Philosophy Untamed: A Profile of One of Chicago’s Leading Socialist Thinkers

Dr. David Schweickart

[Written in the fall of 2010. About 3,300 words.]

Even as President Obama is labeled a Marxist by critics on the right, an actual Marxist is quietly teaching future generations anti-capitalist ideas whose implications are as profound as they are revolutionary. Born and raised in the eastern countryside of Ohio and now a professor at Loyola University of Chicago, Dr. David Schweickart is using his double-PhD (mathematics and philosophy) to develop a fundamentally novel theory of infrastructure for society he calls Economic Democracy. One of the main tenets? You should be able to fire your boss.

Schweickart challenges traditional capitalism with these thorny questions, “Why is it that when you go to work you lose your democratic rights? Why is it that we have no control over the investments being made that determine our future?” Under economic democracy employers are held more accountable because in order to attain management positions they must be chosen by their employees in yearly elections using a one-man one-vote system. America is strangely inconsistent in that citizens are considered competent enough to elect their congressmen and president, but when it comes to choosing corporate superiors people have little to no representation in the companies where they work.

Schweickart’s model has salaries at all levels of a company democratically decided by the employees. Instead of wage labor people are paid by fixed percentage profit shares. What this means is the more money a company makes, the more all its employees get paid. This motivates people to work harder because their work is directly tied to getting a bigger paycheck, rather than getting a set in stone pay rate regardless of how well the company does. While shareholders can currently vote on executive pay in America, that isn’t true democracy because only those with the money to buy stock shares are represented, thus it is a pay-to-play model. Economic democracy is a legitimate equal representation majority-rules system, rather than a money-rules system dominated by a wealthy capitalist minority.

If there is doubt of an elite capitalist class existing in America, let it be known that the common American earns near $35,000 per year yet the country’s top 400 income earners rake in salaries averaging $330,000,000 annually; a 6,660 to 1 ratio. In Modragon, Spain – a real world example of Schweickart’s ideas in action – the the highest paid executive earns the salary of 9 average workers. “It’s insane to think your namesake is worth $900 million [referring to Ken Griffin, one of Chicago’s most lucrative hedge fund managers].” Schweickart says, “For what? Buying and selling securities? Can you imagine workers voting to say ‘My boss is worth 1000 times more money than I am?”

An experiment of historically significant proportions, according to Schweickart, Mondragon is living proof that even the largest of companies can be run successfully using economic democracy. This gem hiding in the Basque region of Spain boasts community-provided healthcare, education and social security all through cooperative worker-owned companies. In effect private ownership has been abolished in Mondragon, with companies paying a capital asset tax to the state, as if leasing company property from the public to whom it ultimately belongs. This revenue goes into a community investment fund to be distributed through their cooperative bank. Stocks aren’t offered by these companies in the traditional sense because selling them would pollute the democratic ownership central to the groups ideology.

Companies in Mondragon may be sold only to the community government, though this model differs sharply from the failed Soviet centralized model. In the Soviet system free markets were replaced with state-control, yet wage labor and private ownership were unchanged. Economic democracy by contrast abolishes wage labor and private ownership of the means of production, but it keeps the free market. In essence it is a form of market socialism that keeps only the most effective traits of capitalism while not using the unsuccessful aspects of previous socialist experiments. To be fair, America’s is less a free market and more a rigged market with government subsidy giving powerful advantages to already-established monopolies.

Mondragon is composed of more than 100 worker-owned cooperative corporations that collectively employ more than 50,000 workers and whose sales exceed $6 billion per year, with total assets valued at more than $13 billion. Fundamentally these companies provide more job security than their capitalist counter-parts because the community is a closed loop system that reinvests all of its capital locally, preventing outsourcing [of both capital and jobs] scenarios where a region’s economy withers and unemployment skyrockets, such as what’s happened in Detroit. Additionally the productivity of workers at Mondragon is higher across the board as compared to conventional capitalist firms.

Capitalism creates what Marx called “the reserve army of the unemployed” because the threat of being fired is how corporate leaders keep their workers in line – the typical worker is easily replaceable. Economic democracy undermines this dictatorial power in more ways than one. Beyond corporate elections it differs from capitalism in its basic priorities. One of capitalism’s primary goals is to maximize profits with a focus on the individual, but instead of that economic democracy’s guiding light is employment creation with a focus on the community. Ideally this system would enable every able-bodied worker who wanted a job to get one. Furthermore because workers are the authorities in their companies they would never vote for executive decisions that would jeopardize their own jobs. This is stark contrast to capitalism where companies like G.E. can triple their profits while cutting the number of jobs they offer in half (as happened from 1987 to 2002).

Instead of dividing citizens into classes of extreme wealth and poverty, economic democracy renews the middle class by creating social control of investments. Currently investments in America are at the whim of Wall Street, but in Schweickart’s model citizens get to collectively vote on how the nation’s surplus money is spent. For context, the finance market accounts for roughly 40% of all profits made in the U.S., yet the bulk of America’s extra money goes into private pockets rather than being invested toward creating new jobs (and the capitalists want to keep it that way). This widens the gap between rich and poor by draining the country’s coffers to sustain an elite class of millionaires. It also sets up a system where entrepreneurs must impress capitalist investors to acquire the funds necessary to start their own business. This limits American job growth because instead of no-strings-attached grants from the state, new businesses are subject to repay loans with interest in service of the capitalists; creating a major debt risk should the new business be unsuccessful.

Schweickart argues that interest earned on today’s stock market is harmful to the economy because it is profit gained without sacrifice. The U.S. stock market actually pays out more money each year than the total dollars invested into it. How can this be possible? Schweickart contends, just as Marx would, that the extra money comes from the exploitation of the working class’s labor. To make matters worse for the U.S., speculative finance leads to gambling and out-right scams, which have occurred because there was not enough market regulation.

These problems produced devastating consequences such as the 2008 housing market collapse that destroyed millions of jobs and cost the country trillions of dollars. The situation has further been worsened by the argument that tax breaks for millionaires is good for the economy, an assertion which ignores the fact this approach has historically failed nearly every time it has been tried. When allowed to keep that extra money mega-corporations mostly create bigger CEO bonuses and hand-out McJobs; poor wages and dependence, ineffective substitutes for honest independent innovators creating new opportunities that would truly serve the country’s best interests.

Schweickart asserts that much of the money on American finance markets is not “investment” at all, but rather a clever form of savings. Investment, by Schweickart’s standards, is money put toward entrepreneurial activity like a loan or grant with which to start a new business. The vast majority of money circulating around Wall Street is paid to shareholders as interest and does nothing to stimulate entrepreneurs, a process actually harmful to the overall economy despite the powerful minority class of millionaires it produces.

In his book, After Capitalism [Printed in 2002 by Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.], Schweickart refers to entrepreneurs as the ‘white knights’ of capitalism (in that they are often cited as evidence of capitalism’s success), but he draws an important distinction between capitalists and entrepreneurs. A small business owner for example is not a capitalist because they work as managers rather than only fulfilling the role of the initial investor. For this reason traditional private-ownership, wage labor capitalism works just fine for small businesses and economic democracy need not be forced upon them. Capitalism’s fable of the innovator-entrepreneur, the self-made millionaire, is a rarity in America compared to the capitalists who use their already pre-existing fortunes to make more money by investing in (and in turn demanding a share of the profits from) other people’s work.

With this in mind comes the classic Marxian question so unacceptable to the ruling capitalist class, “If labor is the source of all value, why should land-owners or capitalists get anything?” To counter this potent attack supporters of capitalism have run a smear campaign against socialism, labeling it inaccurately as welfare and a government-takeover. “It’s not a government takeover, it’s an extension of democracy.” Schweickart defends, “Savings and loan associates would not be nationalized, only control over investment.”

Though democracy is the last thing capitalist elites want, especially evidenced by the recent Citizens United supreme court decision allowing unlimited political donations which are today exploited to secretly influence elections away from legitimate democratic control. This money-as-votes concept is often cited as being democracy, with its defenders declaring consumer purchases are equivalent to the ballot box. Yet because the distribution of money in America is horribly slanted (with less than 1% of the population owning more than 40% of the nation’s wealth) this is anything but democracy – there is little to no representation at all for average citizens without millions to spend on financing their preferred politician’s campaign. Voters have become apathetic as they feel their self-governing power slowly slipping away from them. At risk is literally the country’s independence and sovereignty.

America’s current political system is actually a form of “Might makes right” a philosophy identical to the one Middle Eastern dictators such as Libya’s Gadhafi are trying to use as they attempt to crush popular resistance to their regimes by brute force. When demonstrated with weapons instead of dollars it becomes painfully obvious how immoral this line of thinking really is. “Already the electoral system is totally corrupt.” Schweickart says, adding what he would like to see America do is “Democratize labor, democratize capital, democratize democracy.”

Ryan Haas, a former student of Schweickart’s and now practicing attorney for Chuhak & Tecson, as well as instructor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago adds, “McCarthy’s witch hunts in the 1950’s automatically and dogmatically delegitimized any socialist critique of our social and economic problems by immediately associating such a critique with the Soviet bloc.  It was an ultimate red herring [because it demonized socialism as being inherently associated with America’s Cold War enemy].”

Regarding the viability of Schweickart’s theories in modern America Haas says, “A comprehensive change in our current legal framework [would be necessary]. Laws related to corporate ownership would need to be completely changed. I don’t see that happening in the current political climate.” Though he also mentions that some aspects of economic democracy have already been adopted by the U.S., such as profit sharing via stock options in tech companies and the occasional cooperatively owned firm.

Haas reflects on his graduate level course taught by Schweickart 11 years ago, “In short, his class was tough. From what I recall, Dr. Schweickart was a very clear minded philosopher who has an understanding of social, political, economic and philosophical problems in a way many people do not. His class was intense because he wanted his students to stop compartmentalizing problems into ‘philosophical’ or ‘economic’, but see the connections and think in more comprehensive terms.  This can be very difficult because academia is not traditionally structured to address problems across disciplines.”

Carl Davidson, the National Co-Chair for the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism, offered to give further perspective on the profile of this contemporary thinker, “David is an old and good friend, and we share common views. If you had to pick someone who is very organized and rigorous in his thinking, while at the same time very lucid, calm, warm and approachable as a teacher, David Schweickart would be among those at the top of any list.” Davidson penned an in-depth review of Schweickart’s most recent book, writing, “[He] has given us an excellent breakthrough in finding the road to a new socialism for the 21st century. Using both practical and ethical arguments, his main objective is to take on the ‘TINA’ argument-‘There Is No Alternative [to capitalism]’-of the neo-liberals. He convincingly shows there is at least one alternative, a ‘successor system’ that he calls ‘Economic Democracy.’ His critics will find it hard to dismiss his ideas lightly.” Economic democracy he continues, “is a working hypothesis, and not a rigid or doctrinaire model.” One of his most salient points: “Labor is not a cost, as it is under capitalism. Rather, labor gets its return from the local profits. This means there is no pressure to keep the workers’ compensation low.”

Schweickart proposes another interesting idea to promote job growth and better wages; a fair trade policy of socialist protectionism. Instead of the current unregulated free trade policy, a tariff would be placed on all imported products from poor countries where the lack of labor protection laws are exploited. This added cost would eliminate the advantage of outsourcing U.S. jobs by leveling the playing field with domestically made products in America, the world’s most lucrative market.

Truly novel is Schweickart’s suggestion that the extra money produced by this tariff would be sent, not to the U.S. treasury, but instead back to the countries from which the products were imported. This would help alleviate global poverty by freeing up poor countries to develop local projects instead of forever being slaves to producing products to meet the consumer demands of rich countries (an addiction that is one of the leading causes of mass deforestation of rainforests, one of the planet’s most critical environmental threats).

The constant expansion required to compete in a globalized capitalist society contributes to recurring and worsening economic recessions and environmental crises, exactly as Marx predicted it would. Alas, the devil is in the details of exactly to whom that tariff money would be sent; to the foreign workers themselves, their often corrupt governments, or to NGOs (Non-governmental organizations)? While conceptually intriguing and potentially beneficial however, this tariff is not part of the essential foundations of his theory.

The alternative to allowing Ayn Rand disciples like Alan Greenspan to promote the spending of America’s natural capital as if it were unlimited, is for the U.S. to adopt an investment policy toward the environment to grow more natural wealth instead of consuming it all faster and faster with each passing year. While individualists at our core, Americans cannot continue to deceive themselves for much longer that it is rational to care only about one’s own profits even to such excess that the entire national community suffers.

At the heart of America’s economic malaise are two hitherto unanalyzed topics; negative externalities and the allocation of wealth. To decipher those big fancy words, the first means the prices of products that stores charge are actually lower than the cost of production for those items. The true costs are often outright ignored, transferred to the environment or to the citizens of impoverished areas. A good example of this is that the GDP does not take pollution or quality of life into account in its assessment of America’s economic health. The other issue is the way in which most of our money is spent; it goes toward consumption that depletes money rather than into genuine investment that in the long run creates more money. A simple change in our spending habits coupled with new taxes to internalize externalities would be fundamentally good economics. As for our military budget, oversized as it is, the argument for reducing offense spending tends to fall on deaf ears in the face of fear-based propaganda now broadcast on a historically unprecedented massive scale.

The case for economic democracy is made even stronger by comparing it to traditional means of economic recovery. For example raising minimum wage, as Marx put it in his Alienated Labor, “amounts to nothing more than a better slave salary.” Only through true democratic control can the value of the nation’s labor be realized as money in middle class pockets rather than being directed to record CEO bonuses year after year without regard to corporate failures. Socialism, despite being a dirty word to many a conservative, is actually capitalists’ preferred method to transfer corporate losses to middle class tax payers as debt (remember the bank bail-outs?). Using government subsidy, corporations effectively socialize all of their losses while privatizing the vast majority of their gains. America already has forms of socialist welfare, but they only benefit a minority rich at the expense of the majority working class.

With respect to these facts capitalism is simply not sustainable. Capitalism is dependent on two contradictory things; the need for consumers to buy products and the need for unemployment to keep the workers in line. “Capitalism can’t provide full employment, because it relies on threat of firings to maintain authoritarian power structure.” says Schweickart. Capitalism’s transfer of wealth from working class to elite capitalist owners wipes out consumer purchasing power, in turn increasing unemployment and further reducing consumer demand, creating a never-ending cycle of decay until corrected, usually with strong government economic intervention.

The tricky issue is how to move forward to reform our current system. Ultimately there are just three conceivable methods. First, a political party supporting economic democracy is elected by a majority of voters and they institute the changes using our legal system. Second, a collective of worker-owned cooperatives develop inside America’s current capitalist system and they spread and grow as they become more successful by continuing to provide more jobs. The last method Schweickart does not mention, though it is worth noting, is that a violent revolution could be attempted to foment economic changes.

Economic democracy may not be the only solution to America’s current unemployment and poverty woes, but it is one of the only original ideas to have been suggested. Working examples of it around the world are seeing success. It may not be certain that this model will be a cure-all for America’s problems, but one thing is certain: That without fundamental change our capitalist system is fast heading toward eminent collapse. Middle class wages have stagnated, hardly rising at all since the 1970s while executive [read – capitalist] salaries have skyrocketed exponentially. In trying to reduce labor costs and maximize only their own profits employers have not only begun, but drastically accelerated the process of transforming the U.S. into a 3rd world country for the poorest of our working class.

As politicians bicker about superficial issues like the debt ceiling, abortion, gay marriage, and Obama’s birth certificate the most essential obstacles to job creation remain unchallenged and undiscussed. The mass media, one of America’s most powerful tools, is largely owned by corporate monopolies. Only six major companies own 90% percent of the major newspapers and tv stations in the country, thus the media refuses to seriously address the problems Dr. Schweickart has devoted his life’s work to solving. It is reassuring to know that light may be at the end of the tunnel, but Americans will have to be willing to work toward getting there before the country truly starts to see recovery and strong progress.

Our Two Parties

Republicans and Democrats represent two immortal characteristics of the human psyche.

Republicans are the party of Competition. Every man or state for himself, may the strongest take all and the weakest get nothing, since the weak have failed in the competition.

Democrats are the party of Cooperation. We are all one nation, one community. The strongest have a moral responsibility to help the weakest.

Implicit in Republican ideology is the individual is responsible for his or her own fate. If they are rich or poor – they deserve full credit or blame. This ignores external circumstances like inheritance, cultural prejudice, etc…

Implicit in Democratic ideology is that competing factions are willing to compromise. In order to prevent war, each side has to give up something the other wants in return for getting something they want.

Political elections are competitions, but passing laws is more efficient through compromise – as the Tea Party has shown us, competitively opposing anything Obama tries to do, even if it is something they had previously asked for, they don’t want to let him score any victories.

The competitive nature of Republicans makes them better politicians. They are masters at spinning the issues and re-framing the debate to suite their own terms. Their goal is to take and keep power – even if they must resort to lying or sabotage to win.

The cooperative nature of Democrats makes them better governors. They actually accomplish legislative progress, while Republicans try to regress and undo most laws Democrats pass. Democrats are weak to the tyranny of the majority – where the ideological desires of the public for equality impose regulations on businesses that can make the realities of business much more difficult.

Both parties suffer from putting ideology ahead of reality. They interpret evidence to support their own causes and de-legitimize evidence contrary to their goals.

Today’s Feudalism

When you observe class divisions in wealth among the masses – it appears land is still the most valuable asset, land that is privately owned, with that private ownership protected by force. People must pay the land lords to live on that land, or they will not be protected from enforcers (once roaming bandits, now the institutionalized police). In short, we have a New Feudalism today. (A bit of a jump to that conclusion I realize, but humor me for now).

The rise of the Capitalist class gained some of that land-owner power that was traditionally monopolized by royalty, and yet now it is being monopolized by Capitalists, who work to buy whole governments to serve their own interests (and so make serfs of the laborers living under those governments in the process).

In my previous post – it was not out of some pretense of superiority I labeled minimum wage workers as today’s peasants. Branding people as an innately “inferior” class is arrogant and not my intent, I am merely making wealth and power-based observations about groups of people in society.

Dominance has evolved throughout the ages. From strength as beasts, to kinship in tribes, to the royalty and capitalists of nations. Democracy does provide a healthy counter balance to private concentrations of power – but the private power holders, in their lust for control, are driven to endlessly try and de-legitimize all things Democratic. It is a dance because excesses of both private and public power can lead to tyranny.

As an American in the early 21st century, I am inclined to note the scales of power appear tipped at an unhealthy imbalance, with an excess of influence in private hands.

In the simplest of terms – a land lord owns the people living on his land. He can demand rent from them – and the police will enforce payment of that debt.

It’s not exactly slavery – but combined with wage labor, it isn’t much better than that either, especially for people born without wealth, without land. Granted people are free to leave if they wish – if they can afford to. Money – and unemployment in particular – are tools through which the masses are controlled, they are the whips of the new age slave drivers.

The concept of profiting from land-ownership rather than labor is perhaps the invention of elders. It is conceivable such a system was intentionally devised to perpetuate the welfare of older people, who become less able to work with time but who experience no lessening in their desire of wealth as they age.

The nature of privatization has left many elders at the mercy of Capitalists too however, so it would be unfair to wholly characterize the state of the world as an “Old vs. Young” conflict. In a similar vein, “Rich vs. Poor” is not wholly accurate either, because one need not be a land-owning Capitalist to be rich. The Capitalist class is the top 1% of the top 1%.

It may not be that this elite group of people seek to enslave the world, but the infrastructure of our Capitalist business system does in fact give them that power. Further, a sinister minority is conceivable who do in fact consciously intend to make serfs of us all. More likely however, is that they have deep faith in a profoundly misguided ideology, whose benefits to them will blind them to the mass harm it does to others.

Hence it is very interesting that in 2011 – after 30 years of unprecedented gains by the 1% at the expense of the 99% (but also to their marginal benefit) – that open rebellion has begun against the Capitalists.

If history teaches us anything – it’s that no dynasty has ever been immortal. The dominance of Capitalists appears to be on its way out – and even if recent events prove to be only the planting of a new seed, it cannot be unplanted – and the Capitalists will eventually lose power.

The question is – when will that be, and who will replace them? I hope for all our sakes we can make the new rulers design a more sustainable global economic system!

Ye Olde Middle Ages 2011

Know the past, know the present, and you can know some of the future.

I have come to view lifetime minimum wage workers as today’s peasants. They are effectively serfs. Unskilled labor will always be paid as little as employers can get away with.

The lords of today, and I’ve made this point before, are the big wig land/property owners.

Perhaps it is natural society be divided into classes of varying wealth – after all, people are certainly not all equal in regard to their talents or work ethic.

It may be unfair that some are born to every advantage while others enter life into poverty – but fairness is a distinctly human idea that we wish to impose on a nature that is not and has never been fair.

Nature can be understood with only a few basic observable concepts and patterns.

Diversity. Competition. Change. Balance. Interconnectedness. Cycles. Infinite Unknowns. Sustainability.

This is a tangent, but notice fairness is not among the Natural Laws except within the societies of man.

Look on the bright side people – serfs today live better than they Ever have in all of human history! (Of course, so do the Lords and Pharaohs).

Revolutions happen to remove the ruling class from power when it becomes excessively corrupt – too heartless and apathetic to the suffering of the masses. It is natural a hard worker should not want to share his wealth with one who refuses to work – yet giving to charity is also natural, a testament to human compassion.

In the nuclear era, imperialism does not invade territory or conquer people directly with huge land armies as was once done. Nation against nation is bound to end in catastrophe with today’s technology. Thus war has become decentralized and indirect – fought against terrorists or through economic or cyber warfare channels.

The old adage remains true in the face of modern inequality and class divisions – the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The exception to this rule is going to have to be frontier consumerism – by which I mean unsustainable treatment of the environment under imagined pretenses of limitless resources and no consequences to planetary degradation.

It will be very interesting to see how things evolve in the coming decades. Natural resources are ever diminishing while the demand for them is ever increasing due to unchecked population growth. China and India are ahead of the rest of the world in that they will have to deal with these issues first.

I predict sustainability revolutions are already brewing from within the dominant nations globally. The time may soon be upon us for a new age to begin -but beyond the necessity of a change to sustainability, I cannot say what the character of the new world will be.

Hopefully we can finally make royalty and fascism obsolete!

Why does any of this matter? Simple – If you are aware of what the future will likely hold, you can prepare for it. If you ignore the signs, it’s only a matter of time before chaos catches you by surprise.

Fascism Will Always Fail

Radical authoritarian nationalists (thank you Wikipedia) exist in virtually every territory in the world.

They are locked in an eternal struggle with the forces of democracy. They view themselves as the only legitimate patriots and everyone else as subversives, fools or other sweeping generalizations that might be used as a pretext to disqualify them from their right to political participation.

A Fascist government tolerates no dissent – no protesting in the street, no criticism of the state on blogs. To challenge the ruling regime under fascism is to commit heresy/treason and face the harshest of consequences.

To quote JFK, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

In 2011, at the dawn of the 21st century, it appears to me fascism is on the rise. And I’m not talking about Islamic fascism in the Middle East, I’m talking about Capitalist Fascism in the US, China, Russia and Europe.

In effect these states may also be Plutocracies, but since they could never admit to being as much publicly, they parade around under the guises of nationalism and conservative tradition. Trans-National Capitalists (TNCs) are the effective royalty of the globalized Plutocratic empire.

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” -Sinclair Lewis

That prophetic quote is from 1975. Since 1980 however, the “Pro-Business” rhetoric strikes me as a much better vehicle for fascism than religious nationalism characteristic of the 70s (though such sentiments remain active even today).

President Calvin Coolidge summarized this post-1980 doctrine well ahead of his time in 1925 when he said, “The business of America is business.”

To counter the trend of Progressivism and reform that FDR set into motion in the 1930s, it took Reagan’s famous, “Government is the problem” ideology. Reagan’s policies were supported by the prominent economist Milton Friedman, who became famous for harshly criticizing Keynes – the British economist on whose theories the American New Deal was based.

Libertarianism, that Ayn Rand-esque philosophy of today’s super-rich that seeks absolute freedom for individuals, is a product of this mentality, which sees as evil any restrictions on one person’s success for the betterment of the community.

It is a continuation of Neo-Liberalism that seeks to deregulate businesses and lower taxes on the wealthiest earners in the name of “Trickle-Down” theory. A theory that has proven never to really trickle-down at all over the last 30 years, but has dramatically enriched the already-wealthy (which, arguably, was its only intention from the beginning).

The fundamental difference between Keynesianism and Trickle-Down theory is called multiplicity.

Keynes advocated getting maximum money into the poorest hands during hard economic times – because they would spend it immediately and it would have a high rate of turnover.

Friedman sought to reduce restrictions on the wealthiest business owners theorizing this would lead to their expansion and the creation of more jobs. (It has, in fact helped business expansion, but instead of more jobs created, the money was mostly directed toward higher bonuses for CEOs and bankers/investors/realtors in the financial sector).

The multiplicity in Trickle-Down theory is very low, because when extra money is given to the wealthiest they don’t tend to spend it immediately, but rather invest it as *savings* – which does not stimulate the economy or provide job growth for the community, and instead only serves as financial security for the wealthy.

This simple difference in effectiveness lies at the heart of all modern political struggle. Keynesian economics is about 3 times more effective than Trickle-Down is, by this measure of multiplicity.

Similarly, all the talk of “job killing” regulations is largely propaganda and nonsense. Do you want to get rid of the Clean Air or Water Acts? Regulation on derivative securities trading could have prevented the 2008 mortgage financial crisis.

Such regulation was seen as dissent against the ruling Fascists however – it targeted the very root of their most profitable-ever global fraud scheme.

Graham-Leahy-Bliley repealed Glass-Steagall, the 1930s banking regulation that separated investment banks from commercial banks and prohibited the former from speculating with its depositors’ money. This set the stage for the financial collapse. Though Dodd-Frank has attempted to revive Glass-Steagall, its implementation has been fought at every turn by elements loyal to the TNCs.

After 30 years of the TNCs holding global dominance and espousing Trickle-Down theory, popular backlash has begun – in the form of the Arab Spring revolutions and Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Fascists are quick to denounce these dissidents. They are the unwashed masses! Communists! Socialists! They want something for free! They are terrorists! They represent the worst of society! [implicit in fascist mythology is the idea that the most successful (richest) businessmen represent the best of society]

As the challenge for dominance in society escalates, Fascist governments (pulled by the puppet strings of the Plutocrat TNCs) will begin to employ greater use of violence to suppress the rebellion – and this will be their fatal mistake.

When the people begin to realize their rulers don’t respect their right to live – the people will begin to stop respecting the rulers’ right to rule. And once that legitimacy is lost, it is almost impossible to regain. At that point it is not a matter of if the Fascist government will fall from power, but when.

Conformity by force might keep stability in the short run, but in the long run it stifles diversity and innovation, ultimately leading to stagnation and deterioration. By suppressing political dissent, a regime hamstrings its own ability to evolve.

The regime’s competition however evolves rapidly – as heavy handed abuses of power act as catalysts to create the very dissent authorities intended to discourage.

Privacy and Legitimacy

Between the infamous Patriot Act and the ceaseless rumors your iPhone or Android may be tracking your every move and message – it’s tough to feel secure in today’s increasingly technologically integrated world.

Internet giant Facebook seeks to create “real name” culture online where anonymity is minimized and as much as possible information is publicly shared. Facebook’s new style broadcasts things automatically, making the assumption the user wants their every activity in the public record.

Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice, has said he doesn’t believe the Constitution guarantees any right to privacy at all, despite the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Who can be trusted with our privacy? The short answer is – no one, trust yourself.

Private companies can effortlessly pre-program spyware into all of the devices they sell, unless the government regulates this activity and bars them from doing it. And even then (assuming the regulation was ever strongly enforced to begin with) we have to generously assume Federal agencies won’t exempt themselves from the restrictions. (In other words, the FBI might argue they can invade your privacy for security reasons, but Verizon or AT&T doing the same would be illegal).

Shall we just let the free market decide? After all, businesses will lose customers if it becomes public knowledge they don’t care about your privacy.

Or is there actually some action we can trust the government or businesses to take here?

Two issues at the heart of this matter are trustworthiness and legitimacy.

People may trust phone companies enough to handle their privacy, or they may trust the government. Suppose that trust is violated however – then the issue becomes about legitimacy. Is the violator’s authority to invade your privacy legal?

If they are a business, probably not.

If they are the government, they will probably get away with it if they can argue it was for “security” purposes.

There are really only a few ways to challenge the law – in court, politically, or by force. The legal begal routes change the actual laws, but force (i.e. rebellion) acts on the idea that the law is illegitimate, thus unworthy of being followed.

In all three cases the government status quo has a significant advantage.

Opposition by force is especially a double edged sword. Forceful resistance to the police would cause the government to delegitimize the offending group – having the media portray them as lawless, dangerous criminals not worthy of the protections regular citizens are ensured by law. Not to mention the federal military is the strongest force on earth – so resisting the police doesn’t seem the wisest idea anyway considering the back-up they can call for.

Law enforcement frequently is portrayed as justified and socially legitimate even when the law being enforced is unpopular, unnatural, ineffective or when the force used to enforce it is excessive.

Most troublesome is the idea that our political system itself is illegitimate. That it is all but a puppet show tyrants perform to lull the masses to sleep and keep them unaware of the fact that they really have no control over how the strings are pulled.

An illegitimate political system would render the court and legislation options for change useless. How then, to challenge illegitimate laws? If not through the might of superior force, the only approach would have to be to restore the legitimacy of the political system.



Lately there has been a “Climate-gate” 2.0 circulating around the right wing news outlets. Global warming is a myth! The scientists faked their data to scam the tax payers for money! So the narrative goes…

Given the billions America spends on private defense contractor companies – is it so unreasonable to apply the same argument to national security? Might that also be a scam for money where “threats” are faked data to use fear to con tax payers into giving up more of their money? It seems more than possible, it almost surely happens somewhere.

The trouble with lessaiz-faire capitalism is that it is prone to wild excesses. Seeking ever-greater profits, businesses work relentlessly to increase demand for their products – if that must include dishonest methods, so be it. After all, “greed is good” according to Lessaiz-Faire Capitalism. Billions are poured into advertising propaganda, over-production, and mass-distribution systems to create new markets for the over-produced products.

These excesses create all kinds of harmful externalities. They are bad for the environment, they are bad for the common worker/citizen small business owner.

Hence whenever you hear the word “Security” used you should keep in mind exactly what the government really wants to secure – the profits of large corporations.

Similarly, the war on drugs has nothing to do with crime or morality. It is all about securing profits – preventing competition in the pharma and tobacco markets. It is the perfect excuse to militarize the police and expand the power of the state to enforce perverted laws written by elite business interests apathetic to the welfare of the public.

Perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of the corporate-state establishment is its computer system. Information is power – it enables blackmail, it can transform public opinion. For all the advances in modern weaponry, a humble hacker in his basement can still be more dangerous to all the entrenched powers of the world than any predator drone. Today is truly a golden age to join the information security industry.

Groups like Anonymous have the potential to affect historic influence. We shall see how wisely or effectively those info security experts use their skills to foment political change. Personally, I am excited to see how these matters will develop in the years to come.

No amount of pepper spray or other methods of “pain compliance” will succeed in modifying the behavior of dissident political radicals so long as the state remains corrupt. If anything, the use of force to attempt to suppress anti-establishment rhetoric will only encourage and escalate rebellious actions.