When, in the last few weeks, insiders and economists like Jeffrey Sachs and David Stockman – not noted for their radical postures – decry the state of the economy and the direction of policies, all of us should take note.
Sachs, one of the fathers of neo-liberal “shock therapy,” recently cited decades-long stagnant wages and obscene levels of inequality: “We’ve reached the greatest income [and] wealth inequality in history… This is a new ‘Robber Baron’ era, of course.” He went on to say “…the people at the top buy the politicians… All of them – all parties. Everyone is in the hands of the super wealthy.” (Interviewed by Aaron Task, Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance).
In a similar vein, David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Reagan Presidency, ripped the “crony capitalism” that has changed “capital markets into a rip-roaring casino that really is not productive for the real main street economy and is generating windfall gains for a very limited number of people to no good purpose…” He sees ordinary folks trying to save in this environment as “savaged” by Federal Reserve and government policies. (Interviewed by Peter Gorenstein, Daily Ticker, Yahoo! Finance).
These gloomy, critical views stand in stark contrast to the generally up-beat, optimistic reports and forecasts that usually flow from policy makers and dominate the media today. For the experts and pundits, the crisis has passed and we are on the way – though, they concede, tentatively – to recovery.
In truth, our modern-day Pollyannas mistake the first act for the entire play. While our economy may not be on the edge of a precipice, the problems that placed the world economy near collapse have only been displaced, pushed forward or swept aside. Even an arch advocate of capitalism such as Vincent Reinhard, senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, understands this: “After a severe financial crisis, we [tend to] get a severe recession, slower recovery and subpar expansion… Denial is a standard feature of financial crises…" (Interviewed by Stacy Curtin, Daily Ticker, Yahoo! Finance).
A closer look at the economy – an up-to-date report card from a Marxist perspective – is surely in order.
Gross Domestic Product
The broadest conventional measure of national and international economic performance remains GDP growth. Laden with the assumptions fundamental to the continued functioning of the capitalist economic engine, it valorizes all that is considered important to the ownership class and its continued accumulation of capital. Conversely, if an enormous human asset, such as the addition of one year of life span, were added to every person in the US, that value would not show up in the annual GDP figures except insofar as it generated commercial economic activity. Yet, as biased as the GDP growth figures are, their trend does reflect something real – the prospect of capitalism’s sustainability.
The first quarter figures for 2011 show a tepid US annual GDP growth of 1.8% from January through March. Pundits posture this as an aberration, a momentary stumble; but the trend line from the last quarter of 2009 is decidedly downward, in step with the drying up of stimulus funds. Nonresidential fixed investment has followed the same downward trajectory since its highpoint in the second quarter of 2010, even with spending on equipment and software leaping 11.6% this past quarter.
Likewise, export growth rates – touted by the experts as a leading force of recovery -- show the same downward trend from the level reached in the last quarter of 2009. Despite the Federal Reserve’s shrinking-dollar policy to sustain the rate of export growth, it is now falling below earlier levels of growth. Given that refined oil-based products account for the second largest component of export value and that the dollar value of these exports is highly inflated by the rising cost of oil, export growth calculated in dollars is exaggerated in the official numbers.
Further suggestive of foul weather ahead, the February GDP report for Canada – the US’s leading export destination by far – demonstrated an actual decline of .2%. It is hard to imagine robust export growth ahead, with a stagnant Canadian economy.
The growth rate of government spending – the sole factor preventing the economy from falling over the cliff at the height of the crisis – is now in negative territory and falling rapidly. The debt hysteria gripping local, state and federal officials produced budget cuts that are only now beginning to affect the GDP and other key economic indicators. Their influence on key factors – employment, incomes, consumer spending, etc. – will be felt more dramatically and negatively in the months and years to come.
Consumer spending continues its modest growth from its decline in the depths of the crisis. Its sustainability is in question, however, given that wages failed to keep up with inflation in the first quarter of 2011. This suggests that consumer debt and shrinking savings will again be the source of consumption growth, a condition ominously reminiscent of the pre-crisis period.
Internationally, GDP growth shows the same downward trend in nearly all the developed capitalist world, particularly the European Union. For those countries that have surrendered their sovereignty to the International Monetary Fund and the European Union – Greece, Ireland, and Portugal – the decline is far more dramatic. In the case of Greece, compliance with the austerity hawks has been catastrophic, with four successive quarters of losses greater than an annualized rate of 5%. PRChina and many emerging markets, on the other hand, have sustained high growth rates for diverse reasons, ranging from rational planning to irrational investment bubbles.
Profits, Productivity and Employment
Profit growth in the US – the fuel for a capitalist economy – has sprung back sharply from its nadir in the last quarter of 2008. Accelerating rapidly from that point, growth has stabilized over the last year at a rate commensurate with the pre-crisis period. Pundits hail the growth of profits in the manufacturing sector, a factor that has now reached about 90% of its pre-crisis level of production. But they fail to ask how profit growth can be so strong with less production and capacity utilization well below pre-crisis levels. The answer lies in a sharp increase in the rate of labor exploitation, expressed as intensified labor productivity. Labor productivity drove the explosion of profits after the 2008 collapse, settling at a level above historic averages. Put bluntly, the restoration of profitability came at the expense of an increasingly sweated, shrunken workforce.
Two factors opened the door to profit restoration: a weak, class-collaborationist labor movement, unwilling to confront capital, and the high rate of unemployment sowing fear throughout the workforce – what Marx called “the reserve army of labor.” With little organized fight for a larger share of the surplus and generalized fear of job loss among the working class, intensified exploitation was readily available to the capitalist class.
Nonetheless, the trend in labor productivity, like the trend in profitability, is downward, suggesting strongly that the crisis has failed to wring from the economy the long-term tendency for the rate of profit to decline–the theoretical basis for the Marxist theory of crisis.
With private sector labor productivity losing momentum, capital has turned to the service sector, primarily public goods and services, as a target for countering slowing profitability and surplus accumulation. The current attack on public employees’ rights, wages, salaries and benefits marks this tactical shift. With weak unions, disunity and nearly non-existent class consciousness, the private labor market is virtually elastic – capitalism can dictate the terms and conditions of labor. State-monopoly capital cannot tolerate a relatively inelastic public sector labor market with high union density, firm contracts and stable standards of living alongside a nearly enslaved private sector. Hence, it has launched an all-out assault on public sector workers, organized by capital’s minions in both political parties. While they cannot outsource police, firemen, and other face-to-face employees, they can break their unions. Of course, this initiative is done under the transparent ruse of debt reduction.
Another alarming sign emerging from the profit picture is the return of financials as the leading force in US profit growth. While non-financial profits lost steam at the end of 2010, profits from the financial sector jumped dramatically. By the end of 2010, financial profits achieved the same percentage of total domestic profits as they did in 2005. Clearly, speculation and financial maneuvers have ominously returned to the main stage in the US economy. For example, hedge funds have been increasing their CDS bets against Japanese debt, doubling the notional value of swaps made over the last year. Millions were made with the recent natural disaster and nuclear crisis. Debt speculation is an active agent in amplifying the volatility of European debt.
While supporters and critics of Administration policies wring their hands over the persistently high rate of unemployment, massive layoffs -- reducing the labor force dramatically faster than economic activity – was the key factor in restoring profitability and increasing asset value as expressed by equity markets. It would be naïve not to see unemployment as a capitalist tool of capitalist recovery, a tool that the ownership class is reluctant to surrender.
Much has been made of recent drops in the official monthly unemployment rates. Critics are quick to correctly note that these declines also reflect people who have left the workforce, people who are “discouraged” and statistically disappeared.
Perhaps a more realistic measure of the employment consequences of the crisis comes from examining the employment-to-population ratios and the labor participation rates compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The ratio of US employed to the total population has lost 4.5 points from its pre-crisis peak – a workforce loss of 13 to 14 million workers. When we add back those displaced but receiving unemployment compensation, we find a loss of 1.9 points in the labor participation rate, revealing 5 to 6 million workers officially disappeared – left without jobs or unemployment benefits. For these casualties of the crisis, savings, family support, food banks, social security, meager government aid, or the street are their only means of support. Unlike the politically biased official unemployment rates that obscure as much as they reveal, these grim BLS calculations offer little to celebrate.
Nor does the future of US employment appear bright. Over the last decade, US based multi-national corporations have added over two million jobs overseas while eliminating nearly 3 million here, a trend that will likely continue.
Running on Empty
Since the depths of the crisis over two and a half years ago, US policy makers have sought to stabilize and revive the critically wounded capitalist system. First, they offered a transfusion to the financial sector by injecting trillions of publicly obligated dollars into its lifeless body. Secondly, federal authorities cut away the gangrenous tissue infected by financial speculation – over a trillion dollars’ worth of fetid securities -- and placed it in the vaults of the Federal Reserve and Treasury, where it rests to this day. Thirdly, lawmakers agreed to an $800 billion stimulus package meant to restart the economy’s feeble heartbeat. After all these treatments, the economy remains in critical condition.
In mid-2010, the Federal Reserve recognized that these efforts to resuscitate a sickly economy were failing. Despite offering financial institutions and corporations virtually cost-free loans, the economy continued to respond sluggishly. The authorities acknowledged that the huge accumulated federal debt would eventually require higher interest rates to entice purchases of treasury securities to offset that debt. They understood that higher interest rates to secure the purchase of government debt would rebound through our financial institutions, driving all interest rates up and slowing borrowing. With lending drying up, they anticipated that the economy would slow down.
Thus, they sought to backstop this potential setback to recovery by embarking on a massive purchase of US treasury securities to maintain extremely low interest rates and ease any barriers to borrowers – essentially a rear-guard action dubbed Quantitative Easing II. As with the gangrenous financial securities, they purchased nearly $600 billion in government debt and locked it in the Federal Reserve vault, where it joins the garbage accumulated in the speculative frenzy that gave birth to the crisis. They hope to determine what they will do with it and the other “assets” at a later date.
Like most of the moves that flow from economic theories corrupted by wishful thinking and iron-clad confidence in capitalism, the Federal Reserve strategy produced consequences undesired. The huge infusion of dollars to purchase treasury securities cheapened the value of the dollar against other currencies. Imports, which outstrip the value of our exports to other countries, grew more costly to the US consumer; and inflation raised its ugly head, chewing away the living standards of working people. Further, many commodities, like oil, are traded internationally in dollars. With the value of dollars declining, pressure drove suppliers to raise prices to offset the falling buying power of the dollar, creating more inflationary pressure internationally. Moreover, rising interest rates in several countries inflated their currencies against the dollar as well, further affecting the costs of imported goods. These inflationary forces amplify the costs of other products, feeding an inflationary spiral. Despite unfounded optimism purveyed by the authorities and the media, inflation poses a serious threat to the economy and, especially, working class living standards. Those elements of the Consumer Price Index most relevant to working and poor people – fuel, health care, food, childcare, school fees, rent, etc – are those showing the most dramatic increase.
In addition, Federal Reserve policies failed in their mission. Though the cost of funding the US government debt is relatively stable, the cost of borrowing in the consumer arena continues to grow. Interest rates on mortgages, student loans, auto loans, etc. are on the rise. Again, QE II offered little relief to working people.
Prospects
Rather than a recovery, we are in Act II of a severe crisis of capitalism. It is not merely a financial crisis, a severe business-cycle trough or a radical imbalance, but a profound crisis of the capitalist system. Yes, there are imbalances, especially in the global economy. However, they are the effects and not the causes of this deep crisis. The advanced economies are scrambling to find solutions – individually – to the intractable problems of stagnation or decline, inflation, debt, intensified competition and failing economic institutions. These problems have fostered equally intractable political crises. Economic blocs, like the European Union, are under great stress from the diverse interests of the member states.
The emerging economies, on the other hand, are super-heated and threatened by the influx of speculative capital boiling over into severe eruptions of inflation and over-production.
As I argued some years ago, early in the crisis, the ephemeral era of capitalist cooperation – once called “globalization” – is over. Nation-states are going it alone, trying to find solutions to their immediate life-and-death issues, often at the expense of their global “partners.” Where they do find areas of limited cooperation, for example, in the aggression against Libya, their differences surface as well.
Years from now, when sober heads look back on the global crisis, they will recognize that the stability of PRChina, with its publicly owned banks and rational planning, did more to save the global economy from the brink than all of the bankrupt policy antics of the major capitalist powers. But there are more acts to come before the global capitalist economy finds firm ground.
What is missing from the maelstrom is for the working classes of all nations to move to center stage and demand solutions benefiting the vast majority. The Economist magazine, the voice of free markets since Marx’s time, reports that confidence in free markets has sunk by 21 percentage points internationally since 2002. Similarly, the Gallop Poll shows the confidence in banks and Congress is now at an all time low in the US. Only 23% of respondents have “a great deal of” or “a lot of” confidence in banks. The Congress scores even lower: a meager 11% share “a great deal of” or “a lot of” confidence in the US legislative branch. The crisis opens great opportunity to shape the world in a new direction, a direction that would not merely tame capitalism, but remove its destructive forces forever.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
Search This Blog
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The 16th Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions Athens, Greece, April 6-10, 2011
For ZZ's report on the historic 16th World Federation of Trade Union's Congress, please follow the following links:
World Federation of Trade Unions:
http://www.wftucentral.org/?p=3695&language=en
Marxism-Leninism Today:
http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/labor-movement/the-16th-congress-of-the-world-federation-of-trade-unions-athens-greece-april-6-10-2011-1134-2.html
For a video of the proceedings, please access this link:
http://www.wftucentral.org/?p=3692&language=en
World Federation of Trade Unions:
http://www.wftucentral.org/?p=3695&language=en
Marxism-Leninism Today:
http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/labor-movement/the-16th-congress-of-the-world-federation-of-trade-unions-athens-greece-april-6-10-2011-1134-2.html
For a video of the proceedings, please access this link:
http://www.wftucentral.org/?p=3692&language=en
Thursday, March 31, 2011
“No-Fly” Imperialism
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)