Wealth Gap and Revolution

Lately I've been dwelling on the social strains caused by the wealth gap in the US. Everyone should know the difference between "income gap" and "wealth gap;" income being the annual revenues and wealth being the accumulated revenues or savings. The wealth gap is actually more pronounced than the income gap, but both have been growing for several decades. A recent statistic on wealth gap:

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth.

The word hoarding comes to mind as does a famous quote:

There is, inherent in the capitalist system, a tendency to self-destruct. - Schumpeter, 1942.

We see it happening before our very eyes playing out in the Washington budget debate. The notion, that giving the wealthy class, or owner class, tax cuts to spur growth is a widely held belief in our society. But this simplistic rule only makes sense when money is tight and production capacity at factories is tight and in need of investment to expand, neither of which hold today; we don't need any more production capacity and even if the owner class were to produce more, the commoners don't have the money to buy the stuff.

What we face is a market that is saturated with production capacity, but no money among we the little people, because the money is being hoarded and used for non-productive speculation. Buying commodities, like grains, industrial metals, oil & gas, have become disconnected from the real economy and turned into a gambling playground for the wealthy (not just Americans).

The tendency is for this kind of hoarding to create social instability (dare I say "revolution"?).
People are catching on to this, and the big questions are 1) will we get to the point where enough people become so destitute that they don't have anything, and thus don't have anything to loose if they rise up? 2) will the honest, wise wealthy people change policies before this happens, if only to save themselves?

Stay Tuned.

Sources:

Show Me the Money, Zine, Autumn, 2001, Tony Honeycut.

Who Rules in the World?

Reading the intro to Robert McChesney's "Communications Revolution"* today I was reminded of the following quote. It's from "The Revolt of the Masses" by Ortega y Gasset*, chapter 14 entitled, "Who Rules in the World?":

"It is necessary to distinguish between a process of aggression and a state of rule. Rule is the normal exercise of authority, and is always based on public opinion, today as a thousand years ago, amongst the English as amongst the bushmen. Never has anyone ruled on this earth by basing his rule essentially on any other thing than public opinion."

Not sure I buy much else written by Ortega y Gasset, but this resonated.

McChesney observes that the communications system is going through a transition that we can influence. In simple terms, the outcome of that transition will a media system that either "emphasizes democratic values" or "corporate profits." The default will be greater corporate domination, or "rule," over every facet of our lives and the future of our republic.

McChesney calls on us to seize "an unprecedented opportunity in the coming generation..."

... to create a communication system that will be a powerful imptus to a dramatically more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative society, where justice and self-government are the order of the day.

He warns that

This window of opportunity -- what I call "a critical juncture" -- will not be open for long. We will be opposed by very powerful entrenched corporate and political interests. We will need all hands on deck to win the fight.

If we fail, the outcome of "who rules in the world" is predictable.

Sources:

Communications Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media, Robert M. McChesney, the New Press, (2007).

The Revolutionary Mood

Don't ya get the feeling we're heading toward a revolution? Everything is broken and everything is connected, so the only real fixes involve fixing everything.

Only half-measures are being taken at best, and we're so deep in the hole that full-measures might actually push us over the brink.

The nation is divided and the extreme right is.... giving me the willies... how 'bout you?

Then there are the other Americans, believing the evening news and, blaming themselves for making bad financial choices as if that explains the economic predicament.

Meanwhile, those in the establishment are enriching themselves, and gathering behind the humongous security network, in preparation for the coming debacle.

What did I forget? Oh yea. The match.

Source:

These thoughts paraphrase the thoughts of Czarist Prince Peter Kropotkin's "Spirit of Revolt" 1880.

Posted originally on Challenge the Establishment Blog

Inspired by GLH Blog Post "Voting in New York Sucks."

Talk'n 'bout Revolution

"Talk'n 'bout Revolution," Tony Karon is.

Most people haven't a clue 'bout the pent up frustration in the world. Most people in the US that is, 'cuz most people are in the group that's frustrated. People are frustrated by an economic system that's been sold as "democracy" and as "the natural order" when it's not.

In the world of corporate capitalism, "democracy" means "one dollar, one vote." In a world where corporate capitalism is divine, the machinery of nations become tools for advancing corporate power and the consolidation of wealth. Free Trade rules are structured to favor transnational corporations, and the small elite group, who clearly stand out in a lesser developed country, like Haiti.

While it's great that Tony Karon, and TIME, have written about boiling frustrations, it's clear that the corporate brainwashing has affected the presentation. Take for instance the following statement by Karon:

Ironically, it may be the very success of capitalism in transforming regions previously restrained by various forms of socialism that has helped create the new crisis.

Maybe Karon is merely waxing philosophical, but examine those words. Corporate capitalism simply cannot be wrong. Karon credits capitalism with removing the "restraints" of socialism.... and leading to this unraveling mess. The mess, "credited" to capitalism, has recently had to be "restrained" to avoid a chain reaction leading to utter economic chaos (the "restraint" came in the form of a US tax-payer backed consolidation of Bear Stearns into JPMorgan Chase.)

We're facing an extreme case of what happens when trickle-down economics is.... er, run into the ground. All the money goes to one side of the hour glass, and it needs to be tipped over so the sand can run the other way. Food riots are one pathetic means of redistributing the sand. It's "pathetic" in the sense that, as a society, humans are still so primative as to allow food riots to occur. They "believe" in corporate capitalism, in part because the mass media message is controlled by corporate capitalism. Only saying the obvious, again.

I could go on, but I won't other than to say that Karon's piece is worth a read.

Sources:

TIME,
How Hunger Could Topple Regimes, April 14, 2008.

Photo Credit: Mattress