-picked by a corrupted, corporate-owned political party. It won’t be an easy step for many.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Doug Henwood’s Alternate State-of-the-Union Address
I had a dream that Doug Henwood, editor/publisher of Left Business Observer, gave the forthcoming State-of-the-Union address. The event that no doubt triggered this dream was reading a recent essay appropriately entitled “What a Damn Mess” (LBO #130). With his usual well-timed sarcasm, Henwood sets out to take “a comprehensive look at the state of the US economy – not the usual a little of this, a little of that approach, but some measure of how it all fits together.” It is this approach to “how it fits together” that most closely resembles the Marxist method. Rather than taking a snapshot of the economy, Henwood places our historic moment in time lines of fifty, a hundred, and even a hundred and fifty years, revealing trends, relationships, and perspectives otherwise overlooked. A story emerges that is far more insightful than the usual shallow speculations of mainstream economists.
Henwood gauges the last decade of growth of Gross Domestic Product per capita against that of past decades going back to the 1870s. It turns out that in the first decade of the twenty-first century the GDP grew less than in any decade excepting the second decade of the twentieth century. Even before the severe economic downturn, the economy was on track to suffer the worst decade of per capita growth in 80 years!
I am reminded of the pundits who blamed the demise of the Soviet Union on worsening growth through the 1970s and 1980s. I wonder if they foresee a similar outcome for the US. In any case, sluggish, slowing growth gives policy makers little to herald in their performance of the last ten years. And in the face of brisk growth in the so-called developing countries, this feat projects poorly for the maintenance of US global dominance in the future.
Outside of the growth fanatics, these numbers would mean little if the general well being of the population were advanced despite slow economic growth. But this is far from the results obtained, as Henwood’s charts and data show.
Employment is an all too familiar story: the drop in employment growth generated by the crisis is unprecedented since before WWII. But there is more in the details. The level of male employment as a percentage of the male population has been dropping steadily since World War II while the percentage of female workers as a percentage has grown even more steeply. While we should hail these numbers as somewhat reflecting a welcome reduction of barriers against female employment, they also represent the necessity of maintaining two workers per household in order to maintain a sustainable standard of living with stagnant wages.
Henwood also notes that a record number of the employed are part-time employees, the highest in 55 years.
A telling graph on page 4 of the LBO issue provides a host of interesting insights by tracking the growth of real incomes by income level from 1920 until today. Not surprisingly, the top .01% of incomes (the filthy rich, the ruling class, the haute bourgeoisie) always fares well with an interesting exception: their relative position against other income classes actually sank throughout the decade of the seventies. This coincides, of course, with the crisis of Keynesian economic philosophy (from a ruling class point of view) and the subsequent emergence of neo-liberalism as the dominant policy ideology in the US. As a response to this crisis (for the few), our venerable political system gave us the destruction of PATCO and union bashing, deregulation, tax relief for the rich and corporations, reduced social spending and the other features associated with unfettered capitalism. And the decline of incomes was not only arrested, but the real incomes for the wealthiest soared from that time forward.
But for the working class (90% of income earners), the story is different: throughout the “golden era” of US capitalism (1945-1970) coincident with the destruction of the labor left and the embracing of class collaboration, the conscious blurring of class lines, and the intensification of consumerism, the growth of incomes in different strata marched forward almost in lock step. The fact that everyone seemed to be doing better created the illusion of market fairness.
But the growth of real income for the working classes stagnated after the early seventies – it essentially flat lines – through today. For nearly forty years, the vast majority of the US saw no significant increase in real income. By contrast – as noted above – the incomes of the obscenely rich climbed to unprecedented heights.
It doesn’t take a chart or much imagination to see that the distribution of income between the vast majority of US citizens and the extraordinarily privileged has shifted dramatically under the reign of neo-liberal ideology, an ideology that thoroughly infects both major political parties.
An interesting – and, I think, profound – connection revealed by Henwood’s chart is the steep spike in real income enjoyed by the grossly rich before both the Great Depression and again before the current severe crisis. The chart dramatizes these spikes against ninety years of income relationships and suggests that great swings of income distribution in favor of the wealthy presage severe economic decline beyond the periodic business cycles.
Certainly this is consistent with the left-Keynesian position that misdistribution of wealth in favor of the rich diminishes the buying power of the masses and leads to a crisis of overproduction. Progressives and even a large part of the Marxist left have subscribed to the view that pressure brought on by reduced consumer demand slows production, resulting in a spiral of declining production, consequent unemployment, and even sharper drops in consumption only abated with government intervention and the restoration of consumer demand. While this is a convenient and neat explanation, it fails to agree with the facts as they unfolded before the current crisis and turns a blind eye to the critical role of debt in modern state-monopoly-capitalism. In fact, there was no sharp fall off in consumer consumption leading up to the current crisis because consumer debt continued to sustain consumption.
But there was a fall off in profit growth in the lead-up to the still raging crisis: year-to-year profit growth began to decline from roughly its decade-long average in the fourth quarter of 2006 (Standard and Poor’s 500) and continued downward through the fourth quarter of 2008, returning dramatically positive in the fourth quarter of 2009. It is this notion of profit as the motor force of capitalism that is central to the Marxist analysis of crisis. And it is the constant tendency of its rate to decline that explains the current crisis. The huge pool of accumulated and often idle capital brought on by the explosion of wealth concentration, as demonstrated by Henwood’s chart, brought enormous pressure on the capitalist system to find new sources of return. Much of the task of expanding profit was taken on by a financial sector that sought profitability through risky financial contraptions constructed around debt and further and further removed from productive activity. It was the malfunction of this profit-generating tactic that brought on the crisis.
For those who fail to see the decisive role of profitability in the motion of the capitalist system, the jobless recovery remains a mystery. With five periods clocked of robust profit growth, no amount of cajoling, incentives or prayer will bring capitalists to hire. Either job creation will re-connect with profit growth or the jobs must come from somewhere besides capitalist corporations.
Henwood constructs a clever chart that tracks the relationship between corporate profits and employee compensation a year after the bottom of the eleven downturns since 1949. In all but the last two economic declines, profit growth outstrips the growth of employee compensation (after all, it is capitalism!), but at a generally growing ratio between 1.8 and 5.1. But with the recovery of 2001 the ratio leaps to 27.7. And with the tentative “recovery” of 2009 the ratio explodes to 50.4! This data will not be noted in Obama’s State-of-the-Union address.
Something new is happening here. Virtually all of the benefits brought on by recovery are now passed on to the corporate sector. In both the crises of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the costs of the downturn have been borne by the majority without any of the benefits of recovery. I have written about this in previous posts, arguing that rising productivity and fewer employees with stagnant wages and benefits account for the explosion of profits. In Marxist terms, this constitutes an increase in the rate of exploitation. As Marx argues in Vol. III of Capital, increasing the rate of exploitation is a principal means of counter-acting the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and a way out of crisis. And what lubricates this intensification of labor exploitation is a supine labor movement and an accommodating state.
Indeed, it is a “damn” mess. Henwood provides much more evidence to bolster the case for an economy in shambles, sometimes understating the case against a corporate orgy at the expense of the rest of us. For example, he pegs the “effective” tax rate for corporations as hovering around 30% (the ineffective statutory rate is 35%). In fact, the effective rate for publicly traded corporations – the big earners - is around 16.5% (the rate they actually pay). Moreover, the share of corporate taxes of total federal tax receipts has dropped from just under 25% in 1960 to well less than 10% at the beginning of 2010. And the share of pre-tax profits going to federal tax payments has dropped from over 30% to less than 15% over the last decade. They’ll go down even further with the Obama corporate tax incentives coming this year.
As stated above, there is no good reason to expect this improvement in profitability from tax breaks to have any effect at all on job creation. In fact, just the opposite should be projected.
I don’t expect Obama to acknowledge this sad, gloomy picture in his State-of-the-Union address. Likely, he will tout a non-existent recovery and a rosy future. I suspect that he will tell a scary tale of debt looming over his fragile recovery and call for common sacrifice to ward off the frightening debt-monster. No doubt he will celebrate his new-found warm friendship with corporate America, posing this affair as the key to job creation.
Instead of watching this nonsense, I’ll turn off the telly and re-read Doug Henwood’s “What a Damn Mess.” I suggest you take out a subscription to Left Business Observer and do the same (only $22/year).
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Henwood gauges the last decade of growth of Gross Domestic Product per capita against that of past decades going back to the 1870s. It turns out that in the first decade of the twenty-first century the GDP grew less than in any decade excepting the second decade of the twentieth century. Even before the severe economic downturn, the economy was on track to suffer the worst decade of per capita growth in 80 years!
I am reminded of the pundits who blamed the demise of the Soviet Union on worsening growth through the 1970s and 1980s. I wonder if they foresee a similar outcome for the US. In any case, sluggish, slowing growth gives policy makers little to herald in their performance of the last ten years. And in the face of brisk growth in the so-called developing countries, this feat projects poorly for the maintenance of US global dominance in the future.
Outside of the growth fanatics, these numbers would mean little if the general well being of the population were advanced despite slow economic growth. But this is far from the results obtained, as Henwood’s charts and data show.
Employment is an all too familiar story: the drop in employment growth generated by the crisis is unprecedented since before WWII. But there is more in the details. The level of male employment as a percentage of the male population has been dropping steadily since World War II while the percentage of female workers as a percentage has grown even more steeply. While we should hail these numbers as somewhat reflecting a welcome reduction of barriers against female employment, they also represent the necessity of maintaining two workers per household in order to maintain a sustainable standard of living with stagnant wages.
Henwood also notes that a record number of the employed are part-time employees, the highest in 55 years.
A telling graph on page 4 of the LBO issue provides a host of interesting insights by tracking the growth of real incomes by income level from 1920 until today. Not surprisingly, the top .01% of incomes (the filthy rich, the ruling class, the haute bourgeoisie) always fares well with an interesting exception: their relative position against other income classes actually sank throughout the decade of the seventies. This coincides, of course, with the crisis of Keynesian economic philosophy (from a ruling class point of view) and the subsequent emergence of neo-liberalism as the dominant policy ideology in the US. As a response to this crisis (for the few), our venerable political system gave us the destruction of PATCO and union bashing, deregulation, tax relief for the rich and corporations, reduced social spending and the other features associated with unfettered capitalism. And the decline of incomes was not only arrested, but the real incomes for the wealthiest soared from that time forward.
But for the working class (90% of income earners), the story is different: throughout the “golden era” of US capitalism (1945-1970) coincident with the destruction of the labor left and the embracing of class collaboration, the conscious blurring of class lines, and the intensification of consumerism, the growth of incomes in different strata marched forward almost in lock step. The fact that everyone seemed to be doing better created the illusion of market fairness.
But the growth of real income for the working classes stagnated after the early seventies – it essentially flat lines – through today. For nearly forty years, the vast majority of the US saw no significant increase in real income. By contrast – as noted above – the incomes of the obscenely rich climbed to unprecedented heights.
It doesn’t take a chart or much imagination to see that the distribution of income between the vast majority of US citizens and the extraordinarily privileged has shifted dramatically under the reign of neo-liberal ideology, an ideology that thoroughly infects both major political parties.
An interesting – and, I think, profound – connection revealed by Henwood’s chart is the steep spike in real income enjoyed by the grossly rich before both the Great Depression and again before the current severe crisis. The chart dramatizes these spikes against ninety years of income relationships and suggests that great swings of income distribution in favor of the wealthy presage severe economic decline beyond the periodic business cycles.
Certainly this is consistent with the left-Keynesian position that misdistribution of wealth in favor of the rich diminishes the buying power of the masses and leads to a crisis of overproduction. Progressives and even a large part of the Marxist left have subscribed to the view that pressure brought on by reduced consumer demand slows production, resulting in a spiral of declining production, consequent unemployment, and even sharper drops in consumption only abated with government intervention and the restoration of consumer demand. While this is a convenient and neat explanation, it fails to agree with the facts as they unfolded before the current crisis and turns a blind eye to the critical role of debt in modern state-monopoly-capitalism. In fact, there was no sharp fall off in consumer consumption leading up to the current crisis because consumer debt continued to sustain consumption.
But there was a fall off in profit growth in the lead-up to the still raging crisis: year-to-year profit growth began to decline from roughly its decade-long average in the fourth quarter of 2006 (Standard and Poor’s 500) and continued downward through the fourth quarter of 2008, returning dramatically positive in the fourth quarter of 2009. It is this notion of profit as the motor force of capitalism that is central to the Marxist analysis of crisis. And it is the constant tendency of its rate to decline that explains the current crisis. The huge pool of accumulated and often idle capital brought on by the explosion of wealth concentration, as demonstrated by Henwood’s chart, brought enormous pressure on the capitalist system to find new sources of return. Much of the task of expanding profit was taken on by a financial sector that sought profitability through risky financial contraptions constructed around debt and further and further removed from productive activity. It was the malfunction of this profit-generating tactic that brought on the crisis.
For those who fail to see the decisive role of profitability in the motion of the capitalist system, the jobless recovery remains a mystery. With five periods clocked of robust profit growth, no amount of cajoling, incentives or prayer will bring capitalists to hire. Either job creation will re-connect with profit growth or the jobs must come from somewhere besides capitalist corporations.
Henwood constructs a clever chart that tracks the relationship between corporate profits and employee compensation a year after the bottom of the eleven downturns since 1949. In all but the last two economic declines, profit growth outstrips the growth of employee compensation (after all, it is capitalism!), but at a generally growing ratio between 1.8 and 5.1. But with the recovery of 2001 the ratio leaps to 27.7. And with the tentative “recovery” of 2009 the ratio explodes to 50.4! This data will not be noted in Obama’s State-of-the-Union address.
Something new is happening here. Virtually all of the benefits brought on by recovery are now passed on to the corporate sector. In both the crises of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the costs of the downturn have been borne by the majority without any of the benefits of recovery. I have written about this in previous posts, arguing that rising productivity and fewer employees with stagnant wages and benefits account for the explosion of profits. In Marxist terms, this constitutes an increase in the rate of exploitation. As Marx argues in Vol. III of Capital, increasing the rate of exploitation is a principal means of counter-acting the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and a way out of crisis. And what lubricates this intensification of labor exploitation is a supine labor movement and an accommodating state.
Indeed, it is a “damn” mess. Henwood provides much more evidence to bolster the case for an economy in shambles, sometimes understating the case against a corporate orgy at the expense of the rest of us. For example, he pegs the “effective” tax rate for corporations as hovering around 30% (the ineffective statutory rate is 35%). In fact, the effective rate for publicly traded corporations – the big earners - is around 16.5% (the rate they actually pay). Moreover, the share of corporate taxes of total federal tax receipts has dropped from just under 25% in 1960 to well less than 10% at the beginning of 2010. And the share of pre-tax profits going to federal tax payments has dropped from over 30% to less than 15% over the last decade. They’ll go down even further with the Obama corporate tax incentives coming this year.
As stated above, there is no good reason to expect this improvement in profitability from tax breaks to have any effect at all on job creation. In fact, just the opposite should be projected.
I don’t expect Obama to acknowledge this sad, gloomy picture in his State-of-the-Union address. Likely, he will tout a non-existent recovery and a rosy future. I suspect that he will tell a scary tale of debt looming over his fragile recovery and call for common sacrifice to ward off the frightening debt-monster. No doubt he will celebrate his new-found warm friendship with corporate America, posing this affair as the key to job creation.
Instead of watching this nonsense, I’ll turn off the telly and re-read Doug Henwood’s “What a Damn Mess.” I suggest you take out a subscription to Left Business Observer and do the same (only $22/year).
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Obama and the Left: Crossroads
In the fall of 2008, I wrote the following (2008: A Reprise of 1976?). It seems timely to reproduce it today:
After much hesitancy, a growing segment of the broadly conceived left – Communists, Socialists, radical democrats, and New Deal Democrats – has come to recognize that the Obama Administration operates much like the previous Democratic administrations over the last thirty-five years. Carter shared self-righteousness and cultivated civility with the current President, along with a ready willingness to sell out campaign promises and platform statements. Clinton exhibited a cunning slipperiness and lack of even superficial principle that is often revealed in Obama’s public statements.
But these are merely features of their political personality, features that occupy the pundits at The Nation and other liberal publications. The common thread that binds Democratic administrations, top national Democratic elected officials, and their attendants is that they are members of an elite club and bound to place the interests of the club first- they are part of and employed by the rich and powerful. While this is readily apparent to many of us, there are still many waiting for a public confession.
Some temper their disappointment by arguing that the Obama Administration stands between us and a far worse fate at the hands of the extreme-right. Therefore, we must support it or permit the pain of a more onerous administration. This is, of course, an iteration of the old “lesser-of-two-evils” position. But that position was meant only to be a tactical retreat - a temporary, uncomfortable affair followed by an embarrassed exit – and not a life-long marriage. Instead, it is the constant refrain, election after election, of many prominent leftists and “progressive” Democratic Party apologists.
While there may be nothing wrong with this stance for those solidly – and happily – wedded to the Democratic Party and its self-limiting goals, the “lesser-of-two-evils” concession is poison to anyone with greater aspirations for the country and partisanship for its majority of people who work for a living. For the left, it is simply disastrous.
The “lesser-of-two-evils” left suffers two pathologies: the first, a delusion of grandeur, and the second, an allergy to the principles of oppositional politics.
It is illusory to think that the US left yet matters in national or even state-wide bourgeois politics, especially within the most advanced form of bourgeois politics: the two-party system. When pundits and the media refer to the Democratic Party base, some take that to be the “left.” It is not. It is actually the bureaucracy-led labor movement, urban liberals, and African American and Latino voters. They matter in supporting the Democrats, but less and less in the policies pursued by elected officials. They are not, as a whole, the left, but constitute the natural constituency for left-led movements. They are potentially a left base, should the left organize and agitate among these groups.
But to believe that the left matters within the two-party system is delusional. Come election time in the national or statewide arena, the efforts or absence of the left on behalf of the Democrats is never decisive and is usually not even marginally influential. Nor does the left’s cheerleading make a difference. Some leaders and pundits rally the ranks at election time as though a squad of infantry would decide the clash of armies.
Of course there is always the Nader example that liberals dredge up whenever pressed on the folly of supporting weak, ineffectual candidates. Left votes for Nader, they assert, cost Al Gore the 2000 election. They conveniently ignore the dozens of reasons - most importantly, Gore’s lack luster campaign – for the defeat. And they arrogantly presume that Nader votes really belong to the Democratic Party. Such a presumption underlines the contempt that Democrats show to their base. Their votes, too, are owned by the Democrats, a condition of electoral slavery.
Secondly, the “lesser-of-two-evils” strategy constitutes a complete and catastrophic misreading of oppositional politics. A left political organization – too small to actually contest elections – serves nonetheless as a material force for influencing elections by projecting advanced demands. Those demands may, in turn, shift electoral discourse away from the usually overwhelming pressure of wealth, media access and power. Of course, it may not, but it will draw adherents to the side of truth and justice. And in the longer view, it will strengthen and build the left. Thus, the left grows in times of strong independent movements for social change. And contra the “lesser-of-two-evils” philosophy, it provides the spine for those rare occasions when the Democratic Party actually advances the peoples’ interests such as with the New Deal or racial desegregation.
Therefore, the role of the left is a critical role - a role to challenge and provoke social institutions to move away from their tendency to accept and expand the privileges of the few.
Since the diffusion and loss of focus of the anti-capitalist left, this critical role has been lost in US politics. Reinforced by the handful of left publications that obsess over the maneuvers and deals of bourgeois politicians, the broad left has accepted electoral politics as its touchstone, waiting patiently for an establishment candidate who can revisit the myths attached to the great liberal icons: Roosevelt and Kennedy. This is a tragic misreading of history and a shameless neglect of the historic mission of left movements.
But even more shameless is the posture of elements of the anti-capitalist left who speak and write of a grand coalition against the ultra- or extreme right. They posture as though there is a supra-organization joined around the sole goal of burying the foul creatures inhabiting a corner of US politics since the country’s founding. There is no such coalition. Instead, there are many groups with varied interests that latch onto the Democratic Party because they see nowhere else to turn. Historically, it has been the goal of the left to nurture a broader vision that could tie these interests together into a real coalition, not to merely halt the influence of the most backward political forces, but to improve the lot of the majority.
Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party of Canada, spoke well when he addressed a recent gathering of Communist Parties in South Africa:
But in the case of the US, there is only an imaginary alliance that makes one concessionary demand upon its members: vote and support Democratic Party candidates. When all the rhetoric is cast off, the “alliance” is merely a fig leaf for unconditional loyalty to the Democratic Party and its agenda. And “unity” is never in jeopardy when there is only a one-way conversation between the Democratic Party leadership and those who dutifully follow.
The “Marxists” who contrive this fictional alliance, in moments of ideological nostalgia, appeal to the United Front tactics offered by the Communist movement in the struggle against fascism. But even a casual read of the documents endorsed by the Communist International demonstrate that these “Marxists” neither understand the tactic nor know when and how to apply it.
But suppose Obama had delivered on many of his campaign promises. Would that have earned our uncritical support? Respect, sure. Critical support, perhaps. But not the fawning idolatry that much of the left demonstrated after the election. Nor should it have brought a virtual collapse of the peace and justice movement. For the left, the task of constantly prodding and pushing the political goal forward should not be compromised in victory or defeat.
And now it’s time to get beyond wringing our hands over what Obama promised, what he did, and what he will or will not do, and focus on what we will do – a stance that promises to bring life back to the left.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Upon taking office, the Carter administration began a steady drift to the right. Following the lead of Democratic Party strategist, Patrick Caddell, Carter chose a business-friendly approach that placed the battle against inflation at the center of domestic policy. His personal opposition to the Humphrey-Hawkins bill led to the passage of a bill unsatisfactory to organized labor. National health care was shelved and tax reform was never achieved. Carter vetoed public works legislation as inflationary. The neo-liberal deregulation agenda generally attributed to the ultra-right actually began with Carter’s deregulation of the airline industry in 1978. He also started the process of deregulation of other industries, such as communications, oil and finance.
Little was advanced to improve either the status of African Americans or race relations, though Carter appointed more minorities to posts in his administration than any previous President.
Despite his platform promise to reduce military spending, Carter expanded the military budget, reversing the trend of the prior ten years. With Carter’s assent, the US began to send military equipment to the Afghan mujahadeen even before the Soviet occupation. Support for these feudal warlords harnessed to US Cold War aims soon reached $600 million per year. Ironically, they are the cadres now fighting the US occupation of Afghanistan. Carter instituted the so-called Carter Doctrine pledged to oppose any but US influences in the Persian Gulf area. This oil-driven version of the previous Monroe and Truman Doctrines has remained US policy to this day and justifies the use of military force in the region when US “interests” are claimed.
To his credit, Carter negotiated nuclear weapons reductions (SALT II) and a Panama Canal treaty, and also secured a minor reduction of US occupation troops in the Republic of Korea.
Carter’s retreat from the Democratic platform produced a number of oppositional blocs, including the labor/liberal-supported Democratic Agenda in late 1977 and the Progressive Alliance in 1978. The Democratic Party base of labor, African Americans and liberals was stung by the growing conservatism of the Carter Administration, a rebuff that led to Ted Kennedy’s campaign against the incumbent in the 1980 primary elections.
With Carter’s failure to steer a new, progressive course, the electorate, with the limited choice offered by the two-party system, opted for a different direction in 1980.
The promise of 1976 was squandered by the Carter Administration. Will the opportunities for change afforded by Republican failure be wasted again in 2008?
After much hesitancy, a growing segment of the broadly conceived left – Communists, Socialists, radical democrats, and New Deal Democrats – has come to recognize that the Obama Administration operates much like the previous Democratic administrations over the last thirty-five years. Carter shared self-righteousness and cultivated civility with the current President, along with a ready willingness to sell out campaign promises and platform statements. Clinton exhibited a cunning slipperiness and lack of even superficial principle that is often revealed in Obama’s public statements.
But these are merely features of their political personality, features that occupy the pundits at The Nation and other liberal publications. The common thread that binds Democratic administrations, top national Democratic elected officials, and their attendants is that they are members of an elite club and bound to place the interests of the club first- they are part of and employed by the rich and powerful. While this is readily apparent to many of us, there are still many waiting for a public confession.
Some temper their disappointment by arguing that the Obama Administration stands between us and a far worse fate at the hands of the extreme-right. Therefore, we must support it or permit the pain of a more onerous administration. This is, of course, an iteration of the old “lesser-of-two-evils” position. But that position was meant only to be a tactical retreat - a temporary, uncomfortable affair followed by an embarrassed exit – and not a life-long marriage. Instead, it is the constant refrain, election after election, of many prominent leftists and “progressive” Democratic Party apologists.
While there may be nothing wrong with this stance for those solidly – and happily – wedded to the Democratic Party and its self-limiting goals, the “lesser-of-two-evils” concession is poison to anyone with greater aspirations for the country and partisanship for its majority of people who work for a living. For the left, it is simply disastrous.
The “lesser-of-two-evils” left suffers two pathologies: the first, a delusion of grandeur, and the second, an allergy to the principles of oppositional politics.
It is illusory to think that the US left yet matters in national or even state-wide bourgeois politics, especially within the most advanced form of bourgeois politics: the two-party system. When pundits and the media refer to the Democratic Party base, some take that to be the “left.” It is not. It is actually the bureaucracy-led labor movement, urban liberals, and African American and Latino voters. They matter in supporting the Democrats, but less and less in the policies pursued by elected officials. They are not, as a whole, the left, but constitute the natural constituency for left-led movements. They are potentially a left base, should the left organize and agitate among these groups.
But to believe that the left matters within the two-party system is delusional. Come election time in the national or statewide arena, the efforts or absence of the left on behalf of the Democrats is never decisive and is usually not even marginally influential. Nor does the left’s cheerleading make a difference. Some leaders and pundits rally the ranks at election time as though a squad of infantry would decide the clash of armies.
Of course there is always the Nader example that liberals dredge up whenever pressed on the folly of supporting weak, ineffectual candidates. Left votes for Nader, they assert, cost Al Gore the 2000 election. They conveniently ignore the dozens of reasons - most importantly, Gore’s lack luster campaign – for the defeat. And they arrogantly presume that Nader votes really belong to the Democratic Party. Such a presumption underlines the contempt that Democrats show to their base. Their votes, too, are owned by the Democrats, a condition of electoral slavery.
Secondly, the “lesser-of-two-evils” strategy constitutes a complete and catastrophic misreading of oppositional politics. A left political organization – too small to actually contest elections – serves nonetheless as a material force for influencing elections by projecting advanced demands. Those demands may, in turn, shift electoral discourse away from the usually overwhelming pressure of wealth, media access and power. Of course, it may not, but it will draw adherents to the side of truth and justice. And in the longer view, it will strengthen and build the left. Thus, the left grows in times of strong independent movements for social change. And contra the “lesser-of-two-evils” philosophy, it provides the spine for those rare occasions when the Democratic Party actually advances the peoples’ interests such as with the New Deal or racial desegregation.
Therefore, the role of the left is a critical role - a role to challenge and provoke social institutions to move away from their tendency to accept and expand the privileges of the few.
Since the diffusion and loss of focus of the anti-capitalist left, this critical role has been lost in US politics. Reinforced by the handful of left publications that obsess over the maneuvers and deals of bourgeois politicians, the broad left has accepted electoral politics as its touchstone, waiting patiently for an establishment candidate who can revisit the myths attached to the great liberal icons: Roosevelt and Kennedy. This is a tragic misreading of history and a shameless neglect of the historic mission of left movements.
But even more shameless is the posture of elements of the anti-capitalist left who speak and write of a grand coalition against the ultra- or extreme right. They posture as though there is a supra-organization joined around the sole goal of burying the foul creatures inhabiting a corner of US politics since the country’s founding. There is no such coalition. Instead, there are many groups with varied interests that latch onto the Democratic Party because they see nowhere else to turn. Historically, it has been the goal of the left to nurture a broader vision that could tie these interests together into a real coalition, not to merely halt the influence of the most backward political forces, but to improve the lot of the majority.
Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party of Canada, spoke well when he addressed a recent gathering of Communist Parties in South Africa:
It is equally if not more impermissible however for the Communists to enter into alliances in a self-effacing way, making unprincipled political and ideological concessions for the sake of maintaining unity, and jettisoning the independent role of the Communist Party in the process.
But in the case of the US, there is only an imaginary alliance that makes one concessionary demand upon its members: vote and support Democratic Party candidates. When all the rhetoric is cast off, the “alliance” is merely a fig leaf for unconditional loyalty to the Democratic Party and its agenda. And “unity” is never in jeopardy when there is only a one-way conversation between the Democratic Party leadership and those who dutifully follow.
The “Marxists” who contrive this fictional alliance, in moments of ideological nostalgia, appeal to the United Front tactics offered by the Communist movement in the struggle against fascism. But even a casual read of the documents endorsed by the Communist International demonstrate that these “Marxists” neither understand the tactic nor know when and how to apply it.
But suppose Obama had delivered on many of his campaign promises. Would that have earned our uncritical support? Respect, sure. Critical support, perhaps. But not the fawning idolatry that much of the left demonstrated after the election. Nor should it have brought a virtual collapse of the peace and justice movement. For the left, the task of constantly prodding and pushing the political goal forward should not be compromised in victory or defeat.
And now it’s time to get beyond wringing our hands over what Obama promised, what he did, and what he will or will not do, and focus on what we will do – a stance that promises to bring life back to the left.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)