Saturday, November 27, 2010

Class war in the U.S.A.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes:

The class war that no one wants to talk about continues unabated.

Even as millions of out-of-work and otherwise struggling Americans are tightening their belts for the holidays, the nation’s elite are lacing up their dancing shoes and partying like royalty as the millions and billions keep rolling in.

Recessions are for the little people, not for the corporate chiefs and the titans of Wall Street who are at the heart of the American aristocracy. They have waged economic warfare against everybody else and are winning big time.

The ranks of the poor may be swelling and families forced out of their foreclosed homes may be enduring a nightmarish holiday season, but American companies have just experienced their most profitable quarter ever. As The Times reported this week, U.S. firms earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter — the highest total since the government began keeping track more than six decades ago.

The corporate fat cats are becoming alarmingly rotund. Their profits have surged over the past seven quarters at a pace that is among the fastest ever seen, and they can barely contain their glee. On the same day that The Times ran its article about the third-quarter surge in profits, it ran a piece on the front page that carried the headline: “With a Swagger, Wallets Out, Wall Street Dares to Celebrate.”

The entire column is linked here.

4 comments:

Peter said...

This comment in Herbert's column left me pondering for a moment:

"What’s really needed is for working Americans to form alliances and try, in a spirit of good will, to work out equitable solutions to the myriad problems facing so many ordinary individuals and families. Strong leaders are needed to develop such alliances and fight back against the forces that nearly destroyed the economy and have left working Americans in the lurch."

On first read, I thought "He was doing so well, talking about the struggles of working people, shading toward the need for big fights of the people against the powerful." I thought he was softpedaling. To an extent, I still think that.

The aristocrats, as Herbert calls them, are not interested in cooperation, and certainly not with the organizations that can and do represent regular, working class people, like unions and community groups. These aristocrats have shown over the past three decades or so that they are not only unwilling to work with us, but also that they are intent upon smashing us.

But upon further reading and contemplation, the last line of the portion quoted above struck me more.

What Herbert calls for, and with which I agree wholeheartedly, is for cooperation amongst the people, those left nearly slack-jawed in some cases or downright frustrated to the point of despondence or resignation in other cases. He's calling for alliances amongst those left out in the proverbial cold by the failed social, economic and political institutions of contemporary America. Strong leaders, hailing from these provinces, are what's needed. It's only when regular, workaday folks take it upon ourselves to do something that necessary changes in social and economic structures have occurred.

That's what is needed badly, a social and political movement, or movements, to counteract these trends-cum-history. Collective power is the only thing that ever has stood up against and won things against the institutionalized power of the powerful. The force of collective action is undeniable -- it's only the lack of it that holds us back. And it's only if we resolve to do something about this, instead of allowing these social, economic and political processes wash over us, that we can win desperately needed fights.

The quotations from erstwhile aristocrats like Warren Buffet abound: there is a class war going on, or very nearly won; and it's been being waged by the ruling classes. Now's about time we come together collectively to fight back. The democratic means are within our hands, so we have to do something about it all.

Peter said...

This comment in Herbert's column left me pondering for a moment:

"What’s really needed is for working Americans to form alliances and try, in a spirit of good will, to work out equitable solutions to the myriad problems facing so many ordinary individuals and families. Strong leaders are needed to develop such alliances and fight back against the forces that nearly destroyed the economy and have left working Americans in the lurch."

On first read, I thought "He was doing so well, talking about the struggles of working people, shading toward the need for big fights of the people against the powerful." I thought he was softpedaling. To an extent, I still think that.

The aristocrats, as Herbert calls them, are not interested in cooperation, and certainly not with the organizations that can and do represent regular, working class people, like unions and community groups. These aristocrats have shown over the past three decades or so that they are not only unwilling to work with us, but also that they are intent upon smashing us.

But upon further reading and contemplation, the last line of the portion quoted above struck me more.

What Herbert calls for, and with which I agree wholeheartedly, is for cooperation amongst the people, those left nearly slack-jawed in some cases or downright frustrated to the point of despondence or resignation in other cases. He's calling for alliances amongst those left out in the proverbial cold by the failed social, economic and political institutions of contemporary America. Strong leaders, hailing from these provinces, are what's needed. It's only when regular, workaday folks take it upon ourselves to do something that necessary changes in social and economic structures have occurred.

That's what is needed badly, a social and political movement, or movements, to counteract these trends-cum-history. Collective power is the only thing that ever has stood up against and won things against the institutionalized power of the powerful. The force of collective action is undeniable -- it's only the lack of it that holds us back. And it's only if we resolve to do something about this, instead of allowing these social, economic and political processes wash over us, that we can win desperately needed fights.

The quotations from erstwhile aristocrats like Warren Buffet abound: there is a class war going on, or very nearly won; and it's been being waged by the ruling classes. Now's about time we come together collectively to fight back. The democratic means are within our hands, so we have to do something about it all.

Anonymous said...

Keynesian Economics?

The stability of the US economy and its democracy came about with the development of a strong middle class. This was a result of the organization of workers and the acceptance of economic theories argued by John Maynard Keynes.

We have seen a destruction of the middle class because of the decline in organized labor and the acceptance of economic theories of Milton Friedman.

The reason? Everyone is too comfortable.

Keynesian Theory does work, yet it only provides a cushion and not a solution. It keeps the society moving along without ever having to make significant changes. The cushion supports those with money as it protects them while limiting collateral damages.

Friedman is pure capitalistic. No regard for anything. There is no change other than an increase in wealth.

The missing piece? The political action process.

Previously this was taken up by organized labor, that voice is now greatly diminished and on the way out. It has limited itself by not being proactive, only reactive.

The country does need a social revolution. Every collective group needs one as time goes on.

Where is Mao when you need him?

Anonymous said...

Peter and Annoy, open your eyes. What you ask for is out there. It's the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.