[Peace-discuss] The leading capitalist imperialist

[C. G. Estabrook]

 From <http://www.truthout.org/remembering-fascism-learning-from-past58724>:


It is sad to say, but not false, that within the dominant spectrum the liberal 
imperialists are "the good guys." A likely alternative is revealed by the most 
recent polls. Almost half of voters say that the average Tea Party member is 
closer to their views than President Obama, whom fewer prefer. There's an 
interesting breakdown. Eighty-seven percent of those in the so-called "Political 
Class" say their views are closer to Obama's. Sixty-three percent of what are 
called "Mainstream Americans" say their views are closer to the Tea Party. On 
virtually all issues, Republicans are trusted by the electorate more than 
Democrats, in many cases by double digits. Other evidence suggests that these 
polls are recording distrust rather than trust. The level of anger and fear in 
the country is like nothing I can recall in my lifetime. And since the Democrats 
are in power, the revulsion over the current social-economic-political world 
attaches to them.

Unfortunately, these attitudes are understandable. For over 30 years, real 
incomes for the majority of the population have stagnated or declined, social 
indicators have steadily deteriorated since the mid-1970s after closely tracking 
growth in earlier years, work hours and insecurity have increased along with 
debt. Wealth has accumulated, but into very few pockets, leading to probably 
record inequality. These are, in large part, consequences of the 
financialization of the economy since the 1970s and the corresponding hollowing 
out of domestic production. What people see before their eyes is that the 
bankers who are primarily responsible for the current crisis and who were saved 
from bankruptcy by the public are now reveling in record profits and huge 
bonuses, while official unemployment stays at about 10 percent and in 
manufacturing is at depression levels, one in six, with good jobs unlikely to 
return. People rightly want answers and they are not getting them, except from 
voices that tell tales that have some internal coherence, but only if you 
suspend disbelief and enter into their world of irrationality and deceit. 
Ridiculing Tea Party shenanigans is a serious error, I think. It would be far 
more appropriate to understand what lies behind them and to ask ourselves why 
justly angry people are being mobilized by the extreme right and not by forces 
like those that did so in my childhood, in the days of formation of the CIO and 
other constructive activism.

To take just one illustration of the operation of really existing market 
democracy, Obama's primary constituency was financial institutions, which have 
gained such dominance in the economy that their share of corporate profits rose 
from a few percent in the '70s to almost on-third today. They preferred Obama to 
McCain and largely bought the election for him. They expected to be rewarded and 
were. But a few months ago, responding to rising public anger, Obama began to 
criticize the "greedy bankers" who had been rescued by the public and even 
proposed some measures to constrain them. Punishment for his deviation was 
swift. The major banks announced prominently that they would shift funding to 
Republicans if Obama persisted with his offensive rhetoric.

Obama heard the message. Within days, he informed the business press that 
bankers are fine "guys." He singled out for special praise the chairs of two 
leading beneficiaries of public largess, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs and 
assured the business world that, "I, like most of the American people, don't 
begrudge people success or wealth" - such as the bonuses and profits that are 
infuriating the public. "That's part of the free market system," Obama 
continued, not inaccurately, as the concept "free market" is interpreted in 
state capitalist doctrine.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.