Saturday, April 19, 2014

Reform or Revolution? ... An Analysis of Salon magazine's article: Reaganomics killed America’s middle class






I am writing this with the understanding that Salon magazine
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
 is not Socialist, but rather a liberal magazine with some progressive views about the state of the economy. Their intent on writing this article is probably aimed at 2 audiences. Those in the ruling class, as a warning of things to come if they don’t change course, and those of us in the working class, by trying to directs us down the road of reform, without going any further.

Yes Salon is correct in pointing out in this article  how capitalism really works, but it appears that they still want to keep the capitalist class in charge by calling for a massive upheaval that could take some time to build, but that produces nothing more than reforms, which can easily be undone as they have been and are being done right before our eyes.

 All it takes for reforms to start unraveling is a crisis in the capitalist system. And this system with it's many contradictions always produces cycles of crisis.

There was a stagnation of profits for the capitalist class that began in the 60s’ and led to the crisis in the 70s’ and that’s when the capitalist class first began its frontal attacks on working people.

It appears that the drive to deregulate the banks began in the 1960s as stated in Wikipedia

            “Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[5] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the GLBA, many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already “dead.”[6] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.[7] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[8]”




 More attacks on regulation took place under Carter and laid the groundwork for Reagan and what came to be termed Reaganomics. Carter also began the  deregulation of price controls on oil but in half measures, which Reagan then once in office took away all control on oil prices. Carter also deregulated airlines, railroads and trucking. The Carter Administration also gave greater power to the Federal Reserve System through the Depository Institutions and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980 which otherwise was a necessary first step in ending the New Deal restrictions placed upon financial institutions. Carter also  started cutting social programs to reduce the so-called deficit.

All this kept continuing   through out the administrations of  Reagan, Bush Sr.,  Clinton, Bush Jr. and now Obama. As more crisis kept recurring (which are termed  recessions by the capitalists) the capitalist class was finding ways to deal with these crisis's, by attacks on policies that would begin making life for working people worse with each new crisis. When Clinton took office he signed NAFTA, and eliminated Glass-Steagall, which by the capitalists class was already declared dead, because the financial sector was finding ways to undermine this legislation.

Capitalists will always find a way around anything that prevents them from increasing their profits. That is the nature of the capitalist system to seek more profits by any means necessary. 

At the same time that there have been massive attacks against public education, some capitalists have already been talking about repealing the child labor laws. That means they want to once again exploit the children of the working class, instead of educating them.

I applaud SALON magazine for pointing out the real nature of capitalism, but they fail to offer any real solutions because they are liberals who still have delusions about capitalism, and believe that it can be tamed or controlled. And I say we already have seen that film before and know what the outcome will be.

The only real solution to the problems of capitalism is in the complete transformation of society that places the means of production and the economy under the democratic control of the working class. And that is what is called Socialism.

 But I do  understand we need reforms for now to alleviate the burden and suffering brought about by attacks on our living standards, but this time we should not stop at just gaining reforms, but instead push forward to a society that is run by the working class and serves the needs of working people. This was also outlined by Rosa Luxemburg in “Reform or Revolution”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

Yes reforms for now, but then onward to democratic socialism.


Monday, April 7, 2014

More Links For Socialist Alternative Radio



I have added more links for Socialist Alternative Radio. There was some technical difficulties with one version of the program for 12/29/ 2014, but I will try to post a better version for that show soon. I will also be posting more programs soon... There are links for downloading, but if you don't want to download you can listen with the player link.
Michael Parenti posted something on his Facebook page in which he disputed the Oxfam study about wealth disparity, and made the point that the wealth of the 85 billionaires far exceeds what the  poor have in any material way. And I would say I have to agree with him. I am posting his critique for those who have not read it yet. I have not seen this on his website, so I had to post the entire article here.
A new article by Michael Parenti 

85 Billionaires and the Better Half by Michael Parenti

The world's 85 richest individuals possess as much wealth as the 3.5 billion souls who compose the poorer half of the world's population, or so it was announced in a report by Oxfam International. The assertion sounds implausible to me. I think the 85 richest individuals, who together are worth many hundreds of billions of dollars, must have far more wealth than the poorest half of our global population.

How could these two cohorts, the 85 richest and 3.5 billion poorest, have the same amount of wealth? The great majority of the 3.5 billion have no net wealth at all. Hundreds of millions of them have jobs that hardly pay enough to feed their families. Millions of them rely on supplements from private charity and public assistance when they can. Hundreds of millions are undernourished, suffer food insecurity, or go hungry each month, including many among the very poorest in the United States.

Most of the 3.5 billion earn an average of $2.50 a day. The poorest 40 percent of the world population accounts for just 5 percent of all global income. About 80 percent of all humanity live on less than $10 a day. And the poorest 50 percent maintain only 7.2 percent of the world's private consumption. How exactly could they have accumulated an amount of surplus wealth comparable to the 85 filthy richest?

Hundreds of millions live in debt even in "affluent" countries like the United States. They face health care debts, credit card debts, college tuition debts, and so on. Many, probably most who own homes--- and don't live in shacks or under bridges or in old vans--- are still straddled with mortgages. This means their net family wealth is negative, minus-zero. They have no propertied wealth; they live in debt.

Millions among the poorest 50 percent in the world may have cars but most of them also have car payments. They are driving in debt. In countries like Indonesia, for the millions without private vehicles, there are the overloaded, battered buses, poorly maintained vehicles that specialize in breakdowns and ravine plunges. Among the lowest rungs of the 50 percent are the many who pick thru garbage dumps and send their kids off to work in grim, soul-destroying sweatshops.

The 85 richest in the world probably include the four members of the Walton family (owners of Wal-Mart, among the top ten superrich in the USA) who together are worth over $100 billion. Rich families like the DuPonts have controlling interests in giant corporations like General Motors, Coca-Cola, and United Brands. They own about forty manorial estates and private museums in Delaware alone and have set up 31 tax-exempt foundations. The superrich in America and in many other countries find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter much of their wealth in secret accounts. We don't really know how very rich the very rich really are.

Regarding the poorest portion of the world population--- whom I would call the valiant, struggling "better half"---what mass configuration of wealth could we possibly be talking about? The aggregate wealth possessed by the 85 super-richest individuals, and the aggregate wealth owned by the world's 3.5 billion poorest, are of different dimensions and different natures. Can we really compare private jets, mansions, landed estates, super luxury vacation retreats, luxury apartments, luxury condos, and luxury cars, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars in equities, bonds, commercial properties, art works, antiques, etc.--- can we really compare all that enormous wealth against some millions of used cars, used furniture, and used television sets, many of which are ready to break down? Of what resale value if any, are such minor durable-use commodities? especially in communities of high unemployment, dismal health and housing conditions, no running water, no decent sanitation facilities, etc. We don't really know how poor the very poor really are.

Millions of children who number in the lower 50 percent never see the inside of a school. Instead they labor in mills, mines and on farms, under conditions of peonage. Nearly a billion people are unable to read or write. The number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world's population. So poverty is spreading even as wealth accumulates. It is not enough to bemoan this enormous inequality, we must also explain why it is happening.

But for now, let me repeat: the world's richest 85 individuals do not have the same amount of accumulated wealth as the world's poorest 50 percent. They have vastly more. The multitude on the lower rungs---even taken as a totality---have next to nothing.

Michael Parenti's recent books include: The Face of Imperialism (a critique of the U.S. global empire); and Waiting for Yesterday (an ethnic memoir about his early life in Italian Harlem).