The Tea Party as should be known by now is funded heavily by Koch Industries, it doesn’t surprise me, nor should it surprise anyone that the Tea Party is corporate funded, it shouldn’t surprise anyone because everything they fight for happens to be in the corporate interests and against the interest of the working class and middle class and the general welfare, whenever you have a group that consistently fights for things that happen to be the same things corporations want, follow the money.

Here’s what did surprise me somewhat, William F. Buckley, yes William F. Buckley, the laissez-faire capitalism, anti-communist conservative centerpiece for decades called the Koch brothers ideology Anarcho-Totalitarianism, these guys, who fund a movement that now has a caucus in congress, were too radical even for William Buckley. But also interesting is what he called them, Anarcho-Totalitarianism, because that’s probably the best way to describe the sort of society the ultra right want. Anarcho part refers to their hatred of any government (except war and getting in the bedroom of coarse), but really Anarchism isn’t the right word for it, because traditionally Anarchism is an opposition to all forms of authority, be it private or public, government or corporate, what they REALLY are opposed to is democracy, so we’ll leave anarcho in there because they claim to be anti government. The totalitarian part of it has to do with what their dream will ultimately be, a corporate tyranny, William Buckley understood, despite his ideology, the nature of power, be it governmental or corporate, people WITH power want more power. The corporation is structured exactly like a totalitarian government, elections reduced to rubber stamping executive choices, workers having almost no say over what they do or what the company does, a huge chain of command, and so on and so forth, so what happens when you allow theses private tyrannies to control more, they WILL control more, in fact they are required too, their mandate is maximum profits, they will exploit workers more and more, they will collapse the economy, they WILL buy the government or become the government.

The tea party is the extreme right, they are not for freedom, they are not for liberty, any more than someone wanting to take constitutional restraints on a monarchs power in a constitutional monarchy is for “liberty,” the libertarian ideology, is based on the concept that democracy is bad and that the market is infallible, because of that libertarians take all the failures of capitalism and try and blame it on personality flaws, which is why they try and call poor people lazy, the unemployed and irresponsible, what they don’t understand is that 1% control more wealth than the bottom 90%, that’s hardly a free market, its free for the 1% yeah, but the 90% have to just fight for what they can get from the 1%, its a tyranny, made up of private tyrannies (corporations), if you think capitalism is free, as a Bangladeshi, Central American or Chinese sweat shop worker, whose place of living is chosen by the employer, who works 12 hours a day to survive, ask them if capitalism is free, if corporations (who they cannot vote for) are better than governments (who they can vote for).

The point is Libertarianism, and the Tea Party ideology needs to be called out for what it is, Corporatism, anarcho-totalitarianism, and private tyranny, its not freedom, its not liberty, at least not for 90% of the population.

I hate to do it, I hate to comment on Glenn Beck, but this is a common argument against unemployment benefits, by people who absolutely don’t understand the way the market works. I’m responding to This this. It’s a common argument from what I’d like to call the ignorant douchebag right. I’d like to point out the irrelevant but kind of telling point that to him, a normal looking person, is a blonde, I don’t know why it just cracks me up. Also his idea that somehow socialists are not normal people goes against polls, during the election, polls pointed out that 1/5th of Americans and 1/3rd* of young Americans prefer socialism, now keep in mind that they didn’t explain actual socialist ideals in the polls, so what people had in mind is the socialism that the mainstream media portrays, which is a very negative image. When it comes to actual socialist ideals (which are almost the same as ideals of democracy), I’d venture to say that the numbers would be higher. But I guess in Glenn Becks world, your being a “Normal American” is political, i.e. you have to support the corporatist market (there’s not such thing as a free market).

But to the meat of it, why are people unemployed, because they don’t want to work? Considering that there are 5 applicants for every job, I don’t think that’s the problem. How about Jobs not hiring overqualified people, or even not hiring unemployed people, specifically, how about the fact that companies simply don’t want to hire, they’d rather work their employees harder and make more money. Here’s what Glenn and the ignorant-douche-bag right doesn’t understand, there is no free market, the market, is controlled by the richest people in the country, those are ultimately the people that decide if people get jobs or not, it’s not the unemployed.

This is Glenn becks solution to the unemployed, essentially (I’m paraphrasing) “shut up and deal with it, take what ever crumbs you can get if that, and don’t you dare do anything that might hurt corporate power.” That’s why it all goes to unions, what do unions do that Glenn Beck hates, I’d actually think he would like unions, since they work in the free market, they are workers using their collective labor power to get a better deal, I thought Glenn Beck would like that? After all isn’t it all about self-interest? Isn’t it all about what you can get for what you have? That’s the market? No Glenn Beck isn’t interested in THAT free market, Glenn Beck hate unions because they are a way for the poor to shift power from the rich, Unions are a way in which poor working class people can try and level the playing field, and have somewhat of a say over their economic lives, they are a way in which THEY can have a slight leg up so they are not totally subservient to the rich business class in America. Glenn Beck isn’t interested in any type of Market, if he was he would probably like unions, he’s interested in the power of the business class, nothing else. Glenn Beck wants the poor to take what’s dealt to them by the rich and shut up, deal with it them self, and just deal with the huge power imbalance, he doesn’t want them to act in their self interest, he doesn’t want them to organize, he doesn’t want them to try and shift policy in their favor.

Now he said something interesting, “here’s an idea … Merit.” Yeah, so what about the top bankers that destroyed the economy and made off with millions was that due to there “Merit”? What about the top CEO pay and bonuses going up and up while wages stagnate, was that due to “merit”? What about when a CEO makes a terrible business choice, keeps his job, and pay and just lays off some worker, was that due to his “merit?” NO, it has nothing to do with Merit, Capitalism does not reward merit, the corporatist market doesn’t reward merit, and it rewards economic power, nothing else. I agree though, we need an economy based on merit, so lets democratize the economy, so that if a CEO messes up, he won’t get away with it, lets strengthen the unions, so that workers can work less and more can work.

The ignorant-douche-bag right (that’s not all of them btw) don’t understand how capitalism works, but they understand one thing, the poor should get nothing, the poor should take it, the poor should shut their mouths and take what’s dealt to them, and the rich, should get their way. I think Glenn Beck needs to take an economics class.

In my opinion the solution isn’t more benefits (although I think those are needed), the solution is, democratize the economy, when you have everyone having a say on who has a job or not, and not just the rich, I’m pretty sure things would be different.

Also for the unemployed, theres nothing better you can do, than while looking for work, join a group, organize, don’t just take it laying down, fight for your interests, its NOT ok that the poorest in America suffer for the systemic failures that benefit the rich, that needs to change, and its going to happen when the poor make themselves heard and start attacking the powers that be.

*Poll 1
Poll 2
Poll 3

As we read in the NY times workers are having it tough. But as we can see in a case study by the AFL-CIO, executives are doing pretty well, and as the article points out, many companies that are actually growing, making profits, are cutting pay and/or laying people off to make a bigger profit. Now I’m not going to take these facts and start preaching about evil corporations or how bad these CEOs are, because it has nothing to do with morality it has to do with function and role. As a CEO of a company it is your job to maximize profits, your job is to have higher returns this quarter than last quarter, if you can’t do that, you failed as an executive. It’s also in the executives’ interest to take as much money out of a company as they possibly can, why wouldn’t they? Its business.

Part of that means class warfare, i.e. how to get the most out of workers while giving the least back, and making the conditions easier to do that. A CEO’s job is not to be reasonable, its not to compensate for actual value, its not to figure out what people have actually earned, its to maximize profits and get as much as they can out of the workers and the company. So this news shouldn’t shock us, this is the way Capitalism works. That being said, workers, and those who support workers interests need to stop playing by the business class rules. The business class is expected to work in their self-interest, they are expected to take as much as they can, its acceptable for them to wage class warfare against workers, but whenever workers want to fight back you always hear “Oh be reasonable” or “Don’t you get enough benefits and pay?” or “be happy with what you have,” why the double standard? Business is Business.

Unions that follow the Obama doctrine of ask nicely, and unilaterally disarm are going to keep loosing. If you put down your sword and say “let’s talk” the other side will kick you down, put his sword to your throat, and then say “ok, let’s talk.” Which way do you think the conversation is going to go? Unions need to stop allowing lay offs, pay cuts, unpaid leaves, and loss of benefits or pensions to be an option, right now they are the first option. The way unions can stop hurting the workers from being an option is by becoming militant, strike first, and then negotiate. Unions need to start to pay attention to the Haywood doctrine (i.e. Bill Haywood the Union organizer in the early 1900s) (rather than the Obama doctrine) which I would say is “The aims and objects of this organization shall be to put the working-class in possession of the economic power,” the objective should be economic power, not making things the best way for management, labor should negotiate from a position of power, not weakness.

CEOs should not have the option of squeezing more profit and more executive compensation out of the workers. If the executive wants more compensation, without the companies actual turnaround being higher, the profit is going to have to go down. If he wants the profit to go up without a higher turnaround he’s going to have to take a pay cut or less of Bonus. If he wants both, well then he better do his job and make a higher turnaround in the company, and if that happens the workers should demand a part of that money as well.

The right wing loves to accuse the left of inciting class warfare, but the fact is, whether or not the workers engage in class warfare its happening no matter what, management and the business class is waging class warfare, and in the words of Warren Buffet, in a moment of honesty “There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” So Unions and workers need to stop taking it laying down, they need to stop accepting the notion that they are the only ones that need to suffer when things go down, and they are never the ones to profit when things go up, they need to start fighting back, and seriously fighting back. In American history, or for that matter world history, working people only improved their stake when they fought for it and took it, it was never given to them by the business leaders, all the gains working people have had, the right to organize, the 8 hour workday, weekends, anything has been things that were fought for, and things that the business class gave up because they were afraid of a revolution. Its time for workers to fight back and take what is theirs rather than just asking nicely.

Anymore than Roman Cesar made roads, or Pope Julius II painted the Sistine Chapel. The right wing talking points defending the Bush Tax cuts center around not taxing the job creators, meaning the rich, which got me thinking, without filthy rich people, without a huge class divide, would everyone be unemployed? What about countries with a higher tax rate on the wealthy, like Norway, which has much higher taxes for the wealthy, yet only 3.3% unemployment?

The fact is the wealthy do not create jobs, they just control them. What I mean by that is that in a capitalist system demand is measured in wealth (rather than human needs which I think would be a better system), which means the more wealth you have, the more your demands matter, the more production is going to fit your demands. This is why the government needs to subsidies housing for the poor, but not the rich, because in the supply and demand market, the poor’s demand” for a place to live doesn’t matter, because they don’t have the money, the market won’t meet their needs, whereas the demands for an extra beach house in Malibu for the rich will always be met by the Markets. In any society there is going to be work that needs to be done, the question is for whose benefit. When you have a huge class divide, where the vast majority of the economy is controlled by a small class of rich people, then what you have is a small amount of rich people deciding what work is going to get done and who gets to have a job, and all of that is based on what it can do for their pocket books. Are the wealthy not giving people jobs because they don’t have enough money? Considering the rich are richer than ever in history I don’t think any one can make that argument. They aren’t giving people jobs because they can make more money by not giving people jobs, giving them more money is not going to change that, all its going to do is empower them and take away from other options that might give people jobs.

How would not giving people jobs make the rich more money? First of all, many consider it more profitable to invest money in derivatives, and other capital market schemes that don’t add to production at all, don’t give people jobs at all and are really just making money from risk. Second of all high unemployment helps the rich, if your company is growing, and you have 5 guys hired, before you hire a 6th guy your going to work the 5 guys as much as you can, you’ll make the 5 guys work harder before your going to hire the 6th guy, why? Because you can, they aren’t going to complain because there’s a 6th guy willing to take your job. 10% unemployment is a dream for the business class, because with 10% unemployment the threat of loosing your job will take away any bargaining power from employees, meaning employers can drive up productivity while keeping wages stagnant.

There are many things you can do to make jobs, one thing, what I wrote about before in another post, put workers representatives in the board room, I explained in the past post how that would make jobs. Another thing, a 4 day week, a 6 hour workday, without loss of pay, that way the rich will have to hire more people, productivity won’t keep going up in comparison to wages, just creating more and more wealth for the rich without seeing any of the extra wealth. Or you can give that money to the poor through tax refunds, unemployment benefits, supporting unions, social security, because the poor are going to spend that money, thus driving up production, they aren’t going to use that money in crazy dividend markets or just keep it, chances are they are going to move the market more toward their demands rather than just the demands of the rich.

Another thing you can do is build a strong public sector. The right wing always point to public sector jobs as not counting, why? If it’s productive and aids in the wellbeing of the country it counts, in my opinion more public hospitals more teachers, count much much more than more stock brokers. I say socialize the big industries, socialize the banks, and run them for the benefit of the nation rather than the benefit of the rich. Instead of having the big industries continue to outsource, socialize them, keep the jobs in America, and put it under democratic control rather than control by the rich. Have the banks lend out to small businesses, rather than make crazy bets for themselves while freezing credit.

The problem in America is that the rich control the economy, giving them more control isn’t going to magically make them worry about the unemployed, it’s not going to make employing more profitable for them, and the solution is to take that control away from them and give it to the people.

Top Economist Alan Blinder wrote this article last week supporting letting the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

The Basic idea behind it is that an unemployed person or a lower income person will spend any extra money he gets right away (he doesn’t have a choice) and thus stimulate the economy, whereas a rich person will save it and thus not stimulate the economy.

One thing that’s left out in almost all discussions is class. Most of the rich people that received the Bush tax cuts will make most of their money through investments and controlling businesses for a profit, most of the poor make their money on their labor. Any sound businessman knows the way you make a profit is to spend the least amount of money while profiting the most, any of the money you give to businessmen will be used to make them more money. That money won’t trickle down, hiring won’t increase simply because those doing the hiring have more money, hiring will only increase if those doing the hiring must hire more in order to make more profit, which will only happen when demand increases.

In fact even if demand increases and unemployment is high, chances are what will happen first is that workers with jobs will have to work harder before they hire, and because of job insecurity, workers won’t really have choice but to comply. The money will only trickle down when the rich have made as much profit possible before it trickles down, and generally that ceiling is never reached, especially since investing in financial schemes is generally more profitable than investing in productive industries, the derivatives market doesn’t trickle down (if anything it will end up costing the poor more when those markets blow up and the government has to bail them out).

Obviously letting the tax cuts expire is the right thing to do, obviously unemployment benefits must continue. But things need to be done to change the way business is done in the United States, as long as industry is run completely by and for the rich and the business class, unemployment will stay high, wages will stay low, and any economic growth will shoot straight to the top (why wouldn’t it, they control where it goes). One way to change this is Co-Determination (In Germany where the practice started it’s called Mitbestimmungsgesetz), which is a policy of companies being required to include representatives of the workers in the board of directors. With worker participation in companies the interests change, when more demand is needed, chances are the workers will prefer hiring more workers rather than wanting to work more, when company profits go up chances are they won’t want all of those profits going to CEO bonuses, when profits go down chances are layoffs are not the first option.

These sorts of policies, increasing democracy in the economy, lessening the economic power of the business class, that’s what’s going to get the economy out of the dump. We don’t need to just pump more money into the economy, we need to change whose interests the economy serves, and the only way that will happen is changing who controls the economy.

Some people would say its government control over the economy, or state ownership, others would say it’s the welfare state or government regulation, but these definitions generally come from people that do not identify as socialists. So we have to go to the source, what do socialists say socialism means. Eugene Debs was probably the most well known socialist in American history, he ran for president from Prison (he was put away for speaking out against WWI) and received 6% of the vote in 1920 (in the middle of the first red scare), and this is his definition of the goals of socialism. “The working class must get rid of the whole brood of masters and exploiters, and put themselves in possession and control of the means of production, that they may have steady employment without consulting a capitalist employer, large or small, and that they may get the wealth their labor produces, all of it, and enjoy with their families the fruits of their industry in comfortable and happy homes, abundant and wholesome food, proper clothing and all other things necessary to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So what does that mean? Well he went a little bit further about the choice of Capitalism and Socialism by saying “It is simply a question of capitalism or socialism, of despotism or democracy.” So to Eugene and other Socialists, putting the economy in the hands of the people is not just a question of sound economics it’s a question of democracy or despotism, how so? As we’ve seen in the last couple of years public policy is extremely susceptible to big business pressure, the public option had overwhelming support, yet somehow it was politically difficult for the government, and we all know it was from the insurance companies had something with more power than public pressure, money. Right now the insurance companies are entirely driven by profit, which means take as much money from you and give you as little care, and they have a stranglehold on the government because of their money. A public option however would be different, it would be run by the government, which means it would be run by the electorate, to the electorate the government health care’s profit isn’t the biggest concern, its the efficiency and quality of the healthcare, . Now imagine if the Oil companies were put under public control, how would energy policy be run, right now its for short term profits with out thinking about the effects on the environment, or even what’s best for the consumer (just what will get the most money out of the consumer), if it was controlled democratically, then the concerns of people would necessarily be concerns of the industry. If you take the major industries and resources and put them in public control then its not the big corporations that now control those industries and resources that will be able to buy public policy, it will be the public.

What about the Free Market? Isn’t the free market kind of a democracy? You vote with your cash? In a way, it is. Here’s the problem More than 70% of the wealth of the United States is controlled by the top 10% of the country, the bottom 50 % of the country control only 2.5% of the nations wealth, and the top 1% control 33.8% of the wealth, this isn’t getting better its getting worse. Usually these statistics are used just to show wealth disparity, look at these statistics from the viewpoint of political power, its more than just wealth disparity, it’s a lack of democracy. When it comes to the market, there is no Free Market, at least for the bottom 90% of Americans, its a market controlled by the rich, they have over 70% of the vote, so they control the market, your money is your vote, if you don’t have a significant amount of disposable wealth, you have no vote.

This is what socialism is primarily about, its not about taking care of the poor, its not about compassion, its not about making things equal, nor is it about government control, its about democracy, and a recognition that economic power needs to be democratic in order for political democracy to function, its also a recognition that the market is far from free, its a tyranny of the wealthy, real economic freedom comes when people have a say over what affects their lives, and that includes the government through political democracy, and the economy, through socialism.

Here is what socialism is not. National Socialism was not socialism at all, was there democratic control over the economy? Nope, its not socialism, the Nazis added socialism to their name to take advantage of the positive connotations that the word ’socialism’ had at the time, their application of it was nothing more than general welfare, however, what the Nazis DID practice was Corporatism i.e. collaboration between the State and big business to further the “national interests,”
It wasn’t economic democracy or public control that socialists wanted, it was corporate control along with an undemocratic state collaborating, not even close to Socialism, and in fact its closer to what goes on here in the United States, the government and big business in bed with one another.

Soviet style “communism” was also not socialism, the Soviet Union almost immediately after the Russian revolution killed any chance of socialism by destroying any real democracy and individual freedom in the country, and after that’s taken away all that was left was the State replacing the Big industrialists as the controllers of the economy as opposed to the people. That’s why most socialists in the world denounced the USSR.

So that’s what socialism is about, its about democracy, and if we want to have a functioning serious democracy in the United States, and not one controlled by corporate interests, we’re going to have to start having the discussion of whether we want socialism or capitalism, democracy or despotism.