Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Sunday, October 16, 2005
THE STATE SOCIALISM OF THE RICH (1)
In 1956 a law was passed which ended up building 41,000 miles of interstate highways. 90% of the cost was born by the US Federal Government.
The US Government's Marshall Plan forced Europeans to convert from coal to oil. When Europe asked the US for 47,000 freight cars and no trucks, the Marshall Plan sent 20,000 freight cars and 65,000 trucks. Thus by 1950, 11% of Marshall Plan "aid" was in oil - a wonderful boon for the US oil giants.
In 1945, the US Chamber of Commerce called for rural depopulation in order to create a mass of low-wage workers. Between 1945 and 1970 rural America lost one million farms and 25,000,000 people "one of the largest migrations in history." The US Federal Dept. of Agriculture did everything possible to destroy the small farm and replace it with the technology and chemical dependent agro-business.
In the 1930's only 5% of retail food sales were through supermarket chains. State-induced suburban sprawl destroyed the market gardens that used to surround every city. Thus the sale of produce was taken over by the supermarkets, who in turn pushed for corporate farming.
During the Second World War, William J. Levitt (Levittown) contracted to build housing for naval personel in Norfolk Virginia.(2)Levitt developed mass production methods for housing development. Levitt and imitators after the war used these techniques to develop the suburban housing tracts. Meanwhile, the Federal Government intervened in existing communities to separate commerce, work and residence. Mixed neighborhoods did not get funding for improvements. Furthermore, 40% of businesses evicted during housing renewal did not reopen. Their place was taken by corporations.
1. All info from THE DARK AGES by Marty Jezer, South End, 1982
2. African Americans were not allowed to live in Levittown - whites only!
The US Government's Marshall Plan forced Europeans to convert from coal to oil. When Europe asked the US for 47,000 freight cars and no trucks, the Marshall Plan sent 20,000 freight cars and 65,000 trucks. Thus by 1950, 11% of Marshall Plan "aid" was in oil - a wonderful boon for the US oil giants.
In 1945, the US Chamber of Commerce called for rural depopulation in order to create a mass of low-wage workers. Between 1945 and 1970 rural America lost one million farms and 25,000,000 people "one of the largest migrations in history." The US Federal Dept. of Agriculture did everything possible to destroy the small farm and replace it with the technology and chemical dependent agro-business.
In the 1930's only 5% of retail food sales were through supermarket chains. State-induced suburban sprawl destroyed the market gardens that used to surround every city. Thus the sale of produce was taken over by the supermarkets, who in turn pushed for corporate farming.
During the Second World War, William J. Levitt (Levittown) contracted to build housing for naval personel in Norfolk Virginia.(2)Levitt developed mass production methods for housing development. Levitt and imitators after the war used these techniques to develop the suburban housing tracts. Meanwhile, the Federal Government intervened in existing communities to separate commerce, work and residence. Mixed neighborhoods did not get funding for improvements. Furthermore, 40% of businesses evicted during housing renewal did not reopen. Their place was taken by corporations.
1. All info from THE DARK AGES by Marty Jezer, South End, 1982
2. African Americans were not allowed to live in Levittown - whites only!
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
WHO NEEDS FOREIGN INVESTMENT?
Way back in the Paleolithic Era of the 1950's and early 60's, believe it or not, there were hamburger joints, drug stores, hardware merchants, motels and hotels. Janitors also cleaned buildings and kitchen staff cooked food in hospitals. Not one of the organizations performing these services was a multinational corporation. Some were owned by regional chains, but most were local businesses.
The whole point of foreign investment is to introduce capital into an area that is short of it. Capital that cannot be supplied at home. But in the last 35 years we have seen foreign companies come in and take over all of the aforementioned businesses. What possible gain is there to have foreign investment do what we were already doing rather well? But foreign takeover is worse than that. Every dollar made by a regional or local company stays in that region or locality. The money is recycled several times through other businesses and everyone gains. This is called the Local Multiplier Effect. Now with the multinationals, the profits go to the major shareholders who could live anywhere, causing a net drain out of the community.
The problem is even worse where government-provided services have been corporatized. (Falsely known as "privatization.") Here the losses to the community are huge, as workers lose their jobs, wages are slashed and vacation time cut. Consider a situation where 100 workers have their wages cut from $15 and hour to $10 an hour and 30 are fired. The loss in buying power to their town is two million dollars a year. With the Local Multiplier Effect the extra buying power would go a long way to bolstering the towns economy. Its damn well time that people realized that when us workers lose, everyone loses, except the major investors who probably live in New York or London.
During the 1990's we witnesed the foreign takeover of existing large Canadian companies. A US company would march in, buy out the Canadian company, close down plants, fire most of the workers, and asset strip to pay off the loan to buy the company. The takover investment would be classified as foreign investment, yet it would have added nothing to the Canadian economy, but rather would have detracted from it. What was the point of it all?
Then there is the foreign investments that at first sight do seem to add to our economic betterment. But when you look again, you find vast government subsidies have been poured into these projects. We are paying others to do what we could do ourselves, and if we couldn't do them, maybe we are better off not doing them at all. Often these projects are unworkable and after a few years pull up stakes. We, the tax payers, are left to pay for the mess. Think only of the Bromont Quebec Hyundai plant and New Brunswick's Delorian.
Does anyone out there know of a balance sheet made on foreign investment to show what our real gains and losses are? I have tried googling the subject but don't come up with anything but neo-liberal apologetics.
The whole point of foreign investment is to introduce capital into an area that is short of it. Capital that cannot be supplied at home. But in the last 35 years we have seen foreign companies come in and take over all of the aforementioned businesses. What possible gain is there to have foreign investment do what we were already doing rather well? But foreign takeover is worse than that. Every dollar made by a regional or local company stays in that region or locality. The money is recycled several times through other businesses and everyone gains. This is called the Local Multiplier Effect. Now with the multinationals, the profits go to the major shareholders who could live anywhere, causing a net drain out of the community.
The problem is even worse where government-provided services have been corporatized. (Falsely known as "privatization.") Here the losses to the community are huge, as workers lose their jobs, wages are slashed and vacation time cut. Consider a situation where 100 workers have their wages cut from $15 and hour to $10 an hour and 30 are fired. The loss in buying power to their town is two million dollars a year. With the Local Multiplier Effect the extra buying power would go a long way to bolstering the towns economy. Its damn well time that people realized that when us workers lose, everyone loses, except the major investors who probably live in New York or London.
During the 1990's we witnesed the foreign takeover of existing large Canadian companies. A US company would march in, buy out the Canadian company, close down plants, fire most of the workers, and asset strip to pay off the loan to buy the company. The takover investment would be classified as foreign investment, yet it would have added nothing to the Canadian economy, but rather would have detracted from it. What was the point of it all?
Then there is the foreign investments that at first sight do seem to add to our economic betterment. But when you look again, you find vast government subsidies have been poured into these projects. We are paying others to do what we could do ourselves, and if we couldn't do them, maybe we are better off not doing them at all. Often these projects are unworkable and after a few years pull up stakes. We, the tax payers, are left to pay for the mess. Think only of the Bromont Quebec Hyundai plant and New Brunswick's Delorian.
Does anyone out there know of a balance sheet made on foreign investment to show what our real gains and losses are? I have tried googling the subject but don't come up with anything but neo-liberal apologetics.
Sunday, October 2, 2005
PEOPLE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
"People Without Government", written by the anthropologist Harold Barclay and has many important insights. The first of these is from of one of the greatest anthropologists, Claude Levy-Strauss, for whom the fundamental aspect of human society was reciprocity. For Pierre Clastres (the contemporary version of Levy-Strauss) this fundamental reciprocity was negated by coercive power or authoritarian hierarchies.
Barclay distinguishes two basic types of societies; "archies" and "anarchies." Anarchies are based upon reciprocity, what sanctions exist are diffuse and supernatural. Archies are characterized by legal sanctions backed by coercion and "a specialized and privileged body separated by its formation, status, and organization from the population as a whole." In other words a state.
How does an archie come about? "Most authority commences as the raw power of the gangster and evolves into the "legitimate" authority of tacit acquiescence." Above all, the state is an organization for war. "Stateless societies less violent and brutish than those with a state." Nor are stateless societies only those of hunters and gatherers, for the majority of horticultural societies were anarchies. Barclay refers to Clastres again, who points out that the Neolithic was not decisive in changing the fundamental structure of society to an authoritarian one. The old patterns of non-coercive organization were not radically altered during this epoch. The state came much later.
Barclay examines a number of different societies that were anarchies. Many were tribal societies in North America or Africa. This would come as not much of a surprise, but he includes some others we might not be aware of. Ireland of 2000 years ago was "not truly governmental", having mass meeting democracy, no executive officers, no military and hence no way of enforcing decisions other than by common agreement. The Kabalyes of Algeria have no state either, important decisions are settled by consensus. The Santals of India, who number some three million people are "egalitarian", "decentralized", and the "barest indication of a governmental system." Decisions are made in open meetings by consensus. Village life is structured to prevent concentrations of power.
Sounds good to me!
1. PEOPLE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, Harold Barclay, Kahn and Avril 1990 Note that Barclay uses "government" as a synonym for state. Not all critics of authoritarianism do this. Some consider government to include organization, both non-coercive and coercive. Hence for them, an anarchie would have a government, but one that lacked coercion.
Barclay distinguishes two basic types of societies; "archies" and "anarchies." Anarchies are based upon reciprocity, what sanctions exist are diffuse and supernatural. Archies are characterized by legal sanctions backed by coercion and "a specialized and privileged body separated by its formation, status, and organization from the population as a whole." In other words a state.
How does an archie come about? "Most authority commences as the raw power of the gangster and evolves into the "legitimate" authority of tacit acquiescence." Above all, the state is an organization for war. "Stateless societies less violent and brutish than those with a state." Nor are stateless societies only those of hunters and gatherers, for the majority of horticultural societies were anarchies. Barclay refers to Clastres again, who points out that the Neolithic was not decisive in changing the fundamental structure of society to an authoritarian one. The old patterns of non-coercive organization were not radically altered during this epoch. The state came much later.
Barclay examines a number of different societies that were anarchies. Many were tribal societies in North America or Africa. This would come as not much of a surprise, but he includes some others we might not be aware of. Ireland of 2000 years ago was "not truly governmental", having mass meeting democracy, no executive officers, no military and hence no way of enforcing decisions other than by common agreement. The Kabalyes of Algeria have no state either, important decisions are settled by consensus. The Santals of India, who number some three million people are "egalitarian", "decentralized", and the "barest indication of a governmental system." Decisions are made in open meetings by consensus. Village life is structured to prevent concentrations of power.
Sounds good to me!
1. PEOPLE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, Harold Barclay, Kahn and Avril 1990 Note that Barclay uses "government" as a synonym for state. Not all critics of authoritarianism do this. Some consider government to include organization, both non-coercive and coercive. Hence for them, an anarchie would have a government, but one that lacked coercion.
Monday, September 26, 2005
SELF MANAGEMENT FOR SANITY
At one time people of color were not treated with respect. They were shown contempt, ruled by fear of punishment and bullied into submission. At one time women were not granted respect. They were shown contempt, ruled by fear of punishment and bullied into submission. At one time children were not treated with respect. They were shown contempt, ruled by fear of punishment and bullied into submission.
Today, the majority of the population think a contemptuous attitude toward people of color, women and children is barbaric. This change in attitude is a definite sign of social progress. However, this is still the situation for most of us in the work place. Our needs are not taken into account and we are ruled by sanctions. Indeed, it is getting worse under the neocon reaction. We are forced to work harder and longer. In the US workers have been stripped of their most basic democratic rights. We are treated like dirt. The only way we can win back our humanity is through self-management. Only then can we become responsible adults, ruled not by fear, but through knowledge and the pursuit of a common goal.
Self management is not only decent, humane and democratic, but is also common sense. Consider the logic behind authoritarian management. "The people who do the job are bossed by people who don't do the job." Following the logic of such a set-up, in a hospital surgeons ought to be managed by nurses and nurses by surgeons. The only people who really understand a job are the people who do it. Even where you have bosses who come up from the ranks, there is often a big time gap between being a line worker and a boss, in which time "what it is like" gets forgotten. Boss ideology also tends to supplant any sympathy that existed for the ordinary worker. Note how quickly the promoted learn to apologize for management's idiocies and crimes
Authoritarian management is ultimately rooted in feudalism. When capitalism developed it brought the irrational authoritarian and hierarchical methods of control along with it. Feudal society was obsessed by title and formality. Thus if someone had the title of "Lord" he was to be respected and obeyed even though he might be the most useless and incompetent creature on the planet. Given this world-view, we must obey our bosses even though they do not understand the job we do, for they have the title. This feudalistic nonsense was re-cycled in late 19th Century pseudo-science as Social Darwinism. (1) This ideology saw capitalists and their allied authorities as winners in the so-called "struggle for the survival of the fittest", thus justifying their exploitation and bullying. Social Darwinist thought is remains a strong undercurrent in ruling class ideology, as perusing any daily newspaper will show.
Authoritarian management is also rooted in psychological problems. For an insecure person to boss others about is a treat for the weak ego. This sort of person needs power, even if highly limited, say, to only bullying a couple of manual laborers. They seek power the way a drug addict seeks heroin. If authoritarian management was eliminated and democratic management introduced, such people would lose out big time - back to being ordinary workers, in fact due to their lack of real ability, lower in scale than the workers they once bossed.
It is said, though this might just be an excuse, that the biggest obstacle to any real form of worker-input is this lower and middle management. You would think it would be far cheaper and less hassle for the capitalists to just farm out the work to self-managed coops. The fact they don't do this is indicative of an obsessive need to control people. It isn't just wealth they seek, but power. Having thousands of employees makes them feel like a feudal lord with his serfs. They are as loony as their stooges and satraps, and if anything, crazier. Once again, a big chunk of the problem is rooted in psychology, and our ability to introduce self-management within capitalism is therefore quite limited. This does not mean we should not try, but in the long run we must eliminate capitalism and create a full-fledged cooperative, and therefore rational, economy.
1. Also one of the main components of Nazism, I might add. No wonder the heads of many major US corporations, including George W's grandpappy, loved Hitler.
Today, the majority of the population think a contemptuous attitude toward people of color, women and children is barbaric. This change in attitude is a definite sign of social progress. However, this is still the situation for most of us in the work place. Our needs are not taken into account and we are ruled by sanctions. Indeed, it is getting worse under the neocon reaction. We are forced to work harder and longer. In the US workers have been stripped of their most basic democratic rights. We are treated like dirt. The only way we can win back our humanity is through self-management. Only then can we become responsible adults, ruled not by fear, but through knowledge and the pursuit of a common goal.
Self management is not only decent, humane and democratic, but is also common sense. Consider the logic behind authoritarian management. "The people who do the job are bossed by people who don't do the job." Following the logic of such a set-up, in a hospital surgeons ought to be managed by nurses and nurses by surgeons. The only people who really understand a job are the people who do it. Even where you have bosses who come up from the ranks, there is often a big time gap between being a line worker and a boss, in which time "what it is like" gets forgotten. Boss ideology also tends to supplant any sympathy that existed for the ordinary worker. Note how quickly the promoted learn to apologize for management's idiocies and crimes
Authoritarian management is ultimately rooted in feudalism. When capitalism developed it brought the irrational authoritarian and hierarchical methods of control along with it. Feudal society was obsessed by title and formality. Thus if someone had the title of "Lord" he was to be respected and obeyed even though he might be the most useless and incompetent creature on the planet. Given this world-view, we must obey our bosses even though they do not understand the job we do, for they have the title. This feudalistic nonsense was re-cycled in late 19th Century pseudo-science as Social Darwinism. (1) This ideology saw capitalists and their allied authorities as winners in the so-called "struggle for the survival of the fittest", thus justifying their exploitation and bullying. Social Darwinist thought is remains a strong undercurrent in ruling class ideology, as perusing any daily newspaper will show.
Authoritarian management is also rooted in psychological problems. For an insecure person to boss others about is a treat for the weak ego. This sort of person needs power, even if highly limited, say, to only bullying a couple of manual laborers. They seek power the way a drug addict seeks heroin. If authoritarian management was eliminated and democratic management introduced, such people would lose out big time - back to being ordinary workers, in fact due to their lack of real ability, lower in scale than the workers they once bossed.
It is said, though this might just be an excuse, that the biggest obstacle to any real form of worker-input is this lower and middle management. You would think it would be far cheaper and less hassle for the capitalists to just farm out the work to self-managed coops. The fact they don't do this is indicative of an obsessive need to control people. It isn't just wealth they seek, but power. Having thousands of employees makes them feel like a feudal lord with his serfs. They are as loony as their stooges and satraps, and if anything, crazier. Once again, a big chunk of the problem is rooted in psychology, and our ability to introduce self-management within capitalism is therefore quite limited. This does not mean we should not try, but in the long run we must eliminate capitalism and create a full-fledged cooperative, and therefore rational, economy.
1. Also one of the main components of Nazism, I might add. No wonder the heads of many major US corporations, including George W's grandpappy, loved Hitler.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Hobbit Is Human
The Hobbit has now been confirmed as human and a variant of Homo Erectus, the immediate predecessor to Homo Sapiens. Nor was it someone who was microcephalic, but was a normal, but very small person. See Article here
TWO ERRORS
There are two errors to avoid when discussing Aboriginal People or our "primitive" ancestors. One is to romanticize them, to shoulder them with all our ideals of what a perfect society might look like. The reality is, these people were not politically correct, and often engaged in practices that we would regard as unsavory, such as feuding, raiding and slaving. The other error is to apply concepts of class structure and authority applicable only to our own society to Aboriginals and "primitives."
What do I mean by this? A clear division exists between cultures who have a state and class division and those who don't. West Coast societies had status hierarchy and slaves, but this should not be equated with the power hierarchies and slave economies of Classical Greece or the Roman Empire. What separates the two systems is the possession of, or lack of, coercive power. There is a difference between a status hierarchy and a power hierarchy. Luciano Pavarotti has immense status in the world, but any low-level bureaucrat has more coercive power. On the other hand, almost everyone regards George Bush with contempt, yet he has the power to kill us all.
Native societies, and presumably our own Paleolithic-Neolithic ancestors, confirmed immense status on some individuals. But they had little or no power to force people to do things. They could convince thru discussion, but not coerce. We cannot regard such societies as true class systems. Nor did they possess a state.
As for slaves, the idea of capturing and keeping one's enemies to do the dirty work may go back to the Mesolithic or even the Paleolithic. Changes in climate, population growth, or just following animal migration would force people to move great distances. Where the same ecological niche was used by both newcomer and the older settlers, conflict would arise. (On the other hand, conflict seems to have been avoided where different ecological niches were sought) 1. It probably didn't take very long to figure out it made more sense to keep the people captured in a raid rather than kill them. It would also confer more status upon the warrior who captured them. But this form of slavery cannot be equated to that found in a class society. Native slavery was not the most important part of the economy. Fishing, hunting and farming was done overwhelmingly by free people. Slavery was more status-bound than an economic force.
Then there is the question of war. Only a class society - that is one with a state - can fight true wars. Peoples without a state only raid and feud, not very nice, for sure, but rarely as destructive as wars promoted by states. It is generally accepted by historians and anthropologists that Native People were less violent before the coming of the European. Disruptions created by the fur trade, illness, European alliances and the vastly-increased killing power of fire arms made for a much greater level of violence. The Iroquois had been attempting to infiltrate Wendat (Huron) territory for 200 years. It was only in the mid-17th Century that the Wendat were decimated.
1. As with the Wendat farmers and Algonquin hunters or the Old European farmers and hunters. There seemed to be no conflict between these groups, one which occupied the valleys, the other the hills.
What do I mean by this? A clear division exists between cultures who have a state and class division and those who don't. West Coast societies had status hierarchy and slaves, but this should not be equated with the power hierarchies and slave economies of Classical Greece or the Roman Empire. What separates the two systems is the possession of, or lack of, coercive power. There is a difference between a status hierarchy and a power hierarchy. Luciano Pavarotti has immense status in the world, but any low-level bureaucrat has more coercive power. On the other hand, almost everyone regards George Bush with contempt, yet he has the power to kill us all.
Native societies, and presumably our own Paleolithic-Neolithic ancestors, confirmed immense status on some individuals. But they had little or no power to force people to do things. They could convince thru discussion, but not coerce. We cannot regard such societies as true class systems. Nor did they possess a state.
As for slaves, the idea of capturing and keeping one's enemies to do the dirty work may go back to the Mesolithic or even the Paleolithic. Changes in climate, population growth, or just following animal migration would force people to move great distances. Where the same ecological niche was used by both newcomer and the older settlers, conflict would arise. (On the other hand, conflict seems to have been avoided where different ecological niches were sought) 1. It probably didn't take very long to figure out it made more sense to keep the people captured in a raid rather than kill them. It would also confer more status upon the warrior who captured them. But this form of slavery cannot be equated to that found in a class society. Native slavery was not the most important part of the economy. Fishing, hunting and farming was done overwhelmingly by free people. Slavery was more status-bound than an economic force.
Then there is the question of war. Only a class society - that is one with a state - can fight true wars. Peoples without a state only raid and feud, not very nice, for sure, but rarely as destructive as wars promoted by states. It is generally accepted by historians and anthropologists that Native People were less violent before the coming of the European. Disruptions created by the fur trade, illness, European alliances and the vastly-increased killing power of fire arms made for a much greater level of violence. The Iroquois had been attempting to infiltrate Wendat (Huron) territory for 200 years. It was only in the mid-17th Century that the Wendat were decimated.
1. As with the Wendat farmers and Algonquin hunters or the Old European farmers and hunters. There seemed to be no conflict between these groups, one which occupied the valleys, the other the hills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)