Are you an anti-capitalist?

[josh]

Vicki: I think the way to get to more co-ops and less capitalist enterprises would likely involve using powers of immanent domain to force corporate owners to accept a buy-out from their workers. They'll claim illegal takings, of course, but they'll be getting bought out, not just expropriated. Also, we could change corporate charters to ensure that boards of directors include some percentage of worker reps (rather than just stockholder reps, as is now the case). This is already how it works in some of the more enlightened European countries. Just a few thoughts.

Sure, we need some regulations, but I don't think it would be a good idea to let that become our "demand." Memories are short and even if we put all the regulations from FDR's time back in place I fear that in fifty years we'd be right back where we are today. Maybe regulations plus illegalizing lobbying. I think you're right, it's going to take a lot of different things happening to really affect change.

[troutsky]

I think the history is a little different Vicki. Since the 1890s our country (never mind the world) has been through seven recessions and one great depression. In each instance capitalists acted humble and allowed populists to put in place new regulations and reforms. In each instance capitalists soon re-captured government and relaxed barriers to profit making. ( Montana is nothing if not a great example ) They accomplish this partly through corruption ("thieves in prison", etc) but mostly by pushing an ideology enculturated by the masses who are hurt the most! It is a snake swallowing it's tail.

Even beyond the vicious boom -bust cycles and "creative destruction" (Shumpeter) there is inherent class conflict and the terminal contradiction of over-production/accumulation. And always the climate debt which eventually demands payment.


But even during the periods of regulated capital and steady, shared, US growth, a tremendous price was being paid in the under-developed countries. Violent exploitation, expropriation, repression of which we are all aware, as well as exported environmental devastation. In other words, an extremely violent capitalist revolution has been taking place for two centuries.

I agree we should be for something but if that "something" fundamentally alters property and power relations expect some push back from those who support the status quo. I would hope that by countering the ideology of so-called "democratic capitalism" and pointing out the incompatibility, folks will side with democracy. Much of the rest of the world is already using this language. We need to catch up.

[josh]

Right arm troutsky! One of the phrases that gets bandied about a good deal, even by ostensibly intelligent people, is, "dollar democracy," by which they imply that our current economic system is somehow democratic since everyone gets to "vote" with their dollars. Shitty professor of economics Mike Kupilik actually said this in my intro to microecon. course years ago and I've heard it a number of times since. Of course, "dollar democracy" is only democratic if you yourself happen to actually BE A DOLLAR BILL, in which case you get just as many votes as your brethren. If you are not a dollar bill, but instead a human being, then it's not a democratic system (democracy, literally, rule by the people, the demos) but a plutocratic one. Of course, the people who tend to talk about and defend "dollar democracy" are inevitably those with far more "votes" than I have. Go figure

[josh]

It occurs to me now that "dollar democracy" isn't even democratic for dollar bills...why does Ben get more votes than George? Just doesn't seem fair...

[kim]

In terms of democracy in the workplace, obviously cooperative/collective models might be held up as the purest form of organizing, but what role might unions play in that effort? I spoke with vicki recently regarding her concern that it is inevitable that there would be violence in any change from the capitalist system we live under now to a more democratic economic system, as it is unlikely that those that own the power and the means of production are going to amiably turn over either one. However, I suggested that unions could play a major part in that, in a non-violent way that places real demands on the capitalists. What has happened to unions as a labor force? In my understanding: union busting and massive sums of $ spent to discredit unionizing, but ALSO unions, having becoming a capitalist force unto themselves, with hierarchical structures, lobbyists, and big bank rolls, have not helped their own case. Meanwhile, we continue to compete with each other for lousy low paying jobs, which we are happy to take with no benefits in order to ensure we at least HAVE a job. Health insurance, paid vacation, definitely bonuses, respect, and dignity are all forgotten as we gratefully cash our paycheck and cuss the boss that blessed us with it, hoping we don't get sick or fall off a ladder because we'll lose our home over our inability to pay the medical bill. I wish there was a magic wand to wake people up to our own power, because massive, worldwide general strikes are one thing that would definitely bring the powerful owners into a more cooperative attitude. Maybe then we could collectivize the means of production with the former owners on board. I wonder who, the workers or the owners, would become violent in the face of worldwide strikes? I don't think we are the ones threatening violence at all. Collectively, we don't own the means of violence. Thoughts anyone?

[josh]

I'm not opposed to General Strikes, although I'm a bit leery of them. In Nepal, where I've spent a good deal of time, they have a "culture of strikes," so to speak. It's known as a bandaa (lit. "closed") and they seem to happen about once every couple of weeks or so. Most businesses shut down, buses and private vehicles risk violence if they try to drive anywhere, usually there's some big protest...but nothing ever seems to get accomplished. Nepalis joke that if a husband hits his wife, the next day there will be a bandaa in protest.

But the US is not Nepal, obviously, and maybe some striking could be effective here. I would just caution that it be directed and have a specific goal/message, otherwise people just get pissed off that you're disrupting the normal flow of life (especially the fifth or tenth time you call one).

Unions may have some place to play in reforming the economy on more democratic lines, but I am somewhat skeptical. A cooperatively run enterprise has no need for a union and therefore no need for union leadership. Union leaders should not be expected to support this business model, for this simple reason. In light of the recent attempted co-option of the Occupy movement by the national SEIU people, I think we should all be aware that real change in the economy is not just a threat to the "bosses," as you point out.

I think one of the most effective things for us to be doing is educating our friends, family and co-workers; starting conversations about the un-democratic nature of our economic system (and therefore of most of our lives). If you want to find out how much the first amendment really means, try talking with your work buddies about how much everybody is making. I've done this a couple of times over the years and was threatened with firing by my managers both times (despite the fact that once, after discovering that I was making more than a single-mother co-worker, I was actually asking my boss to pay me LESS and her more). I think that the more people become aware of how truly anti-democratic our economy and our culture is, the more support we will have for trying to move away from our "competitive" system.

[troutsky]

Kim: The history of union struggle is also laced with violence , mostly because the state sides with the owner class. An organized General Strike would really be a powerful statement but expect retaliation. But to Josh's point, unions have also been their own worst enemy with corruption and internal violence and enforced hierarchy. The democratic struggle has to include internal battles within the union movement.

As for cooperatives and collectives, they always face the struggle of obtaining start up capital and financing, putting them at the mercy of investors. Which is where the real tyranny lies, the power of venture capital! It never fails to amaze me how people are such willing slaves to the whims of the Stock Markets. If the markets get nervous, the workers fear they will be punished. Worse abuse than you get from a neurotic parent.

I agree that is the conversation to be having Josh. Point out how funny it is that as soon as you walk through the shop door you exist in a dictatorship for 8 hours, no rights, no say, little recourse. Of course as you point out, civil space isn't much better.

[vicki]

The conversation I’m having with anti-capitalists on this forum has also taken place face-to-face. I see Kim several times a week in GA’s or meetings. We talked for several hours Saturday. Chebob and I have also talked. I noticed a similarity in talking points among Chebob, Kim and Troutsky, so I asked Kim about it. These folks are among a group of ten or a dozen people who have, for a year or more, met once a week to talk about anti-capitalism and such.

It is all too common in this country, given our polarized political landscape, for people to only talk about matters of public policy with those who agree with them. So it has been fun and interesting to talk about ideas with these self-described radical leftists. I have listened to their arguments and ideas, and considered their opinions, but I am not convinced that their views offer us much as we move forward to fix what is wrong with our country.

Yes, worker-owned cooperatives are a great idea. No doubt there are many examples of how beautifully they work for the benefit of their worker-owners. Yes Chebob, I read up on the Zapitistas. I agree, it is really cool that more than a million indigenous people in remote areas of Mexico are engaging in direct democracy and cooperative farming, crafting and marketing. But I don’t see how those small-scale cooperative systems are the answer to the challenges that face us in post-industrial America.

The Occupy movement rose up to protest the undue influence corporations have on our democracy and the resulting income inequality, high unemployment, and the lack of opportunities for the 99%. We need reform.

Chebob told me that he doesn’t want to be part of a movement that only wants to re-regulate. I was surprised, but—given that I hear the same anti-capitalist talking points from these folks—something Troutsky wrote gave me some insight into why Chebob said that.

Troutsky wrote on November 22nd , “Since the 1890’s our country (never mind the world) has been through seven recessions and one great depression. In each instance capitalists acted humble and allowed populists to put in place new regulations and reforms. In each instance capitalists soon re-captured government and relaxed barriers to profit making.”

That’s not true. I checked some books I have around the house and googled the topic every which way, but found nothing that supports Troutsky’s notion that every financial crisis in the US since 1890 was followed by a cycle of reform and repeal. Anti-monopoly reforms of the Progressive Era (1890-1920), and banking and finance reforms of the 1930’s remained in effect for decades.

In the early 1980’s, regulations for Savings and Loans were relaxed. By the end of that decade, the Savings and Loan Crisis had bankrupted a lot of people, forced the federal government to pay huge sums to cover S&L deposits, and some people went to prison. In 1999 portions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 were repealed. We are living with the results of that mistake now.

So, my anti-capitalist friends, what else do you got? How do we get out of the political and economic mess we are in right now without reform? To use powers of immanent domain to transfer wealth from corporations to the people, as you have suggested, would require reform of existing property laws and some heavy lifting.

I’ve told Kim this during our face-to-face talks and I say it here: I do not support the idea of a violent revolution. I want no part of that. We in the United States have a lot going for us. We just need to apply political pressure to our elected officials and corporate leaders to reform the system.

[josh]

"Anti-monopoly reforms of the Progressive Era (1890-1920), and banking and finance reforms of the 1930’s remained in effect for decades." Right vicki, and then they were slowly repealed. That good regulations have a way of lasting for "decades" is the point we're making. (And for the record, I'm not part of the Zapatista group). We broke up Standard Oil but now we've got Exxon-Mobil which is essentially a reformation of the old trust. Glass-Steagall was good, but was repealed (under Clinton) which, as you point out, was what partially led us to the situation we have today. Why should we assume that any regulations we put in place now won't meet the same fate in a few decades (just in time to screw my nephew's generation over)?

Reform and regulation of the existing system is necessary, sure, but I don't think it's a long-run solution, for the reasons we've already laid out here (it also seems unlikely to happen at all, so long as money is allowed to drive policy, e.g. the current administration and congress) I also think we need to avoid the trap of expecting some pre-formed systematic solution to pop out of someone's head. The system we have now wasn't conceived fully-formed, it evolved slowly over time. Whatever replaces it, and something will, eventually, will also grow organically.

Using eminent domain to gain control of the implements of production was my idea, but I realize that it's a pipe dream and might well lead to violent confrontations. And I, like you, will never support violent revolution. I've not been impressed with how those have turned out in the past. Our strength lies in the power of our ideas and our willingness to stand up for them (ok, other occupier's willingness, since no MT group has yet been tested with physical violence). Right now the most powerful idea we have, in my opinion, is simply that our economic and political systems are profoundly broken and that those in power have no incentive to fix them. Applying political pressure to leaders who have been placed in power by the systems we want them to reform seems unlikely to work.

How 'bout this? Those of us who think the current economic system is seriously f-ed get together and start doing something different? Why do we always want to depend on others to fix things for us?

[troutsky]

You know, I was only emphasizing the real big dips. There were actually 27 periods of recession and two depressions just in the US since 1890 and I can point to countless actions and government interventions, either regulatory, fiscal, trade or monetary policy, designed to save capitalism from itself. Numerous conferences and commissions like the 1913 Pujo Committee established to study the "concentration of wealth" after 1910 panic, Presidents Conference on Unemployment after 1920-21 depression, Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Corporations and Hepburn Act set up by Teddy Roosevelt and of course all the New Deal reforms. Then Truman's "Fair Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society" after 60-61 recession. Dot com and Savings and Loan and now Housing and derivitives.

My argument is simply that along with Keynesian macro-economic policy like increasing money supply or government stimulus, these regulations and reforms are always intended to blunt the sharp edge of inevitable slumps so that workers don't revolt. When the economy rebounds they come under attack by laissez faire advocates who often win their arguments till the next slump, gutting agencies, de-funding programs, re-writing laws.

The real question for all of us is : Are economic cycles an inevitable, natural part of life or desirable on some level? Free market fundamentalists will answer yes on both counts. ( I don't know how to argue those people) If you answer no and agree they are systemic, that is, the result of man-made systems, then I see two possibilities: Continue struggling for a social democratic vision of well regulated capitalism and the welfare state or struggle for a system beyond capitalism and the social foundations upon which it rests such as private ownership of productive property , individualism and market ideology.

Certainly social democracy is the easier struggle, taking a middle road which appeals to both ends to some degree. I think the question that has to be answered there is : what happened to the Populist struggles in America and what happened to the actually existing social democracies of Europe? And then you have to confront peak oil and climate change and ask: Is a no-growth or ecological capitalism possible?

In my opinion,to believe it is only the corporate form within capitalism that corrupts our democracy is to suggest "small" business (unincorporated?) is compatible with democracy. I would like to have that discussion. As for Zapatismo, I also doubt the model is exportable as a whole but I am sure there is much that could be adapted to our struggle in terms of their processes and philosophy.

Josh: Some of us are exploring the idea of Transition Town, or a blend of it and social ecology and Parecon and?. You should check out Participatory Economy at zcommunications.org, something Michael Albert has been working on for some time (with lots of help) Next time you are in Missoula area email me at [e-mail] and we can try to get together.

Dave (aka Troutsky)

[johnmak]

Josh writes : Applying political pressure to leaders who have been placed in power by the systems we want them to reform seems unlikely to work.

Read more: occupymissoula.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=175&page=2#ixzz1fGcb6JcA


I wish it weren't so, but we, the populace, the citizens of this country are responsible for the leaders placed in power. The money and economic systems our elected representatives love to serve are just an indecent allure. Bank of America, or Exxon Mobil (as examples of the system) do not Decree by Writ that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, etc., etc, are the Republican leaders and representatives in Washington. we the voting, and NON-VOTING public do. The bottom line is we placed those people there, and those people are f***ing up the vast majority of our citizens, and the Earth. If we placed them there, we can replace them. Overturning Citizens United, getting corporate dollars out of elections, forcing public funded elections, along with the curtailing of lobbying ability is key. Until that occurs, the percentage of altruistic people running for office and wanting deep in their spirit to work for the common good will remain low.

Through its protest activity Occupy can identify the deficiencies of the systems we live with. It can define the bar on issues. That is what it seems to me it is doing right now. These are good things. But until it can be seen as a powerful political force, and identify and remove the politicians working for the wealth systems and against us, its enabling influence to move politicians to our bar and hence build policy to support the common good will not happen. The Republicans, and sadly, too many Democrats, will continue to exploit us, and the planet.

This is still a democracy, bruised as it is. The power to be responsible and to create and maintain a just society is still ultimately in our hands, and in our shared consciousness. If we walk away from the political component we surrender that power.

[josh]

John: you bring up some good points and one's I've wrestled with a lot personally. I registered hundreds of people to vote while working for MontPIRG and AKPIRG in college ('98-'04) and was pretty vocal in encouraging people to go to the polls. But I sat out the 2008 elections in utter despair after hearing the "progressive" candidate declare that we needed MORE troops in Afghanistan and finding out that the top four campaign contributors to both campaigns were the same people (strike that: corporate "people"). I decided that voting for the lesser of two evils was still voting for evil, and I just couldn't make myself do it.

I understand that BoA and ExxonMobil aren't decreeing which particular individuals end up in office, but the way things have developed it seems that only those willing to bow down to the corporate pay-masters ever have a shot. Even when we get someone who I think will be good into office (i.e. Tester), they seem to turn almost as soon as their flight lands in D.C. What happened to all that big talk about repealing the PATRIOT ACT? What's with all the closed-door meetings? What happened to the guy we elected?

I fully support all of the policy goals you mention, but I don't believe that passing those laws will fix the underlying problem. And what is the underlying problem? In my mind it is this: any time there is a hierarchical power structure, individuals who seek power for their own selfish purposes will inevitably end up capturing the positions at the top of the hierarchy. The a$$holes will end up at the top because they are the ones who are willing to do anything to get power over others. Most of us have scruples and ethics and are not too interested in power for it's own sake...and we will always lose out to those who are not similarly encumbered. The only solution, in my mind, is to not create the hierarchies in the first place.

The stumbling block to meaningful campaign reform, I think, will always be that it will require the assent of people who have gotten into power through the current corrupt system, the majority of whom will themselves be corrupt (or at least corruptible). It's a problem of "you can't get there from here." If the current crop of politicians won't make any real changes to the campaign system then we have to get new ones...who you have to elect through the current system...which will weed out anyone who's not willing to play ball with the big-money boys...so we end up with another crop who won't change the system...wash, rinse, repeat, ad infintum. And this is not just a problem of the Republicans. I watched John Stewart interview Nancy Pelosi the other night and I now feel about her pretty much the same way that most Republicans do...obviously corrupt and disingenuous. When asked how Paul Vollcker's three page memo turned into a 6,000 page bill, her response was "oh, that's just because we had to translate it into legislative language." I mean, really, who believes that? Also, I read somewhere recently that some poli-sci professor looked at whose interests politicians pay attention to: the republicans only listen to the super-wealthy and the democrats...only listen to the super-wealthy (I search in vain to find the site again, sorry)

I might also add that our beloved Constitution was, in fact, set up to ensure rule by the wealthy. I recently read the book (ok, half the book) "American Aurora" which contains a good bit of personal correspondence from some of our "founding fathers." What I learned is this: John Adams and the Federalists wanted to re-create the British constitutional monarchy in America, only with an American king. Adams's original proposal was that there be wealth requirements for voting as well as for running for office. Something along the lines of: 5 pounds of wealth to vote, 10 pounds of wealth to run for the House, 15 pounds to run for Senate, and 20 to run for President. The wealth requirements got squashed, but the resulting compromise, making the senate districts cover entire states, ended up serving the same purpose. Only those who were very wealthy could afford to run for the senate. If you check out the people who currently occupy our national government, you will see that the average house member has something like $600,000 in wealth, the average senator about a million, and that every president since (I think) Lincoln has been a multi-millionaire! This is no coincidence, it has turned out this way by design (my numbers may be off a little since it was about a year ago I looked all this up, but they're close and the overall point is valid).

Add to this the fact of our easily hackable electronic voting system and the chances of obtaining real change through the electoral system seems pretty grim (here's a link to the Hacking Democracy documentary from HBO: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7926958774822130737 ).

For my own part, I've come to the conclusion that the system itself is illegitimate and that engaging it in the normal manner only serves to provide legitimacy to an illegitimate system. How long do you keep laying your money down on the three-card monte table before you figure out that no matter how close you watch you're never gonna pick the queen? But this is simply my take on the situation, and I remain open to persuasion.

I don't think that walking away from the political component is really an option, even if we wanted to. I do think that trying to work for change ONLY through the normal methods of electoral politics will be ultimately ineffective. I would like our political action to be more direct (which is why I got involved in Occupy in the first place). I've suggested tax-strikes, for instance (why protest the war and then turn around and pay for it?). Whatever we do though, I think it would be good to recognize that the standard ways of getting attention in our political system don't work that well anymore.

I respect your stance on these issues, and believe it or not, I'm not really out to change anyone's mind. These are just my views and I'm just happy to have been able to have this dialog at all.

[johnmak]

Thanks for responding Josh. Believe it or not I respect your views as well. I sense the despair. Multitudes of us are frustrated (to put it mildly) with the political system, and how it has degenerated. I think all I'm saying is that until a new process somehow magically is borne, I have to remain feeling engaged with the ballot. It provides me with a sense that I have a right to bitch and complain and become infuriated. It gives me an impetus to continue fighting.

The biggest problem, and what makes it so hard, is that we are fighting more than the man-made systems. The man-made systems we have would probably work as they are if we as a species didn't harbor such repulsive, greedy and non-compassionate tendencies. We are fighting to transform the collective consciousness of humanity itself. Gonna be tough. Good luck to us all. :-)

[josh]

The citizen initiative process, at least in the states that have one, is probably our best bet at this point. It won't be easy, but I do hold out some hope on that front. I have a number of ideas for initiatives, first: passing an initiative to make getting citizen initiatives on the ballot easier by reducing petition signature requirements. The current thresholds ensure that only well funded initiatives have a shot; I think progressives and libertarians (and other "fringe" elements") would support this as allowing for more direct democracy. My second idea, currently being refined, would direct the state to create an alternative currency, the Montana Dollar, for instance, to operate alongside our beloved federal reserve notes. Something like the local currencies that already exist (Berkshares, Time Dollars, etc) but with the difference that these would be distributed by simply giving an equal amount to every resident and allowing them to be used as legal tender and to pay state taxes. There are a lot of issues to consider with the second idea, which I'm putting serious thought-time into right now. I'll let everyone know what I come up with, and hopefully others will have ideas to add.

Wasn't it Camus who said, "don't let the bastards get you down."?

[troutsky]

Johnmak: Adopting this type of humanism ie " greedy tendencies" = human nature- is to ignore the effect our economic relations have on our social relations and hence, our own subjectivity. What we are talking about, going back to Marx, is "the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement , and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man." Michael Hardt would change appropriation to production, production of a new sensorium - seeing ,hearing, smelling,tasting , feeling, thinking ,contemplating, sensing, wanting, acting, loving." Marx goes on in the Early Manuscript:

"Assuming the positive supersession of private property, man produces man, himself and other men."

In everyday terms, those relations we live with every day under capitalism, selling your labor so that you become a commodity, competing aggressively in markets, promoting individual self-interest, all these things are nurtured and incentivized. We take those hierarchies from the division of labor home and put them in our families. We see each other as competition. It can all LOOK like human nature or biological/anthropological behavior or genetics or lizard brain (tendencies) or all of that but some is determined in my opinion. There is no such thing as greed in the capitalist system or compassion, the rational imperative is to maximise profit.

This is not to say there aren't other factors to subjectivity, the unconscious, gender identity etc and I don't want to simplify or make it all about economics- but it needs to be examined because it is such a profound part of our experience.

As for voting, Chomsky's seminal work The Democracy Deficit or Bowels -Gintis Democracy & Capitalism describe how hollow our formal "democracy" is compared to a true democratic culture. I would argue then that what we call politics are also just theatre compared to the authentic process. I think the Spanish have it right- just put your ballot in the bank machine and cut out the middle man. When you say "citizen" you have to ask if we really do have that role. It makes the project of structural change that much more daunting, I agree , but no less necessary.