There are two Americas
December 9, 2013 3:38 AM Subscribe
"That we've gotten to this point is astonishing to me, because basically in winning its victory, in seeing that Wall come down and seeing the former Stalinist state's journey towards our way of thinking in terms of markets or being vulnerable, you would have thought that we would have learned what works. Instead we've descended into what can only be described as greed" -- David Simon
Hammer meets nail. On head.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:22 AM on December 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:22 AM on December 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
He sort of alludes to it in the end ("see the economy shrug and start to throw white middle-class people into the same boat, so that they became vulnerable to the drug war, say from methamphetamine, or they became unable to qualify for college loans") but for me the idea of two Americas is premature.
There are three Americas. The haves. The have nots. And the future have nots - the expanding part of the middle class, starting from its lower reaches, who don't know or won't admit that they have less.
These are the people who believe they are richer than they actually are, who believe income is distributed more fairly than it is, who can afford some of the trappings of wealth via credit and who still believe that hard work and prudence will allow them to gift their children a better quality of life than their own. In effect, they still believe the system is fair, and works in their interests.
They are the people who probably also sense that life is getting tougher, less secure, and more expensive but either don't know why or place the blame elsewhere. In that respect, Simon is completely right when he talks about the communal logic of the past. America post-1980 has adopted an entirely new communal logic - in essence revising and whitewashing how society works and thrives and finding a whole range of bogeymen, betes noires and scapegoats to explain why it isn't working.
The sleight of hand is convincing Americans that it has always been this way, rather than that an individualistic, trickle down economy is a modern artefact of political and economic life whose effects have yet to fully wash through.
posted by MuffinMan at 4:31 AM on December 9, 2013 [56 favorites]
There are three Americas. The haves. The have nots. And the future have nots - the expanding part of the middle class, starting from its lower reaches, who don't know or won't admit that they have less.
These are the people who believe they are richer than they actually are, who believe income is distributed more fairly than it is, who can afford some of the trappings of wealth via credit and who still believe that hard work and prudence will allow them to gift their children a better quality of life than their own. In effect, they still believe the system is fair, and works in their interests.
They are the people who probably also sense that life is getting tougher, less secure, and more expensive but either don't know why or place the blame elsewhere. In that respect, Simon is completely right when he talks about the communal logic of the past. America post-1980 has adopted an entirely new communal logic - in essence revising and whitewashing how society works and thrives and finding a whole range of bogeymen, betes noires and scapegoats to explain why it isn't working.
The sleight of hand is convincing Americans that it has always been this way, rather than that an individualistic, trickle down economy is a modern artefact of political and economic life whose effects have yet to fully wash through.
posted by MuffinMan at 4:31 AM on December 9, 2013 [56 favorites]
From this moment forward unless we reverse course, the average human being is worth less on planet Earth.
posted by cenoxo at 4:32 AM on December 9, 2013
World Population — Current UN projections show a continued increase in population in the near future (but a steady decline in the population growth rate), with the global population expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050.Economies of scale and all that.
posted by cenoxo at 4:32 AM on December 9, 2013
There are three Americas. The haves. The have nots. And the future have nots - the expanding part of the middle class, starting from its lower reaches, who don't know or won't admit that they have less.
I think you're right. When the future arrives, and those people realize their kids are screwed because the system is so tilted, maybe then we'll see some effective movement to fix it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:53 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think you're right. When the future arrives, and those people realize their kids are screwed because the system is so tilted, maybe then we'll see some effective movement to fix it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:53 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It's a great tool to have in your toolbox ...
This is what I've always thought; capitalism is just that, an effective tool, not a religion or an ideology. Liberals always get accused of not believing in free markets but it's not something you can believe in or not believe in because again, it's just something that we harness to achieve our goals and not an end to itself.
posted by octothorpe at 4:59 AM on December 9, 2013 [17 favorites]
This is what I've always thought; capitalism is just that, an effective tool, not a religion or an ideology. Liberals always get accused of not believing in free markets but it's not something you can believe in or not believe in because again, it's just something that we harness to achieve our goals and not an end to itself.
posted by octothorpe at 4:59 AM on December 9, 2013 [17 favorites]
There's a heck of a lot more than just two Americas. The hopeless, futureless underclass portrayed in the Wire and the "viable" "connected" one down at his end of the block are but two. Somewhere in there is the fantasyland lived in by the likes of Mitt Romney; the day-to-day existance of a middle class wage-earner that's not quite hopeless, but not quite viable either; and 300 million other permutations within.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:18 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:18 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
capitalism is just that, an effective tool...
Except it's not. It's neither effective, nor something that can be thought of merely as a tool.
It's not very effective: without state controls, which are fundamentally anti-capitalist (being outside of market 'forces') it either brings about continual cyclical crises or leads to the establishment of monopolies which, being also immune to market forces, are non-capitalist institutions. The accumulation of wealth in the 20th century is less the fault of capital than it is that of government investment taking risks that short-sighted capital never could (railroads, highways, industrialization of society, the internet, etc. All gov't projects. In service of capital, to be sure, but not produced by capital). The market is essentially unpredictable, that is: irrational. Which is the truth in Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand at work behind the scenes.
It's not a tool: Capitalism means, above all, the commodification of the human being qua laborer. You can't just apply this in certain cases when you think it's needed. Either your society is one in which human beings are commodities which sell themselves on the labor market, in which human beings themselves are tool-things, or you realize that human beings are not means, but ends in themselves. Whoever is capable of applying the tool of capitalism in one case or another is just the ruling class (who themselves become a tool, a tool of the very market they worship). The lesson of Marx, the reason why communism is called communism, is that it's an all or none situation. The illusion created by the wealthy west that one can have more or less insane, more or less humane capitalist societies is sustained through the forgetting of the inhumanity perpetuated on the so-called developing world, which makes those more humane capitalist societies possible. (For some this is obvious, since, like France, they remain 'former' colonial powers. In others it is less obvious, but remains true: I'm looking at you Scandinavia).
posted by dis_integration at 5:19 AM on December 9, 2013 [35 favorites]
Except it's not. It's neither effective, nor something that can be thought of merely as a tool.
It's not very effective: without state controls, which are fundamentally anti-capitalist (being outside of market 'forces') it either brings about continual cyclical crises or leads to the establishment of monopolies which, being also immune to market forces, are non-capitalist institutions. The accumulation of wealth in the 20th century is less the fault of capital than it is that of government investment taking risks that short-sighted capital never could (railroads, highways, industrialization of society, the internet, etc. All gov't projects. In service of capital, to be sure, but not produced by capital). The market is essentially unpredictable, that is: irrational. Which is the truth in Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand at work behind the scenes.
It's not a tool: Capitalism means, above all, the commodification of the human being qua laborer. You can't just apply this in certain cases when you think it's needed. Either your society is one in which human beings are commodities which sell themselves on the labor market, in which human beings themselves are tool-things, or you realize that human beings are not means, but ends in themselves. Whoever is capable of applying the tool of capitalism in one case or another is just the ruling class (who themselves become a tool, a tool of the very market they worship). The lesson of Marx, the reason why communism is called communism, is that it's an all or none situation. The illusion created by the wealthy west that one can have more or less insane, more or less humane capitalist societies is sustained through the forgetting of the inhumanity perpetuated on the so-called developing world, which makes those more humane capitalist societies possible. (For some this is obvious, since, like France, they remain 'former' colonial powers. In others it is less obvious, but remains true: I'm looking at you Scandinavia).
posted by dis_integration at 5:19 AM on December 9, 2013 [35 favorites]
The 10th Regiment of Foot makes an important point: in capitalism society is not just divided into classes, but also stratified into countless other groups. In the end, capitalist society is one in which every individual is set in opposition to every other individual. The libertarian dream is just the Hobbesian state of nature: the war of all against all.
(And thus ends my ranting for the day.)
posted by dis_integration at 5:38 AM on December 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
(And thus ends my ranting for the day.)
posted by dis_integration at 5:38 AM on December 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
That we've gotten to this point is astonishing to me because basically in winning its victory, in seeing that Wall come down and seeing the former Stalinist state's journey towards our way of thinking in terms of markets or being vulnerable, you would have thought that we would have learned what works.
Or maybe we did learn. A strong middle class was probably a great hedge against against a rival economic system that was preying on inequality and upending the status quo, but the world has changed since the end of the Cold War and now it's probably much more cost effective to give a bunch of Tea Partiers some crayons and have them cry 'Socialism' any time the bottom line is threatened.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:39 AM on December 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
Or maybe we did learn. A strong middle class was probably a great hedge against against a rival economic system that was preying on inequality and upending the status quo, but the world has changed since the end of the Cold War and now it's probably much more cost effective to give a bunch of Tea Partiers some crayons and have them cry 'Socialism' any time the bottom line is threatened.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:39 AM on December 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
it's interesting, for all his talk of Marx, to see Simon out himself as the classic American liberal. in particular because he illustrates one of the basic failures of liberalism as a political movement in the US: he is almost entirely focused on the past. Simon can't really conceive of rules for a society other than "the New Deal," and lives in this fantasy of the past where, the new deal, unions, and a social contract gave us all wealth.
which is just to say that politics in the US is divided between people like Simon, who are conservative (preserving the past) in outlook, trying to preserve the social and political institutions that grew out of the new deal (i.e. social security) and increasing ideological radicals i.e. Rand Paul, who see themselves as upending a stale social order in order to usher in a prosperous future.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:42 AM on December 9, 2013 [9 favorites]
which is just to say that politics in the US is divided between people like Simon, who are conservative (preserving the past) in outlook, trying to preserve the social and political institutions that grew out of the new deal (i.e. social security) and increasing ideological radicals i.e. Rand Paul, who see themselves as upending a stale social order in order to usher in a prosperous future.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:42 AM on December 9, 2013 [9 favorites]
I thought there was a weird tension in this speech, given that the black communities 20 blocks from him in east and west Baltimore were not historically boosted by a strong labor movement (the thing he points to as the causal agent in the allegedly more prosperous 1950's).
At some level, effective labor movements require exclusion. To keep wages up, some people have to be kept out of work. America's 20th century labor movement was built on implicit and explicit exclusion: blacks explicitly excluded, most women implicitly excluded (social norms being what they were) and some explicitly excluded, and - this is the important one - every other laborer on earth implicitly excluded.
In a capitalist society, work = money = power. I don't think its an accident that the feminist and civil rights movements coincided almost directly with the decline in organized labor.
More broadly, though, what's the exclusionary mechanism that this desired renewed labor movement will use to keep wages high? We have anti-discrimination laws now, women participate in the workforce at rates nearly equal to men, and technology has put every laborer in China and India in competition with those here.
Liberals really need to drop the cargo-cult unionism and start focusing on the actually existing system we have today, which is almost certainly not amenable to labor power in the short or medium terms.
posted by downing street memo at 5:49 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
At some level, effective labor movements require exclusion. To keep wages up, some people have to be kept out of work. America's 20th century labor movement was built on implicit and explicit exclusion: blacks explicitly excluded, most women implicitly excluded (social norms being what they were) and some explicitly excluded, and - this is the important one - every other laborer on earth implicitly excluded.
In a capitalist society, work = money = power. I don't think its an accident that the feminist and civil rights movements coincided almost directly with the decline in organized labor.
More broadly, though, what's the exclusionary mechanism that this desired renewed labor movement will use to keep wages high? We have anti-discrimination laws now, women participate in the workforce at rates nearly equal to men, and technology has put every laborer in China and India in competition with those here.
Liberals really need to drop the cargo-cult unionism and start focusing on the actually existing system we have today, which is almost certainly not amenable to labor power in the short or medium terms.
posted by downing street memo at 5:49 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Simon can't really conceive of rules for a society other than "the New Deal," and lives in this fantasy of the past where, the new deal, unions, and a social contract gave us all wealth.
I think there's two reasons for that.
1) The New Deal is (or was) a common touchstone in our history because there are lots of people (voters) who either directly benefited from it, or who continue to benefit from it's legacy.
2) While the Right has lots of room to get creative with privatization, the Red Scare has effectively capped any large-scale government programs the Left might have to that of the New Deal--on a clear day if they're lucky. (see the Affordable Care Act)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:59 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think there's two reasons for that.
1) The New Deal is (or was) a common touchstone in our history because there are lots of people (voters) who either directly benefited from it, or who continue to benefit from it's legacy.
2) While the Right has lots of room to get creative with privatization, the Red Scare has effectively capped any large-scale government programs the Left might have to that of the New Deal--on a clear day if they're lucky. (see the Affordable Care Act)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:59 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I thought there was a weird tension in this speech, given that the black communities 20 blocks from him in east and west Baltimore were not historically boosted by a strong labor movement (the thing he points to as the causal agent in the allegedly more prosperous 1950's).
this is kind of an important point. baltimore was abandoned not just because the capitalists stole the money that should have been invested in Sparrow's Point to modernize steel production and completely liquidated all ship building in the US, but as part of a political strategy used the civil rights movement to put a wedge between white male union workers and "liberals" within the Democratic party.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:00 AM on December 9, 2013
this is kind of an important point. baltimore was abandoned not just because the capitalists stole the money that should have been invested in Sparrow's Point to modernize steel production and completely liquidated all ship building in the US, but as part of a political strategy used the civil rights movement to put a wedge between white male union workers and "liberals" within the Democratic party.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:00 AM on December 9, 2013
I think this part needs repeating. In a capitalist society, work = money = power.
Although, equals to might be a bit strong since not everybody with a job has the same power as everybody else with a job.
When you hear about places in upheaval or political unease, one of the things that is always being brushed aside the fact that people want to work. Exclusion from the workforce, whether it be based on racial/social/gender demographics or even just simple scarcity, is always frustrating.
Besides, if you're not cooped up somewhere for 20-80 hours a week then you have a whole lot of extra time for rioting/looting/storming the castle.
posted by Blue_Villain at 6:00 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Although, equals to might be a bit strong since not everybody with a job has the same power as everybody else with a job.
When you hear about places in upheaval or political unease, one of the things that is always being brushed aside the fact that people want to work. Exclusion from the workforce, whether it be based on racial/social/gender demographics or even just simple scarcity, is always frustrating.
Besides, if you're not cooped up somewhere for 20-80 hours a week then you have a whole lot of extra time for rioting/looting/storming the castle.
posted by Blue_Villain at 6:00 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
While the Right has lots of room to get creative with privatization, the Red Scare has effectively capped any large-scale government programs the Left might have to that of the New Deal--on a clear day if they're lucky. (see the Affordable Care Act)
What red scare? All of the scary talk about "Socialism" coming from the right is really about pushing the buttons of "Third-Way-ists" within the Democratic party. The ACA is a product more of the ideological and political divisions within the Democratic party than opposition from the Republicans (they didn't vote for it at all....)
posted by ennui.bz at 6:05 AM on December 9, 2013
What red scare? All of the scary talk about "Socialism" coming from the right is really about pushing the buttons of "Third-Way-ists" within the Democratic party. The ACA is a product more of the ideological and political divisions within the Democratic party than opposition from the Republicans (they didn't vote for it at all....)
posted by ennui.bz at 6:05 AM on December 9, 2013
If capitalist idealism is not soon adjusted to include a social contract then Marx will not only be right about what can go wrong as a result, he will be right that the outcome is revolution.
posted by walrus at 6:11 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by walrus at 6:11 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think this part needs repeating. In a capitalist society, work = money = power.
Although, equals to might be a bit strong since not everybody with a job has the same power as everybody else with a job.
"Equals" is completely wrong.
The CEO of McDonalds makes $13.6 million a year, while his company advises its own employees to work a second, 40 hour a week job to get by.
posted by Foosnark at 6:15 AM on December 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
Although, equals to might be a bit strong since not everybody with a job has the same power as everybody else with a job.
"Equals" is completely wrong.
The CEO of McDonalds makes $13.6 million a year, while his company advises its own employees to work a second, 40 hour a week job to get by.
posted by Foosnark at 6:15 AM on December 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
At some level, effective labor movements require exclusion
This doesn't seem to be supported by the data though, even though the theory seems to make sense.
Trade union density in the OECD. Female participation in the labor force.
In the table below, the first figure is Trade union density (2012). Trade union density corresponds to the ratio of wage and salary earners that are trade union members, divided by the total number of wage and salary earners. The second is the female labor participation rate (% of female population ages 15+) (2011).
Union Women
Sweden 67.5 59.4
Norway 55 61.7
Ireland 31 52.6
UK 26 55.6
New Zealand 21 61.6
Japan 18 49.4
Australia 18 58.8
OECD countries 17 50.9
Chile 15 47.1
Mexico 14 44.3
United States 11 57.5
posted by MuffinMan at 6:15 AM on December 9, 2013 [12 favorites]
This doesn't seem to be supported by the data though, even though the theory seems to make sense.
Trade union density in the OECD. Female participation in the labor force.
In the table below, the first figure is Trade union density (2012). Trade union density corresponds to the ratio of wage and salary earners that are trade union members, divided by the total number of wage and salary earners. The second is the female labor participation rate (% of female population ages 15+) (2011).
Union Women
Sweden 67.5 59.4
Norway 55 61.7
Ireland 31 52.6
UK 26 55.6
New Zealand 21 61.6
Japan 18 49.4
Australia 18 58.8
OECD countries 17 50.9
Chile 15 47.1
Mexico 14 44.3
United States 11 57.5
posted by MuffinMan at 6:15 AM on December 9, 2013 [12 favorites]
There's a video of the full talk available.
posted by gladly at 6:17 AM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by gladly at 6:17 AM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Forgive me if I'm sounding too optimistic, but I am one who agrees with a lot of what he's saying, but I have a different understanding of what this means in the future.
If you look at what's going on in the market (government cronyism, corporate monopoly, and inequality in influence), this is something that's happened a number of times in America. It's often resulted in this collision of paradigms often represented by idealogical and geographical boundaries. We saw it when our agricultural economy was being replaced with an industrial one, but industry at that time was focused as a method of converting raw materials into practical necessities. Then with the monopolies and the influence of Marxism, we saw this industry slowly get exchanged for an industry that produced and marketed consumer based goods and amenities, resulting in the expanding of a larger, more affluent middle class. Then, towards the latter half of the 20th century we saw a shift to post-industrialism and the so-called white-collar working class while a push for globalism in the face of a crumbling USSR became the buzzword...
I think something like that is happening now. We're seeing a change in the economic focus and primary architecture to a newer system. What it is shifting to depends on a lot of things, but I think it is yet to really be clear. I don't believe that it is as nefarious as Mr. Simon suggests. I believe it's just like in the aforementioned circumstances that when these changes happen, a lot of people are clinging to what they have, in hopes that the paradigm shift won't leave them behind.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 6:19 AM on December 9, 2013
If you look at what's going on in the market (government cronyism, corporate monopoly, and inequality in influence), this is something that's happened a number of times in America. It's often resulted in this collision of paradigms often represented by idealogical and geographical boundaries. We saw it when our agricultural economy was being replaced with an industrial one, but industry at that time was focused as a method of converting raw materials into practical necessities. Then with the monopolies and the influence of Marxism, we saw this industry slowly get exchanged for an industry that produced and marketed consumer based goods and amenities, resulting in the expanding of a larger, more affluent middle class. Then, towards the latter half of the 20th century we saw a shift to post-industrialism and the so-called white-collar working class while a push for globalism in the face of a crumbling USSR became the buzzword...
I think something like that is happening now. We're seeing a change in the economic focus and primary architecture to a newer system. What it is shifting to depends on a lot of things, but I think it is yet to really be clear. I don't believe that it is as nefarious as Mr. Simon suggests. I believe it's just like in the aforementioned circumstances that when these changes happen, a lot of people are clinging to what they have, in hopes that the paradigm shift won't leave them behind.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 6:19 AM on December 9, 2013
Trade unionism and female labor participation (graphed by yours truly).
posted by MuffinMan at 6:25 AM on December 9, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by MuffinMan at 6:25 AM on December 9, 2013 [7 favorites]
downing street memo: To keep wages up, some people have to be kept out of work.
So, our only choice is the Hobbsian state of nature dis-integration is talking about above then. This seems like a simplistic outcome, given that we also believe that our current society is the pinnacle of human development.
posted by sneebler at 6:27 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
So, our only choice is the Hobbsian state of nature dis-integration is talking about above then. This seems like a simplistic outcome, given that we also believe that our current society is the pinnacle of human development.
posted by sneebler at 6:27 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
MuffinMan, there's lots of problems with drawing inferences from datasets like that, but one problem is that it's difficult to compare union movements between countries and cultures. Ours (assuming you're American) was indeed exclusionary in its heyday. Maybe others arent.
Also, "female participation" isn't the only and in some countries might not be a good measure of labor market exclusion at all.
posted by downing street memo at 6:29 AM on December 9, 2013
Also, "female participation" isn't the only and in some countries might not be a good measure of labor market exclusion at all.
posted by downing street memo at 6:29 AM on December 9, 2013
Sure, dms, but you wrote at some level, effective labor movements require exclusion, and that isn't true. The data show that it is entirely possible to have entirely inclusive workforces and effective labor movements. Indeed, it is more true in the Scandinavian model that effective labor movements require inclusion.
Now it may be that [some] American unions worked (or work) as closed shops, although this also feeds into a hard right narrative that unions are necessarily anti-competitive. But to jump from there to the idea that female and black emancipation act against effective labor movements (in effect by causing a glut of labor supply) ignores a whole bunch of contributory factors - deregulated labor markets, for example, that enable the redistribution of the wealth that is created away from the labor force to the 'wealth creators.'
In effect it creates a false dichotomy.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:51 AM on December 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
Now it may be that [some] American unions worked (or work) as closed shops, although this also feeds into a hard right narrative that unions are necessarily anti-competitive. But to jump from there to the idea that female and black emancipation act against effective labor movements (in effect by causing a glut of labor supply) ignores a whole bunch of contributory factors - deregulated labor markets, for example, that enable the redistribution of the wealth that is created away from the labor force to the 'wealth creators.'
In effect it creates a false dichotomy.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:51 AM on December 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
In a capitalist society, work = money = power. I don't think its an accident that the feminist and civil rights movements coincided almost directly with the decline in organized labor.
There's a far higher correlation with economic troubles and anti-union laws. The sharpest drops came in the late 40s (Taft-Hartley), the mid-70s (oil crisis and stagflation), and the early 80s (recession and resurgence of anti-union sentiment from Reagan et al).
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
There's a far higher correlation with economic troubles and anti-union laws. The sharpest drops came in the late 40s (Taft-Hartley), the mid-70s (oil crisis and stagflation), and the early 80s (recession and resurgence of anti-union sentiment from Reagan et al).
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
The irony to this piece is that no one gave a shit what Simon had to say when he existed in the "other" America. Maybe the problem is that the only people who opinions are of value in this society are those who have been deemed to be successful capitalists. I was at a party this weekend and was standing around a group of neighbors who were going on and on about another neighbor who owned dozens of McDonalds. I interrupted their fellatio session to ask them if they would be heaping the same kind of praise on him if he were a successful meth dealer. The conversation immediately broke up in a series of rolled eyes. There is a real disconnect in this country between success and how people achieve that success. It seems to me that there needs to be more attention paid to how someone's success benefits society. We need to bring back shame as a tool of societal homeostasis. People strive for great riches in this country because it will always be accompanied by great respect. This is America and everyone has the right to make their fortune but they don't have the right to be respected for it. If you really care about this concept then you'll have the gumption to walk up to a bunch of neighbors and risk alienation for something you believe in. You want my respect, become a success that actually brings people out of chains.
posted by any major dude at 7:02 AM on December 9, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by any major dude at 7:02 AM on December 9, 2013 [7 favorites]
I think this part needs repeating. In a capitalist society, work = money = power.
I'm, trying to imagine something less true than that, and I'm drawing a blank. If this were even remotely close to reality, the world would be unrecognizable.
posted by Naberius at 7:08 AM on December 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
I'm, trying to imagine something less true than that, and I'm drawing a blank. If this were even remotely close to reality, the world would be unrecognizable.
posted by Naberius at 7:08 AM on December 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
I used to like these types of pieces, but now that I've seen so many, it's obvious to me what's being overlooked in terms of inequality. Colloquially I'd call it 'regulatory capture'.
But it happens all the way up the chain. You can think of problematic campaign finance reform issues as the root cause, but it's not clear to me that even if there is an effective solution that applying it at the top would solve the rest.
Basically our existing mix of political structures have been out-maneuvered. And yes, the dynamics of capitalism make recouping them a hard problem.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:18 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
But it happens all the way up the chain. You can think of problematic campaign finance reform issues as the root cause, but it's not clear to me that even if there is an effective solution that applying it at the top would solve the rest.
Basically our existing mix of political structures have been out-maneuvered. And yes, the dynamics of capitalism make recouping them a hard problem.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:18 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Either your society is one in which human beings are commodities which sell themselves on the labor market, in which human beings themselves are tool-things, or you realize that human beings are not means, but ends in themselves.
Fucking YES. This is the point. To borrow a business buzzword, can you even imagine the synergy inherent in a society where no one worries about the first two steps on Maslow's hierarchy?
posted by Mooski at 8:01 AM on December 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
Fucking YES. This is the point. To borrow a business buzzword, can you even imagine the synergy inherent in a society where no one worries about the first two steps on Maslow's hierarchy?
posted by Mooski at 8:01 AM on December 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
Markets are great for shit you don't need. iPads, fancy cars, sodastream units, that kind of thing. Markets are shitty for things everybody needs : basic education and healthcare, water, electricity, roads, that kind of thing.
With a ratings-driven media and a money-driven political system, we've become accustomed to conceptualizing everything as a horse race. "What team are you on, the Red Team or the Blue Team? Who's winning today? How does this affect the stats?" Everything has to be all one way or all the other.
We've become unfamiliar with the very idea of a compromise. Like it's something that makes you weak, instead of being the one thing that's allowed humans to live together in peace, as long as there has been a human race.
posted by evil otto at 8:33 AM on December 9, 2013 [11 favorites]
With a ratings-driven media and a money-driven political system, we've become accustomed to conceptualizing everything as a horse race. "What team are you on, the Red Team or the Blue Team? Who's winning today? How does this affect the stats?" Everything has to be all one way or all the other.
We've become unfamiliar with the very idea of a compromise. Like it's something that makes you weak, instead of being the one thing that's allowed humans to live together in peace, as long as there has been a human race.
posted by evil otto at 8:33 AM on December 9, 2013 [11 favorites]
The libertarian dream is just the Hobbesian state of nature: the war of all against all.
Exactly. Which is why I can't take modern libertarianism seriously -- since at least 1651, political philosophers have argued for alternatives -- even an absolute monarchy -- superior to that horrid state of nature. Libertarians seem not only willfully ignorant of history since the 19th century, but also the two centuries before that.
The road to serfdom is paved with copies of The Road to Serfdom.
posted by Gelatin at 8:44 AM on December 9, 2013 [39 favorites]
Exactly. Which is why I can't take modern libertarianism seriously -- since at least 1651, political philosophers have argued for alternatives -- even an absolute monarchy -- superior to that horrid state of nature. Libertarians seem not only willfully ignorant of history since the 19th century, but also the two centuries before that.
The road to serfdom is paved with copies of The Road to Serfdom.
posted by Gelatin at 8:44 AM on December 9, 2013 [39 favorites]
Simon does miss one of Marx's central points from Capital (and the key to his critique of Smith)- that you cannot hold capitalism in tension with some other more collectively-oriented structure. It will always seek to overcome older historical forms, and it contains too much contradiction within itself to successfully be reformed.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:56 AM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:56 AM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I was at a party this weekend and was standing around a group of neighbors who were going on and on about another neighbor who owned dozens of McDonalds. I interrupted their fellatio session to ask them if they would be heaping the same kind of praise on him if he were a successful meth dealer. The conversation immediately broke up in a series of rolled eyes.
I cannot imagine why that might be.
posted by atrazine at 9:10 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I cannot imagine why that might be.
posted by atrazine at 9:10 AM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
the Red Scare has effectively capped any large-scale government programs the Left might have to that of the New Deal--on a clear day if they're lucky. (see the Affordable Care Act)
This ignores the entire Great Society program, which included:
Food Stamp Act (1964)
National Defense Education Act (1964)
Economic Opportunity Act (1965)
Higher Education Act (1965)
Housing and Urban Development Act (1965)
Medicare (1965)
Medicaid (1965)
Child Nutrition Act (1966)
Bilingual Education Act (1968)
Fair Housing Act (1968)
I cannot imagine why that might be.
Because tedious as McDonald's might be, and over-paid as its CEO is, the operation of a chain restaurant ain't the quite same thing as a meth house.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:14 AM on December 9, 2013
This ignores the entire Great Society program, which included:
Food Stamp Act (1964)
National Defense Education Act (1964)
Economic Opportunity Act (1965)
Higher Education Act (1965)
Housing and Urban Development Act (1965)
Medicare (1965)
Medicaid (1965)
Child Nutrition Act (1966)
Bilingual Education Act (1968)
Fair Housing Act (1968)
I cannot imagine why that might be.
Because tedious as McDonald's might be, and over-paid as its CEO is, the operation of a chain restaurant ain't the quite same thing as a meth house.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:14 AM on December 9, 2013
Blue_Villain: "I think this part needs repeating. In a capitalist society, work = money = power. "
So, you're saying that silver-spoon kids graduating with BAs & MBAs from Ivy Leagues, who have literally never worked a day in their lives, are far less rich and powerful than single moms holding down multiple jobs?
Fascinating. Tell me more about your planet.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:16 AM on December 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
So, you're saying that silver-spoon kids graduating with BAs & MBAs from Ivy Leagues, who have literally never worked a day in their lives, are far less rich and powerful than single moms holding down multiple jobs?
Fascinating. Tell me more about your planet.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:16 AM on December 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
From this moment forward unless we reverse course, the average human being is worth less on planet Earth.
As long as we recognize that the underemployed workers in America (and other developed countries) we are wringing our hands about have much much more of an economic and environmental footprint than the "Third World" population explosion we are so worried about.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:17 AM on December 9, 2013
As long as we recognize that the underemployed workers in America (and other developed countries) we are wringing our hands about have much much more of an economic and environmental footprint than the "Third World" population explosion we are so worried about.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:17 AM on December 9, 2013
If you look at what's going on in the market (government cronyism, corporate monopoly, and inequality in influence), this is something that's happened a number of times in America.
This is something that Adam Curtis touches upon in his latest - typically discursive - BBC blog
posted by Grangousier at 9:19 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is something that Adam Curtis touches upon in his latest - typically discursive - BBC blog
posted by Grangousier at 9:19 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I was at a party this weekend and was standing around a group of neighbors who were going on and on about another neighbor who owned dozens of McDonalds. I interrupted their fellatio session to ask them if they would be heaping the same kind of praise on him if he were a successful meth dealer.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
posted by Floydd at 9:22 AM on December 9, 2013
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
posted by Floydd at 9:22 AM on December 9, 2013
This ignores the entire Great Society program
I'd be willing to be RonButNotStupid is talking about the Great Society as an offshoot of the New Deal. At the very least, his argument is clearly referring to the current state of affairs, not those of 40 years ago.
Because tedious as McDonald's might be, and over-paid as its CEO is, the operation of a chain restaurant ain't the quite same thing as a meth house.
The drug trade operating in essentially the same fashion as multinational corporations and franchises predates Breaking Bad by several decades. And much like the War on Drugs, the right's focus has been almost entirely on punishing the customer, usually for a situation that they created and actively encourage.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:36 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'd be willing to be RonButNotStupid is talking about the Great Society as an offshoot of the New Deal. At the very least, his argument is clearly referring to the current state of affairs, not those of 40 years ago.
Because tedious as McDonald's might be, and over-paid as its CEO is, the operation of a chain restaurant ain't the quite same thing as a meth house.
The drug trade operating in essentially the same fashion as multinational corporations and franchises predates Breaking Bad by several decades. And much like the War on Drugs, the right's focus has been almost entirely on punishing the customer, usually for a situation that they created and actively encourage.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:36 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Gelatin: “The road to serfdom is paved with copies of The Road to Serfdom.”I have long thought that the real problem is that so many among that crowd are convinced that they will be among the winners.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:42 AM on December 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
I interrupted their fellatio session to ask them if they would be heaping the same kind of praise on him if he were a successful meth dealer.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Hey, kid, I got something that'll really make you fly... it's called the McRib sandwich!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:55 AM on December 9, 2013
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Hey, kid, I got something that'll really make you fly... it's called the McRib sandwich!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:55 AM on December 9, 2013
The road to serfdom is paved with copies of The Road to Serfdom.
Except that The Road to Serfdom advocates for a guaranteed minimum income and government provision of a market basket of social insurances.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:07 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Except that The Road to Serfdom advocates for a guaranteed minimum income and government provision of a market basket of social insurances.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:07 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly. Which is why I can't take modern libertarianism seriously -- since at least 1651, political philosophers have argued for alternatives -- even an absolute monarchy -- superior to that horrid state of nature. Libertarians seem not only willfully ignorant of history since the 19th century, but also the two centuries before that.
Most of them would say that they're Lockeans, and their rhetoric draws more on notion a meritocracy built on the tabula rasa idea. The problem isn't that libertarianism demands cutthroat competition, it's that they don't believe in things like structural or environmental impacts, ignore the reality of disability or disadvantage, and generally try to pretend that "history" and "society" are unreal, imaginary constructs and that labor and life naturally take place in a blank, featureless present ruled by "market forces."
posted by kewb at 11:00 AM on December 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
Most of them would say that they're Lockeans, and their rhetoric draws more on notion a meritocracy built on the tabula rasa idea. The problem isn't that libertarianism demands cutthroat competition, it's that they don't believe in things like structural or environmental impacts, ignore the reality of disability or disadvantage, and generally try to pretend that "history" and "society" are unreal, imaginary constructs and that labor and life naturally take place in a blank, featureless present ruled by "market forces."
posted by kewb at 11:00 AM on December 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
I cannot imagine why that might be.
that was my objective. If you don't have it in you to be a prick to people deifying those who are ruining our society you don't have any right to complain. Either get you close dirty or shut the fuck up. I'm sick of listening to whiny liberals. You want to beat the 1 percent's stranglehold on middle-class capitalist ideology you need to be willing to call them on their hypocrisy anywhere anytime.
posted by any major dude at 11:07 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
that was my objective. If you don't have it in you to be a prick to people deifying those who are ruining our society you don't have any right to complain. Either get you close dirty or shut the fuck up. I'm sick of listening to whiny liberals. You want to beat the 1 percent's stranglehold on middle-class capitalist ideology you need to be willing to call them on their hypocrisy anywhere anytime.
posted by any major dude at 11:07 AM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Libertarians are anarchists who wish to be protected from their slaves.
"Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" == "fun to party with, but is a dick to poor people".
I still blame Slashdot for portraying Libertarianism as cool and trendy to the tech crowd back in the 90s. I mean, you take a bunch of young engineers, many of whom didn't pay much attention in history class, tell them they have no obligation to the rest of society, that writing code makes them some kind of Randian ubermensch, and then BAM!, now you've got these engineers espousing an ethos that can't even stand up to a google search on "the gilded age". I'm not saying engineers are the problem here, only that it's my industry, and I still hear echoes of this "I don't owe nothing to nobody" bullshit, and it pisses me off. Fortunately, I feel like the Occupy movement and the Great Recession have made Libertarianism slightly less trendy, even if you still get a lot of engineering types who act like they live in a bubble.
posted by evil otto at 11:37 AM on December 9, 2013 [15 favorites]
"Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" == "fun to party with, but is a dick to poor people".
I still blame Slashdot for portraying Libertarianism as cool and trendy to the tech crowd back in the 90s. I mean, you take a bunch of young engineers, many of whom didn't pay much attention in history class, tell them they have no obligation to the rest of society, that writing code makes them some kind of Randian ubermensch, and then BAM!, now you've got these engineers espousing an ethos that can't even stand up to a google search on "the gilded age". I'm not saying engineers are the problem here, only that it's my industry, and I still hear echoes of this "I don't owe nothing to nobody" bullshit, and it pisses me off. Fortunately, I feel like the Occupy movement and the Great Recession have made Libertarianism slightly less trendy, even if you still get a lot of engineering types who act like they live in a bubble.
posted by evil otto at 11:37 AM on December 9, 2013 [15 favorites]
"Nasty, brutish and short."
"But hip, man"
"But hip."
posted by carping demon at 12:28 PM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
"But hip, man"
"But hip."
posted by carping demon at 12:28 PM on December 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'd be willing to be RonButNotStupid is talking about the Great Society as an offshoot of the New Deal. At the very least, his argument is clearly referring to the current state of affairs, not those of 40 years ago.
I was considering it as an offshoot, but seeing as how much of modern conservatism started as a reaction to the Great Society and how much those programs have been eroded, I think my argument still holds.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:36 PM on December 9, 2013
I was considering it as an offshoot, but seeing as how much of modern conservatism started as a reaction to the Great Society and how much those programs have been eroded, I think my argument still holds.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:36 PM on December 9, 2013
In a capitalist society, work = money = power.work = company scrip = basic sustenance + debt
posted by Flunkie at 2:52 PM on December 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Sometime in the last few years, the anarcho-capitalists calling themselves libertarians dominated the mainstream, so now all anyone hears when the word "libertarian" is used is "anarcho-capitalism" in a dogwhistle.
Which is somewhat unfortunate, but hey, there was a time when a Republican President founded the EPA, too. I stopped calling myself Republican circa "with us or against us" and now I'm gonna have to stop calling myself libertarian as well, even though I believe in strong regulation in areas where market capitalism fails (utilities, health care, education, scientific research). I believe in the utility of Keynesian economics, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking but consider 15, 20, 30% and higher credit card rates to be usury.
I also believe that the government, and companies, had better get a warrant if they want to know one fragment of data about me more than it takes for them to provide a specific service to me, the blanket decriminalization of drugs (total legalization for cannabis), and an end to American military adventurism. Is there a name for folks like me anymore?
Social democratic libertarianism, perhaps?
posted by chimaera at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Which is somewhat unfortunate, but hey, there was a time when a Republican President founded the EPA, too. I stopped calling myself Republican circa "with us or against us" and now I'm gonna have to stop calling myself libertarian as well, even though I believe in strong regulation in areas where market capitalism fails (utilities, health care, education, scientific research). I believe in the utility of Keynesian economics, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking but consider 15, 20, 30% and higher credit card rates to be usury.
I also believe that the government, and companies, had better get a warrant if they want to know one fragment of data about me more than it takes for them to provide a specific service to me, the blanket decriminalization of drugs (total legalization for cannabis), and an end to American military adventurism. Is there a name for folks like me anymore?
Social democratic libertarianism, perhaps?
posted by chimaera at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
In a capitalist society, work = money = power
People are taking shots at this but if you assume the "work" part of the equation includes ownership or control of the work being performed (be it plantation, factory, office or whatever) it absolutely rings true. The further down the hierarchy of work you are, the less money and power you have. It has nothing to do with how hard you actually work.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:22 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
People are taking shots at this but if you assume the "work" part of the equation includes ownership or control of the work being performed (be it plantation, factory, office or whatever) it absolutely rings true. The further down the hierarchy of work you are, the less money and power you have. It has nothing to do with how hard you actually work.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:22 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
People are taking shots at this but if you assume the "work" part of the equation includes ownership or control of the work being performed (be it plantation, factory, office or whatever) it absolutely rings true. The further down the hierarchy of work you are, the less money and power you have. It has nothing to do with how hard you actually work.
Pretty sure people are taking shots at this because a very small percentage of people in this country with money and power actually worked for it.
posted by any major dude at 7:39 PM on December 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I believe in strong regulation in utilities, health care, education, scientific research...consider 15, 20, 30% and higher credit card rates to be usury...believe that the government, and companies, had better get a warrant if they want to know one fragment of data about me...the blanket decriminalization of drugs...an end to American military adventurism...
Is there a name for folks like me anymore?
Not sure about all of your talk about being a republican/libertarian. I would call you What a Democrat Should Be.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:43 AM on December 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is there a name for folks like me anymore?
Not sure about all of your talk about being a republican/libertarian. I would call you What a Democrat Should Be.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:43 AM on December 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Michelle Alexander: Locked Out of the American Dream
posted by homunculus at 4:28 PM on December 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 4:28 PM on December 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Boards of Italia | I can't believe it! Nintendo!!! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by the quidnunc kid at 4:07 AM on December 9, 2013