Thursday, May 10, 2018

Caleb Crain — Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy?

The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback.
Pushback is not the major reason why capitalism is a threat to democracy. Modern capitalism, characterized by extraction of economic rent — land rent, monopoly rent and financial rent — results in oligarchy.

The populist and progressive backlash is a reaction to the excesses of the system now generally called "neoliberalism." It has also been called "plutonomy," plutocracy," "plutonomous oligarchy," "monopoly capital," "financial capitalism," and "managerial capitalism." It is a dictatorship of elites as a class-based network. There is a huge body of literature about this, the modern origin of this lying in classical economics and its culmination in Marx. It was described much earlier by Aristotle in Politics.

This is a good article based on Robert Kuttner's “Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?” Considers Karl Polanyi, John Maynard Keynes, The New Deal, Milton Friedman, the rise of neoliberalism, and the current backlash against it by those caught holding the short end of the stick.

Worth a read, or save it for the weekend.

New Yorker
Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy?
Caleb Crain

See also
Do you have a job that you secretly believe is pointless?

If so, you have what anthropologist David Graeber calls a “bullshit job.” A professor at the London School of Economics and a leader of the early Occupy Wall Street movement, Graeber has written a new book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory.

He argues that there are millions of people across the world — clerical workers, administrators, consultants, telemarketers, corporate lawyers, service personnel, and many others — who are toiling away in meaningless, unnecessary jobs, and they know it.

It didn’t have to be this way, Graeber says. Technology has advanced to the point where most of the difficult, labor-intensive jobs can be performed by machines. But instead of freeing ourselves from the suffocating 40-hour workweek, we’ve invented a whole universe of futile occupations that are professionally unsatisfying and spiritually empty.

This, at least, is the story he tells in his book. Much of it is persuasive, some of it overly simplistic, but nearly all of it is interesting. I reached out to Graeber to talk about the book and the broader phenomenon of “bullshit jobs.”
It's not necessary to have a job that is totally BS. A lot of people also have jobs they deem socially necessary but which are infected with a load of BS, too.

When I was serving as a naval officer, one job I was tasked with for a time was "Career Counseling Officer." The principal aspect of it was interviewing those not reenlisting and reporting the reason. The reason was almost invariably the same:  "I love the Navy, sir, but I just can't take the chickenshit anymore."

VOX
Bullshit jobs: why they exist and why you might have one
Sean Illing

ht Raúl Ilargi Meijer at The Automatic Earth


15 comments:

Konrad said...

The USA has always been a pure and perfect democracy.

One dollar equals one vote. The more dollars you have, the more votes you have.

Jeff Bezos has over a hundred billion votes. I have only one vote, since I cannot afford to bribe politicians.

Any questions?

Andrew Anderson said...

What part of any philosophically consistent definition of capitalism requires the government insurance of PRIVATELY CREATED LIABILITIES?

What part of any philosophically consistent definition of capitalism requires that citizens may not use their Nation's fiat* but must instead work through a government-privileged usury cartel?

But hey, what do these trifling considerations have to do with anything since we know, don't we Tom, that socialism is the answer in any case?

*except for totally inadequate for modern commerce, not to mention personal safety, physical fiat.

Noah Way said...

Threat to democracy? LOL Threat to life on Earth.

Andrew Anderson said...

Actually, I should have said "What part of any philosophically consistent definition of capitalism ALLOWS ..."

We don't have capitalism, Tom. We have a corrupt system of government-privileges for banks, credit unions, etc.

Ryan Harris said...

Threat to life on Earth? Funny guy. Look at the data, more healthy people, less land in use by MORE people. Less pollution than ever, Amount of forest and grassland and undisturbed cover continues to increase. Fish farmers are allowing fish stocks to recover, lower pollution is bringing back coral that was claimed dead. We have peace across most of the world. A golden age of humanity and nature. What statistics and data do you follow? We can always do better but...

Joe said...

Present "Capitalism" (since there's a few different forms, and none of them are the worshipped "Free Market Capitalism") is a mixed bag. It many ways, it actually has delivered the goods. Our standard of living today is simply unimaginable to a person from a few hundred years ago (hell, even 150 years ago, sod huts anyone?). The dirty secret is that everywhere it has delivered the goods, there's always a huge role for the state to play.
But it has a dark side, as attested by the widespread dissatisfaction at present, and the huge amount of inequality it has generated, which causes problems. It's not poverty that necessarily causes problems, it's relative poverty that causes problems (it drive the male-on-male homicide rate for example).
And there's the environmental destruction, but as Ryan pointed out, we are making progress on that.

I still think bullshit jobs and lack of meaningful work are a problem. Is it actually possible to have a healthy society where everyone lives a life of leisure? Or would everyone turn into the human equivalent of the nuisance bear that got used to easy living living off the garbage heap? Once majestic creatures turned into sad pathetic obese useless.. I still think there's an innate drive for purpose in life, which a life of leisure might have a difficult time fulfilling.

Konrad said...

“But hey, what do these trifling considerations have to do with anything since we know, don't we Tom, that socialism is the answer in any case?” ~ Andrew Anderson

The solution is a balance between socialism and capitalism. Nations that sought this balance during the 1800s were said to have “mixed economies.”

This balance can never be perfectly achieved, but it is a worthy goal to continually pursue. A star to steer by.

People enslave themselves by thinking in extremes. Most people wrongly see life as a choice between communism or neoliberalism. Both extremes are evil.

What we need is a balance.

Andrew Anderson said...

The solution is a balance between socialism and capitalism Konrad

That's the old Progressive solution - allow the rich to steal via a government-backed usury cartel but moderate it with social services for the the victims.

Talk about extremes? Is it extreme to insist government not privilege the banks? Is it extreme to insist citizens be allowed to use their own Nation's fiat? Is it extreme to protest welfare for the rich?

Here's the problem with your solution - it is philosophical distasteful to most Americans. We want a just system - not a system that forces us to be either a villain or a victim.


Andrew Anderson said...

philosophically distasteful, that is.

Moreover, sadly, and no thanks to the JG cult and other Progressives, many Americans think our system IS just and if errs, it errs on the side of being too generous to the victims.

Konrad said...

“Is it extreme to insist government not privilege the banks?” ~ Andrew Anderson.

No.

“Is it extreme to insist citizens be allowed to use their own nation's fiat?” ~ Andrew Anderson

I use my nation’s fiat. Don't you? Perhaps you suffer from EBS (Ellen Brown Syndrome). Victims of EBS wrongly insist that all money is created by banks as loans. For EBS patients, there is no government spending; only government borrowing. Hence the USA is indeed like Greece.

“Is it extreme to protest welfare for the rich?” ~ Andrew Anderson.

No. A mixed economy does not necessarily entail welfare programs for the rich. A mixed economy is a regulated economy. From the orbit of electrons to the whirling of galaxies to the functions on our physical bodies, all systems self-destruct when regulation is removed from them.

“Here's the problem with your solution - it is philosophical distasteful to most Americans.” ~ Andrew Anderson.

Like you, most Americans have voluntarily allowed themselves to be programmed to loathe any hint of socialism, even though they live with socialism every day. All government services are socialist in nature (unless the services have been privatized).

Konrad said...

PART 1 of 2

“Moreover, sadly, and no thanks to the JG cult and other Progressives, many Americans think our system is just and if errs, it errs on the side of being too generous to the victims.” ~ Andrew Anderson.

Since you mentioned the JG cult, I say that the purpose of the JG cult is to sabotage MMT, and to defend neoliberalism.

Please consider…

A job is not hard to find. What’s hard to find is a job in the right location for the right pay. What’s hard to find is a job that you want to do and are qualified to do. JG will not find that job for you. At best, the JG might find some sh*t job for you. Take it or leave it. If you don’t like the job’s pay, or the location, or the danger, it’s your “fault.” You were offered a guaranteed job cleaning out cesspools in the Alaskan wilderness, and you turned it down. You are a lazy bum.

Therefore many people would remain unemployed even if we had JG. This unemployment would allow oligarchs to look down from Olympus and say, “We granted you peasants a JG, and yet you remain lazy!”

The JG is like communism. It sounds good in the abstract, but it is unworkable in the real world. With communism there is no private property. Society owns your house, your clothes, and even your body. (The opposite extreme is neoliberalism, in which a few oligarchs own everything and everyone.) With JG there are no proper jobs. There are only “jobs.”

Since the JG can never be more than a utopian chimera, its champions comprise a faith-based cult. And since their dogma can never be more than a vague abstraction, they erupt in fury when you question their cult.

The JG cult includes the “taxes-drive-money” cult. Both are irrational and faith-based. Both enslave the public by preventing the public from understanding the basics of MMT. The basics of MMT are incontrovertible, but when MMT people start spouting nebulous nonsense about “jobs guarantees,” they cause people to dismiss MMT.

The JG is the vulnerable gap in the MMT armor. JG cultists maintain this vulnerable gap. They insist that without taxes, money would have no value. In this way they defend the lie that the U.S. government needs tax revenue, that Social Security is “unsustainable,” and that there is “no money” for Food Stamps or Medicare.

Oligarchs do not work. Oligarchs get a “free lunch” via rent income and debt payments. Oligarchs claim that poor people have no value unless they toil for the oligarchs. The JG reinforces this lie by guaranteeing that everyone will have a chance to toil for oligarchs. Everyone will have a chance for enslavement.

JG cultists agree with the oligarchs that average people are not “happy” unless people sweat (for the rich). JG cultists seek to guarantee this miserable “happiness.”

JG cultists do not care if workers are genuinely happy in their jobs. JG cultists want average people to toil for oligarchs, period. The cultists want everyone to have a job so that more money will flow upward to the rich via rent payments and debt payments.

(continued below)

Konrad said...

PART 2 of 2

With a jobs “guarantee,” no one needs to work. If you engage in criminal activity, or if you refuse to show up for your job, you can just go somewhere else, demand your guarantee, and misbehave again. You are “guaranteed.”

If a private employer gets federal dollars for guaranteeing jobs, then that employer can allow 80% of employees to not show up for work, while forcing the other 20% to take up the slack. The private employer wins no matter what. If the 20% complain, they can be told to shut up, since they were kindly given a “guarantee.”

Or, suppose that all JG jobs are paid directly by the U.S. government. In that case you will switch owners from a private slave-master to a government slave-master. Since the government gives you a guarantee, the government will require you to provide a guarantee in return (especially if you are a white, heterosexual non-Jewish male). If you fail to honor your end of the bargain (perhaps you cannot tolerate you’re a**hole boss) you might be thrown into prison “for the good of society.” Or you might simply be sent back to the cardboard box where you came from.

Bernie Sanders wants a JG at the state level, knowing there is no money for a JG. (Only the federal government can create infinite dollars.) Sanders wants Universal Medicare at the state level, or else paid for with federal taxes. In this way Sanders supports the lie that the U.S. government needs tax revenue. Sanders knows this is a lie, since Stephanie Kelton explained it to him. Sanders defends the status quotient while he pretends to “care.”

I say that MMT people should dump the JG and stick to the basics, which are solid and incontrovertible.

Andrew Anderson said...

I use my nation’s fiat. Don't you? Konrad

Except for physical fiat, aka "cash" we all use bank deposits, not fiat itself.

Here's what happens currently when government spends, say, $1000 as a transfer payment to John Doe.
1) The reserve account of John Doe's bank at the Fed is marked up (credited) by $1000.
2) John Doe's bank marks up John Doe's checking account by $1000.

So John Doe's bank gets the fiat, not John Doe. What John Doe gets is a liability (an IOU) of ther bank for $1000 in fiat, not fiat itself.

Andrew Anderson said...

Now suppose John Doe had, like he should have if we had equal protection under the law, a checking account of his own at the Federal Reserve?

Then here's what happens:
1) John Doe's checking account at the Fed is marked up (credited) by $1000.

John now has $1000 in fiat to spend. Notice there is no forced loan of fiat to a private bank.

The banks have inserted themselves like parasites between the citizens and their government. It's morally obvious that they should be by-passed by allowing all citizens to have checking accounts at the Central Bank itself.

Calgacus said...

Konrad:A job is not hard to find.
False. This is only true once in a while for most people. For disadvantaged groups this is never true.

What’s hard to find is a job in the right location for the right pay. What’s hard to find is a job that you want to do and are qualified to do.
True.
JG will not find that job for you. At best, the JG might find some sh*t job for you. Take it or leave it. If you don’t like the job’s pay, or the location, or the danger, it’s your “fault.” You were offered a guaranteed job cleaning out cesspools in the Alaskan wilderness, and you turned it down. You are a lazy bum.

Quite false. That is nearly the opposite of the JG proposal. The JG is a non-sh*t job, non-dangerous, in your location. The only true statement here is the pay. It is one fixed rate. A good, decent job with a living wage. That is a virtue, not a fault - one has to go through remarkable contortions to see it as a fault.

Needless to say, I do not think that the JG or taxes-drive-money are cult beliefs. They are instead, logical consequences of the rest of MMT, which you accept and of universally held moral/legal propositions. As I have said many times, a monetary society, a monetary production economy without a JG is insanely, absurdly unjust.

The MMT academics take these positions because they have studied and thought about them more than the critics. There is an answer for every criticism, but it cannot be given all at once. The main thing is to give the ideas and the arguments for them a fair hearing.

The JG is like communism. It sounds good in the abstract, but it is unworkable in the real world. ... Since the JG can never be more than a utopian chimera
That is what Hoover thought of the New Deal work programs - that they would be literally impossible and he said so. FDR, Harry Hopkins etc proved him wrong.