<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggles." The goal of our politics is to bring those
struggles to an end - "establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity" - but they nevertheless still exist and provide the
motive force (not always perspicuously) for our daily politics.<br>
<br>
The current Great Recession is the culmination of thirty years of
the conscious politics of neoliberalism, which was a counterattack
by the ownership class against the demands for social democracy and
the welfare state that they had been forced to concede after WWII.
Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury in the Harding, Coolidge,
and Hoover administrations, said that "During a depression, assets
return to their rightful owners." (He meant himself and his
friends.) The people's political struggle in the 1930s and again
today is to prevent that from happening, insofar as possible.<br>
<br>
Of course the dominant class, who understand the situation, don't
want that understanding spread abroad. What if the mass of the
population should realize that a class struggle was underway? James
Madison, the architect of the 1787 constitution, wrote that the
purpose of that document was to "protect the minority of the opulent
against the majority." <br>
<br>
Madison's system works remarkably well two centuries later. We have
a small active political class - about 20% of the population
(roughly those who went to good colleges - in America more than
elsewhere, class is established by formal education, which is why
it's corrupt) and two dominant business parties to champion and
effect policies substantially to the right of those favored by a
majority of the population. <br>
<br>
But the difference between the policies of the parties and the
interests of the people is covered by the one real innovation of the
American 20th century, public relations. "The twentieth century was
characterized by three developments of great political importance:
the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the
growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate
power against democracy''.<br>
<br>
The point of the party system is precisely to obscure the class
struggle, so it's difficult to see how the struggle would be
permitted to generate a third (or second) party. It's true that
e.g. European ruling classes in the 20th century had to concede
explicitly working-class parties, but they were quickly recaptured
for the dominant classes (cf. the Labour party in the UK). And the
US has never had to make that concession. The only successful third
party in US history - the Republicans - arose from a split in the
ruling class so serious and fundamental that it resembled an
international war (cf. France and Germany in 1914).<br>
<br>
I don't therefore see "the development of a major third party that
could knock out either the Republicans or the Democrats as a second
party." It is however true that "pocketbook issues tend to dominate
elections"; that's why economic issues have to be spun so:
"corporate propaganda [is] a means of protecting corporate power
against democracy.''<br>
<br>
I think the current deficit scare is like that. It's economic
McCarthyism. The notion of an unpayable debt and an a corresponding
runaway inflation is like the threat of a Communist takeover in the
US fifty years ago - designed to deflect real public "pocketbook"
demands.<br>
<br>
It's also true that "Unemployment will be [is] a lot worse than most
people expect. Housing will continue to suffer in terms of weak
demand." But inflation is unlikely, while deflation is a real
possibility. US monetary authorities are attempting to titrate the
matter so that "assets return to the rightful owners" rather than to
the people.<br>
<br>
The government pleads poverty to justify the assaults on Medicare
and Social Security, but it doesn't face bankruptcy. The principal
result of thirty years of neoliberalism has been an immense and
accelerating concentration of wealth in very few hands. The first
tactical victory in the current class struggle would be a tax on
that wealth.<br>
<br>
Consider the richest one per cent of US citizens. In 2009, their
investible assets - i.e, not including their primary residence, art
works, collectibles, etc. - totaled over $12 trillion. In that year,
the total US budgetary deficit was $1.7 trillion. Had the US
government levied an economic emergency tax of 15% on only
investible assets (i.e., not entire net worth) in excess of $1
million, it could could have covered the entire 2009 deficit. And
of course 99% of the population would have been exempted from that
tax.<br>
<br>
There are reasons for the US government to run some deficit, as
Keynes explained, but it's also better to tax the necessary funds
from the rich than to borrow them - and pay interest on them. It's
only the successful class struggle by the American rich over the
past generation that has seen the degree of equality of wealth -
which peaked in the late 1960s - fall back to the inequality that
obtained before the 1929 crash. Neoliberalism has so far been a
winning strategy in the American class struggle. <br>
<br>
Encouraging panic about the deficit and inflation is its current
form. It's fueling the Obama administration's attack on "entitlement
programs." (Language of course is a weapon in the struggle: what if
Social Security and Medicare were instead called "economic justice"
programs - or "reparations"?) If we want to reverse the massive
redistribution of wealth "upwards" over the last generation, the way
to do is by taxing wealth, not borrowing it. <br>
<br>
Those tea-partiers who say they're "taxed enough already" are
certainly right. And the tea-partier who carried a sign saying
"Government hands off my Medicare!" was ridiculed only by those
(common in the media) who were serving the interests of the wealthy.
The demand is quite correct.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/15/10 1:57 AM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> The circumstance is open for
the development of a major third party<br>
> that could knock out either the Republicans or the Democrats
as a<br>
> second party. Over time, pocketbook issues tend to dominate<br>
> elections. If things are going well, if people are
prosperous, they<br>
> ignore the corruption in political circles as being just part
of the<br>
> system. But when they're hurting, they turn out the bastards
and look<br>
> to put in some change. We sure need change. I can tell you
that. It's<br>
> not just one party. Both major parties have an equal share of
guilt<br>
> in what's unfolding. Whichever one is in power keeps making
it<br>
> worse...<br>
> <br>
> Unemployment will be a lot worse than most people expect.
Housing<br>
> will continue to suffer in terms of weak demand. But in this
crazy,<br>
> almost perverse circumstance, the renewed weakness to a large
extent<br>
> will help push us into higher inflation. Real estate tends to
do<br>
> better with higher inflation, but it's not going to be a
happy<br>
> circumstance for anyone.<br>
> <br>
> The government is effectively bankrupt. Using GAAP accounting<br>
> principles, the annual deficit is running in the range of $4
trillion<br>
> to $5 trillion. That's beyond containment. The government
can't cover<br>
> it with taxes. They'd still be in deficit if they took 100%
of<br>
> personal income and corporate profits. They'd also still be
in<br>
> deficit if they cut every penny of government spending except
for<br>
> Social Security and Medicare. Washington lacks the will to
slash its<br>
> social programs severely, to change its approach to ever
bigger<br>
> government. The only option left going forward is for the
government<br>
> eventually to print the money for the obligations it cannot
otherwise<br>
> cover, which sets up a hyperinflation...<br>
> <br>
> Read more: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/7005">http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/7005</a> Again,
putting<br>
> aside election year politics and such, the banking industry
will need<br>
> further bailout as solvency issues come to a head again. The
federal<br>
> deficit is going to balloon. It's going to blow up much worse
than<br>
> any formulas would give you, and Treasury funding needs will<br>
> explode....<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
mailing<br>
> list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a></span><br>
</body>
</html>