Progressive Music Classics: "This Funeral is for the Wrong Corpse" by The Mekons

By Marc McDonald 

(Ed. note: Here's another installment of Marc's ongoing series. For the full series, check out his site. -- MJWS)


Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics, a salute to left-leaning music that champions the cause of working-class people around the world.

The narrative of the Rich & Powerful and the corporate media was simple back in the day. When the Soviet Union died, we were told, socialism died. End of story.

In 1991, it was clearly time to bury Das Kapital in the landfill and embrace capitalism. The End of History, as Francis Fukuyama put it, was upon us.

However, a strange thing happened along the way to socialism's funeral.

First of all, decades of unregulated, brutal, dog-eat-dog "free" markets led to a spectacular growing divide between the classes. The Top One Percent saw its fortunes (and political influence) soar. The Middle Class pretty much died. And the poor grew vastly in number.

Once again, a lot of people started asking the question, "Is capitalism really the best system we can come up with?"

And the ideas of Karl Marx once again began to be debated. In fact, one of the surprise bestsellers of this year was Capital in the Twenty-First Century by French economist Thomas Piketty. It was an eye-opening book that basically served to update Marx's observations with current data.

Amazingly, for a relatively dry academic book, Capital soared to the top of the bestseller lists. Even the The Financial Times (hardly a lefty newspaper) had kind words to say about Piketty's book and admitted that he had raised important points.

It's clear that Piketty hit a nerve and raised important points about the failures of unregulated capitalism.

But wait a minute: haven't we already been through this whole debate before? Didn't socialism die back in 1991? Weren't we told that capitalism was the only way forward?

Well, actually no.

As the British band The Mekons pointed out in their classic 1991 song, what was buried with the Soviet Union wasn't the real deal anyway. As The Mekons put it: "This Funeral is For the Wrong Corpse." 

They're queuing up to dance on Socialism's grave,

This is my testimony,

a dinosaur's confession,

but how can something really be dead,

when it hasn't even happened?

Socialist, communist, and doodie pants

By Frank Moraes

There has been a lot of excitement about the fact that Kshama Sawant seems to have one her race for the Seattle City Council. The reason is that she ran as a socialist. But here's the thing: it doesn't mean that much. The world "socialist" has lost most of its meaning both on the left and on the right. And it is mostly a very good thing.

The Republicans are mostly to blame. They are experts at vilifying words. But they tend to take it too far. As I found myself asking conservatives a lot during the first two years of his presidency, "If Obama is a socialist, what was Stalin?" If you listen carefully to conservatives, you will quickly notice that to them, any deviation from their current ideology is, "Socialism! Socialism, I tell you!"

Obama was called a socialist. Clinton was called a socialist before him. Is there any doubt that any Democratic president will be vilified as a socialist? This kind of name calling can only work for so long. After a while, the word becomes nothing more than "doodie pants." Okay, we get it: you don't like the Democrats so you call them socialists. But it doesn't mean anything more than that.

Look, it would be one thing if Republicans actually did stand for some kind of libertarian utopia. But they don't. They are among the biggest supporters for the three biggest socialist programs we have: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. That's 80% of the federal budget, folks. So if the difference between "Socialist!" and "Patriotic American!" is that remaining 20%, I think we can say that the Republicans are being a mite hyperbolic. (And note: the Republicans are also for most of the remaining 20% too.)

Read more »

Activist Dolores Huerta is awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom

By Richard K. Barry

I know President Obama is a centrist. I greatly enjoy claims from the whacky right that he's a radical leftist. Do these people have any understanding of political history at all? They really might want to travel a bit to see what else is out there.

I fully understand that Obama is defined by the realities of politics in America, by the art of the possible. But, I suppose, the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that the president's centrism looks like the left, if relativity is your guide.

For all that, I thought it was nice that President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Tuesday to Dolores Huerta, an 82-year-old labour activist and co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union.

Huerta is also a noted civil rights and women's rights activist. And, according to the Wiki entry for her, "as a role model to many in the Latin community, Huerta is the subject of many ballads and murals." Isn't that lovely?

Best of all, she's an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. That puts her in the wonderful company of some of my political heroes, such as my former professor Frances Fox Piven and author Barbara Ehrenreich.

It must be hard for President Obama to show an openness to ideas not necessarily within the American mainstream, but I appreciate it when he makes the effort. I really do.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Run for your lives! Barack Obama attended a conference on economic insecurity in 1996

By Richard K. Barry

There are times when political discourse in America is maddeningly ignorant. Like when someone finds an ad like this with Barack Obama's name on it and thinks they actually found something scandalous.

Here's the brief paragraph that appears with the image at BuzzFeed.

It's a reminder that the President presented himself as much more progressive during his time in Chicago. In this little-seen advertisement that ran in the Hyde Park Herald in 1996, Obama was listed on a panel sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), University of Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA.

First of all, it's only an ad. We don't know what Barack Obama said at the event. But the implication of the breathless mention is that he appeared at an event of an organization that had "socialist" in the title, and every right thinking American knows that you are not allowed to mention socialism in a partisan political context least you be mistaken for a bomb thrower of some kind.

Here's the mission statement of the Democratic Socialists of America: 

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically -- to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. 

Like it, don't like it. But we are talking about ideas and the democratic means to promote them and implement them.

As far as I'm concerned, socialism means so many things to so many people, it actually means very little. But the tradition carries many ideas that are not only important but that already, in so many ways, have been incorporated into the way we run the country, whether you like it or not.

Don't be afraid. It's okay. I'd be a lot more frightened of an Ayn Rand conference, which I am sure would lead to ideas that really would destroy the country.

Yes, our future president appeared at a conference where thoughts, perhaps somewhat outside the mainstream, were discussed. Can't have that. Call Glenn Beck, he'll know what to do.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Frankly, Mr. Shankly wouldn't be pleased: How Liverpool is seeking to destroy competition in the English Premier League

By Robert Lawson, International Sports Reporter

"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life."

- Bill Shankly

In a move that's already generated a whirlwind of controversy, Liverpool has announced that they are seeking changes to the Premier League's current broadcasting deal (worth £3.2 billion in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010-13). Specifically, the club wants to see larger clubs receive an increased share of international television revenues.

Taking a longer view, the endgame for Liverpool seems to be the installation of a new television rights system, one where larger clubs are free to negotiate their own television deals with prospective rights-holders.

Such a system is currently in place in Spain, where clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona negotiate massive television contracts and to enjoy the riches they provide, while minnow clubs are left to fend for themselves on the scraps.

As the argument goes, this type of system would allow a club such as Liverpool (or Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, etc.) to generate a massive increase in revenues from television and other media; leverage the club's profile in emerging markets (e.g., Asia); strengthen its competitive advantage vis-à-vis other clubs when it comes attracting investment (e.g., sponsorship agreements); and, ultimately, enhance the club's capacity to compete with other large European clubs when it comes to purchasing top talent.

Some Liverpool supporters may react to this announcement with unbridled enthusiasm, gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of massive revenue increases, commercial expansion, and, hopefully, attracting the world's best players to Anfield.

Others might heed the words of much loved former manager Bill Shankly, quoted above, and wonder whether reaping the putative rewards is worth the cost.

Introducing a television rights model such as the one prevailing in Spain would surely diminish the already considerably reduced capacity of smaller clubs (think Stoke City, Bolton, Wigan, West Bromwich Albion, Norwich, even Everton) to compete in the Premier League, not to mention extend the widening gulf between the Premier League and the lower divisions.

It would be hard to imagine clubs such as Derby County and Nottingham Forest achieving success under such a regime. To be sure, it's hard enough to imagine the success of smaller clubs as it is, when television rights revenues are centrally distributed in a fixed manner, with clubs guaranteed a certain share of overall revenues. If clubs such as Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea, and Arsenal were permitted to go their own way, any illusions of future competition that remain would be shattered completely.

Put bluntly, the wealthy and powerful clubs could and would leave their more modest brethren firmly behind.

But consider this: As I'm sure the great Bill Shankly would point out, without genuine competition between clubs in the Premier League it really isn't much of a league. It would become a playground for the rich.

Sure, the rich clubs would continue to go through the motions, filling out the fixture calendar with perfunctory visits to the Britannia or the Reebok. Yet the only matches to matter would be those played among the big boys.

The English Premier League would quickly begin to resemble La Liga -- and would be much worse for it, in my view.

Ironic that such an endeavour would be spearheaded by a club made famous around the world by an ardent socialist whose approaches to football management and life make him a figure of worship on Merseyside to this day.

Sad, too.

Are we all socialists now? Glenn Beck, Lawrence O’Donnell, and the politics of name-calling

By R.K. Barry

MSNBC political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell recently identified himself as a socialist in an on-air discussion with prominent blogger Glenn Greenwald. Whatever his motivation, one result of this self-identification may be to begin the process of reclaiming a term that the right has been able to completely remove from our political landscape. 

It would be interesting if this started a more public discussion about what this term means and how an examination of its main points might be useful. O'Donnell was not, I am sure, unaware that this would all be red meat to certain of those on the right who don't care how embarrassing they appear to others.

You would not be surprised to learn that Glenn Beck rose to the bait. No analysis, no thought at all, just silly Beckian name calling. Quelle surprise! Has anyone else noticed that Beck comes across mostly like a bratty nine-year old hell-bent on annoying his siblings? 

To call someone a socialist in America has always been just about on a par with saying that the person kicks puppies as a hobby or steals lunch money from five-year olds as a way to make a living. There has never been much debate. Just launch the epithet and watch the subject of the attack reel in horror and protest vigorously. 

In point of fact, the term "socialist" is just too complicated, ambiguous, and multi-faceted to really mean much of anything specific in the modern context. But it does mean something. And if you happen to live in Europe or Canada, the term can actually be a conversation starter rather than a dirty name called to make cheap political points and shut down any further discussion. 

At the risk of oversimplification, most of the people I know who either identify with the term or look favourably upon it consider the power of corporations, the gross concentration of wealth, estimation of life chances tied directly to socio-economic class, the systemic inequities and terrible degradation endured by the underclass in capitalist society, etc., etc., as being circumstances that require some degree of state power to remedy. 

Not long ago, Newsweek magazine ran a cover story stating that "We Are All Socialists Now," and the right-wing howled. But obviously Newsweek was right, up to a point. We have government pension systems, Medicare, progressive income taxes, and all manner of government activity that socializes risk, and, yes, redistributes wealth. Now we even have health-care reform, and though it is hardly socialized medicine, it moves in that direction. In a manner of speaking, we are all socialists now. 

If we are to be honest, decades ago capitalist countries realized that in order for them to function at all, certain kinds of government intervention would be necessary: child labour laws, occupational health and safety regulations, social security legislation, all programs under the general heading of "welfare," etc. Capitalism just proved too blunt an instrument not to be counterbalanced by collective action in some way. 

Some sort of interventionist state has been a reality for a long time. We don't even need to go into the fact that George W. Bush understood as well as President Obama that the federal government would have to spend its way out of the current recession. The hard right claims not to approve in either case, but they're just wrong. 

A lot of people who identify themselves as socialist may not think that nationalizing major industries is a good idea, or that a command economy run by government is workable, or that there is a very good alternative to capitalist markets. Just as those who consider themselves more pro-capitalist want the latitude to consider a range of policy tools, self-described socialists can reserve the same right. 

But what we should all understand is that we live in a mixed economy. The private sector does a lot of things. Government does a lot of things. The key is in working towards a better balance between them that might just result in greater numbers of people having more than a slim chance of living a decent life. 

The point I am trying to make is actually quite simple. I have been calling myself a socialist for a long time, though I recognize it is an imperfect term. The important thing for me is that it suggests a constellation of ideas that we should welcome into the mix, such as: how much government intervention is justifiable in the lives of Americans; what limits should we place on private property for the sake of the common good; are there enterprises that might best be run by the government, like health care; are there goods so basic that they might be provided by government, perhaps like housing? I would want to talk about what factory owners owe local communities when they contemplate pulling up stakes after many years. I would want to talk about how governments ought to work with business to help create jobs. All kinds of stuff. 

Having the tools to explore these questions is what the concept of socialism makes possible. 

Yes, we can look at certain strains of socialism and try to connect them to state communism and then say that anyone who wants to argue for an expanded government role in the economy in the early part of the 21st century is a Stalinist in waiting, but, with all due respect to Professor Hayek, that would be silly. We might as well say that every capitalist is no better than a factory owner in some sort of 19th-century Dickensian hell or at least on the slippery slope to becoming one. 

Times change. The meaning of words changes. Like it or not, what the Newsweek headline should have read is that "We Are All More or Less Capitalist and More or Less Socialist Now." (I know. I'll never get a job as a headline writer). 

These days, any discussion about the relative merits of capitalism and socialism is really about how much government involvement in the economy is advisable. We can't know in advance. We have to take every case as it comes and work it out. 

If being a socialist means that I am more inclined to think that government should have an expanded role in ensuring that greater and greater numbers of Americans have a chance at a good life, then, along with Lawrence O'Donnell, I'm a socialist. 

Mostly I just want to ask a lot of questions to see where the answers take us. I think socialism provides some tools to help us do this. Nothing to be afraid of. 

But calling someone a socialist as a way to marginalize their ideas does nothing to help us find the answers we need. It's just dumb and par for the course for too many on the right.

Socialism!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Obama-is-a-socialist tag has always been a stupid one, but it's one conservatives, and particularly those either involved with or just supportive of the Tea Party "movement," keep pushing relentlessly. Obama, we are told, is trying to overturn the capitalist system at the very heart of the American way of life. If allowed to move ahead with his reforms, we are warned, he will turn the U.S. into some sort of European social democracy, with government controlling the economy and stifling freedom and entrepreneurship. To believe this requires a deep and abiding ignorance of reality, a refusal to see things as they are. But ignorance, of course, is hardly in short supply on the right.

While Obama has sought to expand government's role somewhat, nothing that he has accomplished -- nothing that he himself seems to believe -- comes close to socialism. If anything, he has sought to rescue capitalism, as FDR did before him, from its own self-destructive tendencies. TARP was largely an effort to get the economy going again; it was decidedly not an effort to have government take control of the economy. Even health-care reform, minus the public option, was just the sort of market-oriented approach that Republicans once backed. And Wall Street reform was more about protecting Wall Street from itself than it was about radically changing what is essentially a corrupt financial system.

And this isn't about to change. As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, "some big, new stimulus plan is not in the offing." The economy may still be struggling, that is, but Obama won't push what is really needed most at this time, namely, large-scale government spending to get the economy going again. But if there won't be another stimulus package, there may very well be just what Republicans want, namely, tax breaks for business (if not an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy). As the WaPo is reporting, Obama is considering "a package of business tax breaks -- potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars":

Among the options under consideration are a temporary payroll-tax holiday and a permanent extension of the now-expired research-and-development tax credit, which rewards companies that conduct research into new technologies within the United States.  

Where exactly is the socialism here?

Who's the socialist?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Billy Wharton.

Who's Billy Wharton?

He's co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, the country's main socialist political party, the main successor to the Socialist Party of America.

So he's a guy who knows a thing or two about socialism, and about whether, as conservatives allege, Obama and his agenda are socialist. Well...

We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama, and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House.

But what about what conservatives are saying?

It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is.

Now, to be fair, socialism isn't monolithic, and different socialists believe different things. Even CNN seems to understand this. But Wharton's point is right. People hurl the socialism/socialist label around without much of a clue as to what it actually means.

Indeed, it's rather amusing that, judging by the tone of its article, CNN seems really surprised to have learned that there is already a good deal of socialism, broadly understood, in America: Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's almost like CNN can't quite believe it, and so the article, valuable in a way but also profoundly stupid and deeply ignorant despite its citations of experts, contains a mixture of curiosity and repulsion. And, given where CNN is headed, it's hardly surprising that the final section of the article focuses on a single teabagger who, by all indications, is even more profoundly stupid and deeply ignorant.

Regardless, Wharton is quite right. Neither Obama nor his agenda is socialist. Like so many reformers before him, he is simply trying to save capitalism from itself.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rick Perry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The governor of Texas thinks that:

[T]his is an administration hell-bent toward taking American towards a socialist country. And we all don't need to be afraid to say that because that's what it is.

He was referring to Obama's administration, of course, not his own, and I can't even begin to tell you how sick and tired I am of conservatives calling Obama and his policies socialist. Clearly, they don't have a clue what socialism is, nor do they seem to understand that all western democracies, including the more neo-liberal ones, are to some extent socialist insofar as they redistribute some wealth from the haves to the have-nots and have governments that provide services like health care and education.

Yes, even the U.S. -- I assume that Perry would like to shut down Medicare and Medicaid? Or is he smart enough to understand that voters might not like that, even in Texas?

Otherwise, how is providing another health insurance option to consumers, even a government-run one, in an attempt to expand the market, socialist? How is having Wall Street insiders bail out Wall Street, with the goal of keeping the big banks and investment firms afloat so as to be able to invest and lend for the supposed good of the economy, as well as of consumers, socialist?

I'm sorry, has Obama proposed raising tax rates to Scandinavian levels? Has he proposed the permanent nationalization of industries, like, say, the auto industry? No, not so much. Just ask progressives what they think of Obama's market-oriented policies. Not that progressives are all socialists, but those of us who are liberal/progressive know that, if anything, Obama has thus far governed too far to the right. A socialist he is not.

So while the socialism tag it's just a baseless, hollow smear that conservatives hope will resonate with fearful Americans, what's clear is that any society that falls short of an Ayn Rand-oriented paradise is socialist. Yes, they're that ignorant, and that extremist.

Defending DeMint (sort of, or maybe not -- what he said about pre-war Germany was still incredibly stupid)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Tuesday, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, one of the more extreme of Congressional Republicans, said this at the National Press Club:

They understand socialism. They understand tyrants. But none of us have ever had it here. We don't even know what it looks like. Part of what we're trying to do in Saving Freedom [his book] is just show that where we are, we're about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy.

Now, what did he mean by that? To me, it's pretty clear: He was referring not to Nazi Germany but to Weimar Germany, to the socialism before the national socialism. On this, I agree with Ed Kilgore.

Others, however, have not been so generous. Jon Chait, for example, thinks DeMint was comparing Obama's America to Hitler's Germany. So does Chris Orr. And Steve Benen. (Three bloggers I admire a great deal.) In contrast, Matt Yglesias thinks that DeMint is confusing Germany's Nazis and Social Democrats (who opposed the Nazis before the war).

But I don't want to be overly generous myself. I suspect that DeMint knows very little German history, perhaps none at all, and he may just have been mixing everything up. The Obama-is-a-socialist and socialism-is-fascism (and hence Obama-is-a-fascist) memes are big on the right, and DeMint was obviously riffing off that ridiculous connection.

But what I think he was saying -- or, at least, it's how it reads to me -- is that social democracy is a precursor to fascism, just as Nazi Germany replaced Weimar Germany. In this sense, Obama isn't a Nazi but a pre-Nazi -- or something like that.

Of course, this is just as stupid as saying directly that Obama is a fascist. Yglesias is quite right, after all, that the social democrats were not the precursors to but the opponents of Nazism, and they suffered greatly under Hitler. Just because social democracy preceded national socialism, it does not follow that the one became the other, or at least that the one made the other possible. Nazism was not an extension of social democracy but a reaction to it, a rejection of it.

But let's come back to 2009 America.

It is similarly stupid to assert -- and this is currently a popular line on the right -- that Obama is a socialist, or that his agenda amounts to socialism, that, if left unchecked, he and the Democrats will shortly replace capitalism with socialism. If anything, Obama is, like FDR before him, seeking to rescue capitalism from its own excesses, and it will, if he succeeds, emerge stronger for it. If anything, Obama has been too much of a pragmatist and not enough of a reformer. If he has disappointed, it has been because, thus far, he hasn't been nearly progressive enough, not because he has overturned the capitalist order. He sought market solutions to the economic crisis, after all, saving the banks by bailing them out, not by taking them over. Yes, there's General Motors, but the plan there is not for the state to run the auto industry but for the auto industry to pull itself out of the mess it created for itself while the state prevents an all-out collapse. This isn't nationalization, it's a safety net for industry -- even for industries that hardly deserve one.

But no matter. The right -- DeMint et al. -- will continue to puncture the historical record with their crass partisan propaganda. And that means comparing Obama to Hitler, in one way or another.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Spencer Bachus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For pulling a Joe McCarthy and pointing fingers:

Some of these guys I work with, the men and women in Congress, are socialists.

Actually, he only pointed a finger at one guy, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who is, admittedly, a socialist of sorts, specifically of the Scandinavian variety, but he claims that there are 16 others.

Now, so what if there are 17 socialists in the House? Whoever they are, they were elected, were they not? It's up to their constituents to judge them, not Bachus or the right-wing mob.

Besides, it depends on your definition of socialism. If by "socialism" you mean progressive taxation and a robust social safety net, including universal health care and government-run anti-poverty programs, the sort of socialism that exists in most of the world's advanced (capitalist) democracies, including Canada and Western Europe, then I would hope that there are far more than just 17 socialists in the House. If by "socialism" you mean Communism, or the "democratic" socialism of the former Eastern Bloc and totalitarian states like North Korea, then, well, that would be different, wouldn't it? -- I would hope that there are zero of them in the House, or anywhere else in the U.S. government.

But Bachus is obviously referring to the first kind -- though he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, let alone understand just what socialism is. He won't name names, other than one, but anyone who isn't a neo-liberal Republican, an extremist ideological capitalist who worships Ayn Rand, is apparently a target.

And, names or no names, what he evidently wants is another McCarthyite witch hunt.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Republican Party of 2009.

**********

For all of our Craziest Republicans of the Day posts, see here.

For all of our Craziest Conservatives of the Day posts, see here.

The revolution was televised

By Creature

CNN:

Another prominent Republican told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday that the president’s spending plans are pushing the country to the brink of socialism.

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the only member of the senate to earn a perfect rating from the American Conservative Union, called President Obama "the world’s best salesman of socialism" on Friday in describing his prime time speech earlier this week.

DeMint, a fierce opponent of government expansion, told the CPAC crowd that conservatives might have to "take to the streets to stop America’s slide into socialism."

"Take to the streets." Really?

You gotta love this conservative populist movement. Not only is it tone deaf, but they don't seem to realize America already had its populist revolution. Yes, we did. I seem to remember a record shattering 2008 election campaign dominated by a politician who was able to mobilized millions of people. They gave him lots of money and came out in droves to support him at his rallies and at the polls. Conservatives may not like the results of the 2008 populist revolution--they weren't dressed in Brooks Brothers, after all--but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The people have spoken, Senator DeMint, "socialism" is in. Why don't you suck on that for awhile.

Redistributor cap

By Carl

Much has been said in the past week or so regarding Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comments. Suddenly, he's been called a "redistributionist in chief".

Well, Senators, time to analyze just what "spread the wealth" is all about.

First, let's define some terms. Since the occasional right wing conservative scans this blog (I know, because I've read bits of my writing taken word for word in other places that I'd be ashamed to link to), I think its important they get some edumacation.

Capitalism, loosely defined, is the redistribution of wealth! Think about it: I have a little bit of wealth, and I have a need. You have a product or service that satisfies that need. I give you a little bit of my wealth in exchange for the satisfaction of my need.

What gets exchanged?" Wealth. Where does it go? From me, who had some you didn't have, to you, who now has accumulated more. It has been redistributed!

Nothing wrong with that. I don't know of many rational people who don't get that the free market in theory works pretty well.

In this example, wealth is nothing more than a pile of rocks accumulated from other people. Eventually, the rocks aggregate and make a pile so high, it's hard to toss more on top, and some end up trickling down.

What supply side economics does, in theory, is say, "Look, we'll pour more rocks on top of the highest piles, and some will tumble to the ground where the poor and middle class can scavenge for the pebbles and stone dust.

It's like the old joke about the priest who takes the money from the collection plate and tosses it in the air: whatever God can catch, he can keep.

What Obama proposes to do is simple: take the highest rocks off the highest piles, and give them to the people still with piles closer to the ground.

Not in the direct sense of actually giving money to the poor and middle class, but in allowing those classes (sadly, or maybe not so much, I'm not part of the classes who would benefit from Obama's tax cuts, but I'll get to that in a moment) to keep more of their stones.

So what happens then? Well, the core cost of living is the same no matter how much money you have: you need food, you need clothing (sadly), you need shelter. You need transportation. People with fewer rocks will spend a higher proportion of their rocks on these necessities. Whatever is left, one hopes, they will put in a bank but given our consumerist society, they will end up spending those rocks on comforts.

In other words, they'll get their rocks off.

But remember the first example I spoke about? I have a little bit of wealth and a need (or want) and I share my wealth with you in order to have you satisfy that hole in my life?

Look what happens now: those same rocks that the capitalists would have gotten directly from the government thru lower tax rates, rocks they likely would have off-shored in some Cayman Islands investment corporation, are now repurposed to have benefitted millions of Americans first, before getting back essentially to the same place they were going to end up in the first place! In the pockets of the rich like me!

In effect, the wealthy have lent out their wealth AND gotten a higher return from the American economy AND seen the American economy get stronger as a result, than they would have seen squirreling their rocks away on some island offshore.

Lest you think that this concept has been lost on Republicans, take a look at some of John McCain's proposals:

- Increased defense spending, including ramping up troop levels.

- a $5,000 tax credit for buying zero emission cars.

- $2 billion to "clean" coal technology.

- a $5,000 tax credit for health insurance to every American family.

None of these are anything except governmental solutions to free market problems. In other words, a redistribution of wealth.

To periphrase Animal Farm, "All rocks are equal, but some rocks are more equal than others".

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

From bailing out to buying in

By Creature

This is the bailout plan we've been waiting for. From the NYT:

Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials.

Treasury officials say the just-passed $700 billion bailout bill gives them the authority to inject cash directly into banks that request it. Such a move would quickly strengthen banks’ balance sheets and, officials hope, persuade them to resume lending. In return, the law gives the Treasury the right to take ownership positions in banks, including healthy ones.

I don't know much, but from all I've read this is the path we should have been considering from the start. It's good to see the Treasury, now that it has the billions it asked for, acting as their European counterparts have in trying to get a handle on this crisis. For the unhinged Right it's socialism; for the rest of us, with actual brains, it's sound policy.

For more reaction, see Meme.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

The Soviet Union of Venezuela

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rule by decree. One-party rule. Seizure of private property.

Since winning re-election in last December's election -- or, rather, "election," total sham that it was -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has worked hard to ensure that there is neither liberalism nor democracy in his country. He calls it his "Bolivarean" revolution, but tyranny is a better name for it.

On his latest tyrannical move, the seizure of private property, an ongoing effort, here's the BBC (link above):

Venezuela's government has seized more than 330,000 hectares (815,450 acres) of land to redistribute them under an agrarian reform programme.

President Hugo Chavez said 16 farms -- which he described as large and unproductive -- had been expropriated.

His government was moving towards a "collective property" policy as part of its "drive towards socialism", he said.

Socialism as tyranny, that is. A thug masquerading as a man of the people. Soon there won't be any freedom left in Venezuela but Chavez's freedom to control and oppress.

That's what his fucking revolution is all about.