The book’s purpose is to see what elements of these revolutions align. What kind of similarities can be teased out between these huge, important historical events? In the end, Brinton summarizes five symptoms of revolution.

Before providing this list, Brinton is quick to mention, “We must be very tentative about the prodromal symptoms of revolution.” He writes that this is a highly complicated subject and that because there are so many different variables at play, it is perhaps impossible to diagnose any incipient revolutions that might be happening in the present day with certainty (wink). “But,” he says, “some uniformities do emerge from a study of the old regimes in England, America, France, and Russia.”

Intolerable gap and class antagonism

Brinton’s first symptom of revolution is “an intolerable gap between what [members of the working class] have come to want—their ‘needs’—and what they actually get.” As Brinton notes, revolutions frequently show up following periods where the standard of living was going up and then abruptly stopped. Much as we have seen in the past 40+ years since American President Ronald Reagan and the double-barreled acceptance of neoliberalism by both major political parties, productivity has gone way up while wages are frozen in place.

In comparing the four major revolutions, Brinton writes: “these were all societies on the whole on the upgrade economically before the revolution came, and the revolutionary movements seem to originate in the discontents of not unprosperous people who feel restraint, cramp, annoyance, rather than downright crushing oppression. … These revolutionists are not worms turning, not children of despair. These revolutions are born of hope, and their philosophies are formally

optimistic.” This is because people grew up thinking, much like in our society, that they would someday end up better off. When that doesn’t happen, it creates a widespread feeling of discontent. That’s highly relatable.

The second symptom is how pre-revolutionary societies are marked by “very bitter class antagonisms.” I don’t think I need to spell this one out for you. Modern American society has done its share of wealth and celebrity worship. But the resentment is there.

There is growing awareness amongst the mass population that the wealth at the top of the capitalist pyramid scheme comes from us, the working class. It is our hard work that makes the super rich so fabulously wealthy. Class is short for classification. If we classify ourselves by wealth or income, the difference between the rich owning class and the working class is at an all-time high. A classic hallmark of a pre-revolutionary society is when these differences become obvious — and people start getting really pissed off about it.

Intellectual allegiance, inefficiency and a changing ruling class

The third symptom of revolution is what Brinton calls the “transfer of allegiance of the intellectuals.” This is where the educated turn against supporting the status quo and instead support the oppressed. Brinton doesn’t linger on this point other than to say it is present in all four cases. What happens is that reality can no longer be denied, so smart people stop trying to deny it. Check out TikTok or Substack any day of the week to see this playing out in real time.

The fourth symptom is that governmental machinery becomes “clearly inefficient.” This comes from a combination of factors: neglect, the government’s inability to allow old institutions to keep up with the times and new conditions that place “an intolerable strain on governmental machinery adapted to simpler, more primitive, conditions.” It so happens that America’s governmental machinery hasn’t been updated much in the last 237 years. Just saying…

Finally, the fifth symptom is that “many individuals of the old ruling class—come to distrust themselves, or lose faith in the traditions and habits of their class, grow intellectual, humanitarian, or go over to the attacking groups.” You can recognize what Brinton calls the “disintegration of the ruling class” when elites start getting scared and supporting the cause of the oppressed classes, or what he pithily calls the upperdogs deciding to side with the underdogs. Writes Brinton, “It is not altogether cynical to hazard the guess that this is sometimes an indication that there is about to be a reversal in the position of the dogs.”

This is one that I don’t believe I have witnessed happening a whole lot… yet. We are currently in the waning glory days of a modern Gilded Age. It won’t last forever. Keep this in mind when the billionaire class suddenly starts sounding a whole lot more sympathetic toward the working class. They may even propose some desperate reforms to keep the existing system a while longer. Don’t fall for it; it is a sure sign that the end is nigh.

So there you have the five symptoms of a pre-revolutionary society according to Brinton. It depends on who you’re asking, of course, but it sure looks to me like modern Western society and America in particular check most of those boxes. Don’t you agree? Let me know in the comments.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post A Friendly Reminder of the Five Symptoms of Revolution appeared first on Fair Observer.

We pay the rich interest on that debt — paying money for money. Most of us pay well over half of our paycheck to private banks for rent, mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit card payments and more. Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t need to borrow from the rich to get a loan for a new car or house or to start a business?

Turns out we don’t have to! The answer is public banking, and it’s already been working for more than a century — in North Dakota, of all places!

The Bank of North Dakota serves its state

Back in 1919, a populist political organization called the Nonpartisan League won a majority in the state legislature — don’t ever say you can’t change anything by voting! It created the Bank of North Dakota (BND), the only state-owned bank in the country. The BND’s job, according to its charter, is “encouraging and promoting agriculture, commerce, and industry” in the public interest.

The goal from the outset was to free the state’s farmers from becoming debt-dependent on the big private banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York City. Since World War II, the BND has been turning profits over to North Dakota’s general fund, frequently saving the state from budget shortfalls. In 2011, for example, the bank contributed $70 million to the state budget.

Ownership is the key difference that sets the Bank of North Dakota apart from other banks. The traditional private banking model is set up to enrich its owners: the shareholders. By contrast, public banks are owned by the public — the people who live in the state or community that bank exists to serve.

And the people are well-served by the BND. That’s why North Dakota, one of the reddest of red states, continues to operate what amounts to a socialist enterprise. Even though other banks and Republicans might loathe its existence, the BND is far too popular and helpful to kill off.

That’s because the BND exists to serve the public, not to extract profits for the rich. The bank’s charter requires it. As an article from Salon describes, “Through its Partnership in Assisting Community Expansion, for example, it provides loans at below-market interest rates to businesses if and only if those businesses create at least one job for every $100,000 loaned.” The 49 states that don’t have a public bank are sitting ducks for Wall Street banks to extract profits, privately financing public infrastructure and loans for important projects like new schools. Expensive bonds can mean repayments up to ten times the value of the original loan. These schemes also mean enormous fees and unnecessary risk because bankers are trying to make as much profit as possible.

The BND is more stable than even the biggest private banks. Back during the 2008 financial crisis, The Wall Street Journal wrote, “It is more profitable than Goldman Sachs Group Inc., has a better credit rating than J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and hasn’t seen profit growth drop since 2003.”

That’s right, it’s also super profitable! The BND posted record profits in 2023. It holds more than $10 billion in assets and has a $5.8 billion lending portfolio.

The bank also exists as a counterexample to bankers’ claims that they must offer outrageous salaries to retain talent. The BND’s executives are state employees making less than $400k a year. That’s a far cry from investment bankers on Wall Street. All of the BND’s costs are lower than private banks. Another article notes, “no bonuses, fees, or commissions; only branch office; very low borrowing costs; and no FDIC premiums.”

Private banks fear public banks

This all sounds amazing, right? So why don’t we already have public banks in every state and large city in the country? Private bankers will cite startup costs, government inefficiency, conflicts of interest or lack of expertise. As one industry spokesperson told Vox, “Our position hasn’t been secret… We’re opposed to the concept in general.” 

That’s putting it mildly. The truth is, private banks are scared to death of the competition. As writer Ellen Brown said, “the public banking model is simply more profitable and efficient than the private model. Profits, rather than being siphoned into offshore tax havens, are recycled back into the bank, the state and the community.” 

Public banks could easily push private banks right out of business. Fortunately, back in 1920, the BND has already survived a constitutional challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Do you remember how during the 2008 financial crisis we started hearing about private banks that were “too big to fail?” Bankers and our own government kept telling us that some banks were so big that if we let them fail, they could take the entire American economy down with them. That’s why I think too big to fail is too big to exist.

Let’s change our banking

Here’s an idea! How about the next time a too-big-to-fail bank starts to go under, the government does something different? Instead of forcing a sweetheart sale to a competitor, it could seize that bank’s assets and use them to establish public banks? I bet it would have huge positive public benefits.

Once we have lots of public banks, excessive profits could be handed out to the public in the form of dividend checks, like Alaska does with its oil fund nest-egg. In 2023, every Alaskan got a check for $1,300. Can you imagine if your state sent you a check because its public bank made too much money last year? It’s not impossible to imagine.

We don’t need the rich to have banking. In fact, the Bank of North Dakota proves that so much of what we accept about private banks is unnecessary: systemic risk, excessive fees for things like overdrafts, exorbitant charges for loans and bonds and massive profit extraction. We don’t need to accept any of those things. There is a living, breathing alternative right here in the United States. We should take our inspiration and run with it.

Let’s make them pay.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post North Dakota’s Revolutionary Bank Could Save People From the Rich appeared first on Fair Observer.

Last Thursday was the final deadline to meet broadcaster CNN’s requirements. Kennedy came up short. The barriers to inclusion were borrowed from the now-defunct Commission on Presidential Debates (that organization itself has always had a crippling two-party bias because it has always been stacked entirely with powerful political figures exclusively from the two major parties). Kennedy said in a statement, “My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly. Americans want an independent leader who will break apart the two-party duopoly.” He is right.

CNN’s debate qualifications are designed to exclude third-party alternatives

The debate requirements were as follows:

• The candidate must be 35 years old and a native-born US citizen (they got those from the constitution, naturally).
• The candidate must have polling data that shows 15% support in at least 4 separate surveys from “respected” pollsters.
• The candidate must be on enough state ballots to win 270 electoral votes.

No one has any objection to the constitutional criteria, of course. However, these other barriers were dreamt up to exclude RFK Jr. and he is right to object to this unfair treatment.

RFK Jr. needed to surpass CNN’s arbitrary 15 percent threshold in at least four national polls. He got three. So close! Busted on a technicality. Never mind that Kennedy is polling higher than any third-party candidate since Ross Perot in the early 1990s. That Kennedy could come so close to this arbitrary goal and be excluded is clear proof of bias against him.

But what about the Electoral College? Doesn’t it make sense to exclude any candidate who is unable to clear 270 Electoral Votes? Not in June! There are still months to go before the final ballot deadlines in sooo many states.

Right now, Kennedy is on the ballot in only 10 states, but if you visit his website, you can see how much time and how many signatures are needed in every state. Arizona, 42,303 by August 17. Virginia, 5,000 signatures by August 23. Wisconsin requires only 2,000 signatures and the window to submit won’t even open until July 1. Do you want 30 more examples of why this metric is unfair? Go ahead and visit Kennedy’s website.

Kennedy’s team has delayed submitting signatures as part of an intentional strategy because the major parties are actively trying to prevent him from winning ballot access in all 50 states. Not only are the major parties throwing up roadblocks at a state level using lawsuits and other pressure to keep Kennedy off the ballot, Biden has gone so far as to establish a Super PAC called Clear Choice, entirely financed by the rich, to keep third-party challengers away from doddering old Grandpa Joe. This is all part of a coordinated strategy coming from both major parties to keep third-party threats out of the discussion.

Now, if we were being objective about who’s on the ballot in enough states to win, RFK Jr. is not the only one. Neither major party has held their conventions yet… therefore, neither candidate has been officially selected as their party’s standard bearer, therefore neither should currently be on enough ballots to win. I mean, if we’re going on technicalities like that, it works both ways.

The system is this way because it serves the two major parties

Here’s the truth that somehow our mainstream political press is neglecting to mention as they blindly go along with excluding RFK Jr. from the debates without objection: Allowing Robert Kennedy to participate in the debates confers legitimacy on his candidacy and makes him an even bigger threat to the major parties.

On June 15, CNN announced some of the debate rules that Biden and Trump agreed upon. They agreed on two commercial breaks, they agreed on podiums, they agreed to mute one another’s microphones while the other was speaking.

They also agreed, perhaps without even a wink or a nudge, that bringing Kennedy on stage was a deal breaker.

When it comes to having a third-party challenger in the race for president, allowing Kennedy on stage at the debate is about the only thing Trump or Biden can control. It’s simple: Refuse to participate if he is there. And I’m quite certain they both did. He is a threat to both of their chances.

RFK Jr. is right there at the cutoff line, so he’s not allowed to debate. And CNN takes the heat for the blatant, arbitrary metrics being used against him. But make no mistake. It is, in fact, Biden and Trump coordinating to exclude him.

Here we have an election with two of the most hated politicians on earth. Here we have a two-party duopoly continually reinforcing the message that a vote for anyone but either of them is “throwing your vote away.” Another way of saying that is: If you don’t vote for a Democrat or Republican, your votes will never count. And the one person in the world who may have a chance to upset that balance is excluded.

This is not democracy. Like it or not, RFK Jr. is a contender. Hailing from the highest social circles in American history. Nephew of an Arthur reborn in our own American version of Camelot. Son of another slain prince. Blessed by almighty what-have-you to spend summers summering at Hyannis Port.

But mainstream media somehow sees no romance in this story. The prince who was promised. John F-ing Snow. Emerging at the moment when the American public is being asked to choose between two candidates almost no one seems to want.

Boring! The mainstream press never talks about Kennedy like that. (Just notice: If our major media wasn’t completely in the tank for the establishment, they would never tire of such a story. More proof that the American propaganda system only allows you to see what it wants you to see.)

All that said, RFK Jr. is not even my preferred choice. Dr. Cornel West, Claudia De la Cruz and Jill Stein are all superior in my view. They get the class war. They are against the genocide in Gaza. RFK can only ever be an elite. (Psst, Bobby, you are running to represent us — so represent us!)

And yet, RFK Jr. is not Trump and he is not Biden… which, come November 5, is probably enough to get my vote. It might be enough to get yours as well. And that, brothers and sisters, is why RFK Jr. won’t be at the presidential debate tonight.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About Why RFK Jr. Will Not Be Debating Tonight appeared first on Fair Observer.

Free market economics is not science, because personal feelings should never intrude on scientific conclusions. Apparently, economists didn’t get the memo.

Inside the predominant view that accepts economists as scientists is a core belief that their empirical analysis is untainted by bias. Milton Friedman himself said, “Positive economics is in principle independent of any particular ethical position or normative judgments.” Real-world experience, however, suggests otherwise. Researchers Anthony Randazzo and Jonathan Haidt looked at how economists’ personal views can be used to predict their conclusions. They found that economists frequently start with a morally defined idea about how the world should be and then develop models that support those preordained narratives. This cuts both ways. Neoclassical economists tend to share a moral worldview with American conservatives. Those who favor the theories of John Maynard Keynes tend to be more politically progressive. Randazzo and Haidt conclude, “Collectively, this data shows that economists’ substantive conclusions about the workings of the economy are suspiciously correlated with their moral values.”

This is not how science works, of course. Isaac Newton’s personal feelings about apples or preconceptions about right and wrong didn’t affect his theories on gravity. Science is supposed to be provable, testable and untouched by morality and ethics. Howard Schwartz points out that even big daddy Adam Smith saw moral philosophy as separate from his economic theorizing, titling his first book The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

A chemist or physicist can create a controlled experiment and analyze the results to see if it supports their hypotheses. Economists cannot. An economist doesn’t perform experiments at all. Instead, they make “thought experiments” with whatever data points they happen to have at hand like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo did… you know, famous religious figures.

John Dewey made this same criticism about laissez-faire economics nearly a century ago: “The scientific inquirer knows that they constitute science only in connection with the methods by which they are reached. Even when true, they are not science in virtue of their correctness, but by reason of the apparatus which is employed in reaching them.”

Contrast this with Milton Friedman’s attitude towards his trade’s fancy mathematical equations. In his article “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” he wrote that economists didn’t need to worry too much about whether a given model’s assumptions were correct so long as that model’s predictions “seemed” to correlate with what an economist could see in real life. I don’t think he was supposed to say that part out loud.

“There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths,” wrote Carl Sagan. Scientific inquiry is relentless. Everything must be examined and proven over and over again. Sagan describes how no seemingly settled matter is ever safe.

Even today, hundreds of years later, Isaac Newton’s inverse square law of gravitation is being put to the test. In fact, one of the primary reasons Albert Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity are so important is that they demonstrated how Newtonian physics breaks down when high speeds and huge masses are involved. 

One hundred years after Einstein corrected Newton, modern researchers are poking at ways in which Einstein’s theories might themselves break down. In fact, the scientific community encourages them to do so. The opposite is true in the dismal science of economics.

Carl Sagan saw the similarity between economics and religion when he asked, “What rewards are religious skeptics given by the established religions — or, for that matter, social and economic skeptics by the society in which they swim?”

Sounds like Carl Sagan knew what was up.

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Science Doesn’t Care About Researcher’s Feelings. Economics Does. appeared first on Fair Observer.

In response to the last part of my series on why free market economics is a false religion, my friend Tom served me up what you might call a big old softball. And it is my responsibility to crush that. Big swing.

 “Please name one free-market economist who claims that the free market will ever be ‘perfect.’ 🙄🙄🙄🙄”

That’s one, two, three, four eye rolls there. Aren’t I so exasperating?

Now, Tom is kind of right; few modern economists profess that markets will ever be perfect. But as I mentioned in my post, perfect markets are an ideal. An ideal is something one strives for. As one strives for this ideal, one recognizes that it may never be attained — but it is a guiding star, a true north. And while you might realize that you’re probably never going to get there, there are always ways to get closer to that ideal. When we talk about perfect markets, there are always more regulations that can be lifted, more taxes that can be cut and more publicly-owned properties that can be sold off for private profit extraction that will get you closer to that imaginary ideal.

Good old Uncle Milty, Milton Friedman was dismissive of the idea of perfectly competitive markets.  This is because those ideas were out of fashion by the time the Neoliberals came along. This is a common thing in the “science” of economics, ideas go in and out of fashion like Jean styles. Bell bottoms, in for young ladies? Skintight jeans on men? Out. Lowrise? Hopefully coming back. Pleated Jean Shorts? Out permanently.

Lots of economists really do believe in perfect markets

In the early 20th century, Vilfredo Pareto was quite trendy for developing Pareto optimality, or Pareto efficiency. This is an imaginary state of equilibrium, or perfect efficiency, where an action makes an individual or small group of individuals better off, and no one ends up worse off. Pareto spent a big chunk of his career developing these ideas. These ideas about perfect efficiency still dominate. According to an article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, “Pareto efficiency has applications in game theory, multicriteria decision making, engineering, and many of the social sciences. It is a central principle in economics.”

But of course, my post was about neoclassical economics. Neoclassical economists — the OGs, the men who built the intellectual superstructure that forms the basis for our understanding of capitalism — talked about perfect markets a lot. Our conception of free market economics is based on what the neoclassical thinkers built. They developed the concept of general equilibrium theory. Perfect markets are defined by a set of ideal conditions known as perfect competition. This is what I was referring to when I supposedly built my grand straw man argument about perfect markets bringing about a state of economic nirvana. But Tom wants names, so we’ll begin with 19th-century economist Leon Walras, who helped define perfect competition. Later, in the 1950s, Swedish Central Bank Nobel prizewinners* Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu further teased these theories out. Those were real economists. So that’s four names without even trying very hard.

*(You may want to see my previous blog post about the Economics prize.)

But, Tom will predictably remind me none of these were free-market economists. So, how about Eugene Fama, another Chicago school Nobel prizewinner?

He doesn’t believe in perfect markets per se. Instead, he says the market is perfect already! Fama gave us the efficient markets hypothesis, which tells us that financial markets are never wrong.  Every share price perfectly reflects all publicly available information about a given asset. 

Now, you don’t have to be a jaded day trader to realize this idea is absurd. To say that the market can never be wrong is to say that the market is infallible. Omniscience and infallibility are the domain of gods. By declaring that the market is all-knowing and can never be wrong, economists have moved firmly out of science and into religious faith. Of course, the market is not infallible. But why should reality ever get in the way of a good economic hypothesis?

Economics has gone beyond the bounds of science

These ideas about perfect markets, based on abstraction and ivory tower theory, are baked into free market economics. You can no more remove these ideas or ideals from this strain of economics than you can take the egg and flour out of a birthday cake when you’re getting ready to blow out the candles.

There is more to learn from capitalism’s critics than its cheerleaders.

Karl Marx spent his life examining capitalism. He read and wrote extensively about Adam Smith and David Ricardo and everything else he could get his hands on to understand how capitalism worked and where it broke down. We still talk about Marx because he is one of history’s greatest critics of capitalism. This is why he is still a threat, and why “Marxist” and “Marxism” are still thrown around like they are dirty words. Capitalism’s cheerleaders only want us to have positive associations with their favorite brand of economics. The free market faithful want us to believe, like they do, that there is only one true way to run an economy. They want us to believe that there are no alternatives. And don’t forget that “belief” is a word of faith.

Exposing the assumptions that the free market faith is built on is a valid way of criticizing capitalism. And free market fundamentalists HATE that. British economic historian Robert Skidelsky perfectly encapsulated how ridiculous it is to develop your economic philosophy around flawed assumptions the way capitalism does when he said, “lunatic premises lead to mad conclusions.” That’s the truth. And the world we live in today is proof. We are living with those mad conclusions, a society teetering on the edge of oblivion, because of lunatic premises like the ones I described in my last post.

Let’s make them pay.

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Free Market Economics: Lunatic Premises Lead to Mad Conclusions appeared first on Fair Observer.

In my last piece, I described how economists were able to rebrand what was once considered a branch of philosophy as a “science.”

In order to map their new “scientific” theories, the acolytes of economics returned to their catechism. Certain essential assumptions about human nature undergird economic theory, especially the free market variety. This human nature, they assumed, is what determines economic actions. The first assumption, as described by economists Richard D. Wolff and Stephen Resnick in their book Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical, is every human’s inherent ability to prioritize all goods and services consistently. Obviously, haircuts are less important than groceries. Having a roof over your head is a higher priority than an expensive television. We make these choices every day. 

Another core understanding is that it’s always better to have more than less of any good or service. It seems so obvious! More money, shoes, cars, two scoops of ice cream — more is better. We are built this way to survive.  

Finally, rationality is recognized as one of the most basic components of human nature. Like economists, we are all rational individuals who make reasoned choices based on evidence (dramatic pause). Irrationality is not a common trait among human beings (stares into camera). We are all rational actors in a rational world.  

These unquestionable bedrock understandings about human nature make it possible to predict the economic choices people will make in society.

If we follow the logic from these core understandings about humanity, the rest of neoclassical theory will start to fall into place. Free market economists know that our innate human nature determines outcomes. We get back what we put in (also known as the Theory of Distribution). As Wolff notes, economists understand that human beings possess, within their nature, an inherent rational and productive capability to produce the maximum wealth possible in society. This assumption returns to Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand of the market. Maximum wealth corresponds with the individual’s maximum freedom to pursue their own self-interest. When we have the freedom to act in our own self-interest, we will feel the power of that invisible hand guiding us to produce maximum wealth for society. Maximum wealth equals maximum happiness for everyone. Therefore, neoclassical economics understands that following one’s self-interest brings maximum happiness to society.  

An empirical science that only works in theory

Logic dictates that this can only happen when there are perfect markets and supply and demand are equal. If markets are completely free, the neoclassical ideal, it’s possible to reach a state of economic nirvana where the producers’ selfish maximization of profits perfectly corresponds with the consumers’ selfish maximization of preferences. The goal is a state of harmony between scarcity and choice. If everyone is pursuing their own self-interest, the central imperative, nature’s economic equilibrium will be restored. At that point, the two tectonic plates of our human nature, our unlimited desire for more and our ability to satisfy those desires, will have finally come into balance. Hence, we will all achieve maximum societal happiness.

American philosopher John Dewey discusses this in his book The Public & its Problems. Using their new empirical analysis, economists relied heavily on their old philosophical roots. The old metaphysical conceptions about natural law slowly morphed into new economic facts of life. Supply and demand, under this new understanding, were now part of “natural” law. This put them in opposition to artificial, political laws made by people. The exchange of goods and services is guided by human nature, which is, in turn, guided by mother nature, as the thinking goes. Therefore, these interactions should be free from artificial political meddling or risk blocking maximum social prosperity and progress. The logic of free market theory dictates that economic law is natural and political law is unnatural. To tamper with economic nature is to invite disaster, like Dr. Moreau breeding grotesque horse-rhino-human or leopard-man hybrids in H.G. Wells’s classic book. Yuck!

Free market theory dictates that to achieve economic nirvana, the government needs to butt out. “A principal aim,” writes Wolff, of both the classical and neoclassical schools, was to show how “capitalism could reach its potential only if all economic and non-economic barriers to private wealth maximization were removed.” Free market economists tell us the only answer is to let markets correct themselves. Any efforts to reform or modify private property or competitive markets are inherently wrong, according to Wolff, because they create barriers to maximum wealth – and, by extension, to maximum societal happiness.

When you peel back the onion on the bedrock assumptions of free-market capitalism, you can see how moral philosophy informs the “science” of economics. Other sciences don’t operate from moral presumption. Religions do.

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Bedrock Assumptions of Free Market Economics appeared first on Fair Observer.

December 2, 1942 — almost one full year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the scientific community in the US was in a state of high anxiety. Physicists were sure that Hitler’s war machine, which had a two-year head start, was well on its way to developing a nuclear weapon. The race was on to create the first controlled nuclear chain reaction. If American scientists couldn’t make this happen, it would be impossible to construct a nuclear weapon of their own, and the war could be lost.

Working in secret in an unused squash court underneath the University of Chicago’s Stagg Field stands, scientists, students and laborers worked day and night piling 50- and 100-pound graphite bricks into a massive 771,000-pound egg-shaped reactor core. On the snowy afternoon of December 2, a few dozen people looked on nervously as cadmium rods were removed and the world’s first nuclear reactor was activated. Without any cooling or shielding system, it was possible that the world’s first fission reaction could also create the world’s first nuclear meltdown, right in the middle of the campus.

At 3:25 PM, the clicking of the Geiger counter confirmed that the experiment was a success, producing about enough energy to power a single light bulb. There were no cheers, toasts or hearty slaps on the back, although the researchers did pass around a bottle of chianti for a few celebratory sips. Graduate student Leona Woods described the mood in the room, saying, “There was a greater drama in the silence than if the words had been spoken.”

Later recognized as perhaps the greatest scientific experiment of the 20th century, team leader Enrico Fermi received the praise. An Italian physicist who used his trip to Sweden to accept the Nobel Prize as an opportunity to escape Mussolini and defect to the United States, Fermi was called “the Pope” by his peers. Recognized as alternatively the “architect of the nuclear age” or the “architect of the atomic bomb,” few scientists from the modern era are held in higher regard. And it all happened right on the University of Chicago campus, where Milton Friedman would join the faculty just five years later in 1946.

The transformation of economics from philosophy to science

In the 20th century, the world of academia was to witness more than one revolution in science. The revolution I want to talk about was a revolution of the boundaries of science itself.

There has been a longtime cleavage in the academic community between hard science and the humanities, or what were once known as physics and metaphysics. What’s the difference? Metaphysics is the study of abstract concepts like being and knowing — why are we here? In other words, it is philosophy, the quest for eternal truth.

Physicist Robert W. Wood was once asked to make a toast “to physics and metaphysics.” Wood then responded by describing the physicist’s journey from its first burst of inspiration. The next step, he said, is consulting existing literature bolstering that idea. The physicist then carefully prepares experiments to test that idea to see if it can withstand scrutiny in a lab. Finally, the physicist’s idea turns out to be wrong, so this idea is rejected, and our scientist moves on to something else. In the end, Wood diplomatically summarized the difference between physicists and metaphysicists: One has a laboratory and one does not.

Economics was not always considered a science. When Adam Smith was writing in the late 1700s, his area of study was known as “political philosophy.” Smith continued in the tradition of classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who talked about some of the same basic ideas. At that time, economics had not completed its metamorphosis from political philosophy to political economics to just plain economics. Economics was squarely in the metaphysical realm.

However, embedded in Smith’s philosophical framework was the notion that society was a living organism. It was common then to see not just human beings as biological organisms but culture as a kind of organism. In the time after Smith, political philosophers increasingly saw societies as having balance and equilibrium like the rest of nature. This belief in equilibrium is one of the chief articles of faith of the free-market religion. Classical economists like Smith and neoclassical acolytes like Milton Friedman zeroed in on certain shared similarities of human beings to suggest that we are all motivated by the same essential laws of nature. In this way, economics began creeping from a social science, philosophy, to actual science.

This breakthrough led to what is now known as the Marginalist Revolution. As political economics gave way to just plain economics, everybody who was anybody began adopting an air of objectivity and impartiality as they used charts, graphs and complex equations to measure and size up precisely how economic transactions work.

Tending carefully as the first green shoots of this new branch were forming was Alfred Marshall, called by some the founder of modern economics. Marshall consciously tried to break this area of study free from its philosophical roots and cultivate a new, value-free science. He believed it was possible to apply the scientific method and calculus to measure marginal utility. In economics, utility is the benefit one gains from acquiring a product. Marginal utility is a way of conceptualizing that benefit into some kind of integer or measurable unit. (Science tends to pretend something doesn’t exist until some way is developed to measure it.) Once the proto-economists of Marshall’s era had a unit of measurement for economic theory, it became possible for them to start making predictions that seemed more scientific and less philosophical.  

At the time, the marginalist method was once just one flavor among many taught. Aspiring economists studied marginalist texts mixed right in with Adam Smith and Karl Marx; “… it would be a long time before the uniformly mathematical approach we now associate with economics would establish dominance,” writes John Rapley. In the same way, early marginalists came from a broad spectrum of political orientations. Eventually, free market capitalism and marginalism joined together to establish a correct way for economics to be studied and understood.

Once the marginalists had developed a clean way of measuring economic theories, it was time for them to start mapping out the economic laws of nature. At last, their discipline could be as rigorous and mathematical as thermodynamics or chemistry. Demonstrating the laws of supply and demand would now be as self-evident as Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Mapping the law of scarcity would be as clear as when hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen to create combustion in a laboratory. 

In the next part, we’ll take a closer look at how some of the old assumptions economists made when they were philosophers undercut their scientific claims. It’s one of my favorite parts of this whole series.

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Day the World Changed: Reflections on the Activation of the First Nuclear Reactor appeared first on Fair Observer.

Free market capitalism is a false religion. In my last article, I described how this false religion has its own moral philosophy and priestly class. But a religion needs more than mystery and theology. What a religion needs, more than anything, is followers.

Doomsday cults rarely attract broad membership. By the same token, those 19th-century religious cults that banned sex petered out because there was no one to carry on their beliefs in the next generation. In Twilight of the Money Gods, John Rapley writes, “Without believers, religions have no force. The same goes for schools of economics. Their strength comes from winning enough followers to shape the policy agenda of a society and remake it in its own image.” Strength in numbers. The story of the rise of free market capitalism as a world religion is one of growing influence. Like any religion, this one spread by making converts and winning adherents.

Unlike hard sciences such as physics or biology, economics is cyclical. Scientific progress is made when new data forces course corrections. As new discoveries come to light, scientists adjust and incorporate them into the knowledge base. free market Economics does not work like that. Rapley notes, “A given doctrine can rise, fall and then later rise again … much as happens with preachers who gather a congregation, a school rises by building a following — among both politicians and the wider public.”

Laissez-faire economics, for example, had been the gold standard for decades leading up to the Great Depression. This economic philosophy of little or no government intervention in the economy combined with tax cuts would be very recognizable today, because it was the Platonic ideal that the neoclassical and neoliberal economists wanted to return to.

Ultra-wealthy banker Andrew Mellon was in charge of maintaining this dogma throughout the Roaring Twenties. This hands-off approach was seen as part of the reason for the incredible rise of the American stock market during that period, which inspired one congressman to hail Mellon as “the greatest Secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton.” But Mellon was completely unequipped to deal with a crisis like the Great Depression. After the stock market collapsed in 1929, with unemployment surging past 20%, Mellon still didn’t think the government should lift a finger to help anyone. His answer, according to Herbert Hoover’s memoir, was to “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down … enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” By “enterprising people,” Mellon clearly meant the rich. Letting everybody die so the rich can come in and pick our bones clean is pretty much the preferred answer proposed by laissez-faire and modern neoliberalism.

Keynes gives new life to capitalism

Enter John Maynard Keynes. Lord Keynes was a wealthy British aristocrat who studied at Eton and Cambridge. Keynes ran with a highfalutin clique called the “Bloomsbury Set” that included Virginia Woolf and E. M. Forster. Keynes was also the economist who saved capitalism after the Great Depression. Though Milton Friedman gets a lot of the glory as the 20th century’s most important economist, in reality, capitalism might not have survived without Keynes.

As economic collapse threatened to crush the entire capitalist system, it was Keynes who rescued capitalism from destruction. John Rapley likens Keynes to St. Paul, who helped create the New Testament in Christianity. Keynes created a new paradigm for capitalism. During a time when the Bolshevik Revolution was still a recent memory, it was Keynes who took capitalism in a bold new direction to save it from oblivion. Keynes realized that laissez-faire’s hands-off approach — simply liquidating everything — wasn’t a solution. He knew that if capitalism was going to survive, it would be necessary to take action.

The way he saw it was this: During times of crisis, a capitalist economy’s biggest problem was lack of demand. As people lost their jobs, nobody had any money to spend, so factories and shops sat empty. Keynes proposed that the government should be the spender of last resort. The way he saw it, budget deficits during a recession or depression could be a good thing, since the alternative was society’s total immolation. As the only institution capable of printing money in a crisis, it was the government’s job to “prime the pump” by blasting cash into the economy so people could spend it and bring demand back. During the Depression, governments had their backs against the wall and the pitchforks were out. Politicians were desperate to try anything, so they glommed onto Keynes’s ideas to get through the worst of it. And… it worked!

Keynesian policies were adopted first in the United States and Britain. It was these policies that inspired the Works Progress Administration and other hugely popular New Deal programs to help get the US through the darkest days of the Great Depression. It was military Keynesianism that finally delivered the knockout punch to the Depression in World War II (this vestige of Keynesianism lives on even today, seemingly untouchable despite the free market’s dominance everywhere else in the halls of US power). By the 1970s, Keynesian-style economics dominated pretty much every capitalist nation. It was during this period that Richard Nixon ruined Milton Friedman’s day by admitting, “We are all Keynesians now.” This postwar time period was also known as the Golden Age of Capitalism. But things were about to change.

The resurgence of laissez-faire

Even at the absolute zenith of its influence, Keynesian economics never achieved the global dominance of free market economics. Why is that? Because during the heyday of Keynesianism, there was a competing economic faith that was not part of the capitalist system.

At that point, the world was still separated into First World, Second World and Third World. The Second World was made up of the Soviet Union, communist China and smaller satellite nations like Cuba. These countries didn’t have anything to do with Keynesianism, because at its heart Keynesianism was still capitalism. Keynesian policies left the basic premise of the capitalist economy — who owns the factories and gets to make all the decisions about the profits — untouched.

At its heart, Keynesianism was just a body cast designed to protect capitalism (giving it time to heal) and keep it from drying up and blowing away during the Great Depression. Lord Keynes wanted to preserve the capitalist system and he did. The rich were more than happy to put up with government intervention in the economy, regulations and unions (Keynesian policies) in order to defend against encroaching Marxism.

And here we return to the cyclical nature of the free market religion. When the postwar boom times finally started to lose momentum in the late 1960s and early 70s, neoclassical and neoliberal economists saw their chance. With the war in Vietnam and the first oil crises, inflation and stagflation, people started to question the Keynesian faith. This was Milton Friedman’s golden opportunity.

Milton Friedman and Fredrich Hayek called themselves “neoliberals” who studied “neoclassical” economics. This is because they were harkening back to older schools of thought, discredited since the Great Depression. Friedman wanted to distinguish himself from the mushy, civil rights-loving liberals of his day by referring back to early liberal philosophers like Locke and Montesquieu. The “neo” liberals saw themselves as the new version of that.

The neoliberal, neoclassical resurgence was a reaction to the Keynesian philosophy that had become orthodoxy by the 1960s. One could foresee that at a certain point, Keynesian economic prescriptions would fail to provide the same oomph they once had. It was here that Milton Friedman’s patience paid off. He just needed to wait for the right crisis to dust off his ideas and put them into practice. As it turned out, he was in the right place at the right time. Two happy accidents of history allowed this particular brand of economics to become a global phenomenon, unlike any world religion that came before.

Friedman won influential adherents like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Reagan had this joke that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” He and Friedman believed that the government should never interfere in the economy, that the government was always the problem. To them, freeing the market of all regulations and restrictions would bring peace and prosperity.

As discussed earlier, public benefit was never really the goal. Unleashing the market did cause stocks to surge, creating a massive upward distribution of wealth. In the same way that Keynesian policies won widespread influence in capitalist nations, Friedman’s brand of neoliberalism started in the US and UK and spread out from there. But the real quantum leap that separated Keynesian economics from free market capitalism happened when the Second World suddenly evaporated. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, neoliberal policies — widely known as the “Washington consensus” — were quickly adopted in former communist states as they dumped their old economic model for go-go free market capitalism.

John Rapley makes an interesting comparison. Christian Millenarians believe that the time of Christ’s return is close at hand. They believe that spreading the Good Word is important because once all of humanity has been converted to their beliefs, the Second Coming will finally happen. Rapley points out that while Christian missionaries were never quite able to convert everyone, “here, suddenly, was another doctrine, which, under their noses, was getting ever closer to pulling off a very similar feat. Neoliberalism had become the state religion across most of the planet, and the holdouts were diminishing by the year.”

Next time, we’ll take a closer look at how economics bridged the gap from being considered “moral philosophy” to dismal science. It didn’t happen overnight.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Keynes and Friedman, Prophets of the World’s Most Popular Religion appeared first on Fair Observer.

Free Market economics is the new world religion. It has its own prophets, Adam Smith or David Ricardo. It has its own reformations led by John Meynard Keyes and Milton Friedman. It has fundamentalists and fanatics. It has a priestly class, in academia, charged with maintaining orthodoxy and purity.

I didn’t always see the similarities between free market economics and religions. I remember reading a passage from Ronald Wright’s A Short History of Progress. He noted that “the twentieth century’s struggle between capitalism and communism had all the hallmarks of the old religious wars. Was defending either system really worth the risk of blowing up the world?”

Lightbulb! Looking back, the defining antagonisms of the last century weren’t Hindu versus Muslim or Protestant versus Catholic. The earth’s biggest your-side versus my-side conflict was the Cold War. During that standoff, the planet was even divided into First World (powerful Western nations) versus Second World (the commies) and Third World (everybody else). With enough nuclear weapons aimed and ready on both sides to destroy the planet thousands of times over, what was essentially a disagreement about the best way to run an economy threatened to end humanity itself. 

More fuel was added to the fire when I read a passage from Thomas Frank’s book One Market Under God, where he quoted a flash-in-the-pan publication called Fast Company that discussed corporations becoming the world’s dominant institution, “occupying the position of the church of the Middle Ages and the nation-state of the past two centuries.”

Once I started seeing these similarities, other parallels came fast and furious. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was obviously capitalism’s bible. Smith’s Invisible Hand of the Market essentially replaces the Hand of God. I noticed that the self-interest of capitalism requires an inversion of the Great Commandment — “love thy neighbor” loses the middleman and becomes simply “love thyself.” Milton Friedman began to look more like a fundamentalist preacher with a fetish for pain and penchant for purging markets of sin. The more similarities I saw, the more sense it made.

An immanent religion of work and savings

Before going any further, I need to introduce you to John Rapley and his book Twilight of the Money Gods, which provides a lot of the background for this series. If you check out my five-star review on Goodreads you’ll see that I said this was one of the best history books I have ever read. When I refer to Rapley, I’m referring to this crackerjack book.

So, how does one define religion? It’s safe to dispense with glib answers by those like Sigmund Freud who called it a “collective neurosis,” or Karl Marx (very much a heretic in the eyes of the free market faithful) who famously said it was the “opiate of the masses.” A little closer might be Émile Durkheim, who defined religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them.” Yet it is unnecessary, I think, for a church to call itself a church. As they say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

Free market capitalism has become its own religion. It has its own rituals, supernatural mysteries, theology and clergy.

Every human being on earth today is part of the global economy. We all take part, whether we want to or not, in the everyday rituals of this global economy. Rather than fasting, praying or genuflecting, we go to work to earn money and spend it. Rather than passing the plate on Sunday, we participate in the world banking system, buying things with debit or credit cards, and possibly saving money in bank accounts or 401ks.

Even the Vatican has its own bank, code-named the Institute for Works of Religion. No big deal — this bank just manages about $65 billion in assets, holds more than $20 million in gold reserves and, like just about every other major financial institution, frequently gets into legal trouble for fraud and embezzlement. The Vatican has billions and billions more in assets and land value. Don’t forget that holding land used to be the world’s primary measure of wealth. The Catholic Church was once the largest landholder in Europe (and still ranks among the top landowners on earth with an estimated 177 million acres — more than a quarter million square miles, roughly the land area of Texas). Not bad!

John Rapley points out how our ancient ancestors used to pray for wealth and happiness (as I’m sure still happens today). However, instead of embracing hardship to earn our eternal reward in heaven, the free market faith tells us to scrimp and save to receive dividends here on Earth. Behold the parable of Andrew Carnegie, who saved his $1.50 a week from working in the boiler room and telegraph office so he could invest in the Adams Express Company and eventually become one of the richest men in history, worth about $310 billion in today’s money. Rags to riches.

In the religion of free-market capitalism, the promised land is not heavenly salvation but earthly reward. Materialism and wealth offer a vision of heaven on earth. In the Gospel of John, Jesus talked about mansions in the sky. Why wait for that when there are plenty of mansions with breathtaking ocean views right here on earth in sunny Malibu, California?

“You get what you pay for,” Rapley notes, is a declaration of faith, just the same as a person might say “God is merciful.” The world’s economic system depends on a system of widely shared beliefs that few would ever dare to question: You work for what you earn. If you pay for something, it belongs to you. You have a moral obligation to repay your debts. These core convictions form the basis upon which our entire global society operates.

When you pull back from these small-scale ideas, it’s possible to see that the whole system is built on faith. We all have faith that the green piece of paper we call a dollar is worth something. We have faith that the numbers in our bank accounts can be converted to groceries or gas or to pay rent. The economic system depends on a shared faith that there will be a future and that our hard work will allow us to repay our debts. Rapley says, “This transformation of nothing into something drives our modern economy forward, and though we take it for granted, to ancient eyes it would have looked like a miracle.”

From this shared faith springs the basis for an entire belief system. Some religions call it grace, an understanding of the right way to live and act. In the Taoist religion the “tao” is defined as being right with all that is.  Buddhists believe in kamma or karma, the law of moral causation — that every action has consequences. Free market economics has its own comprehensive doctrine and moral code promising earthly salvation. Following the precepts of the free market, it is believed, will guide humanity to a promised land of broad prosperity.

We are told that if we work hard, we will get ahead. We understand that saving money is responsible and good. We must honor our debts and pay on time or face retribution. We are encouraged to invest our savings in the market so that we can all share in its abundance. Believers know that the market is ALWAYS right — just have faith in the market. The religious adherents of Free-Market Capitalism are absolutely convinced that government interference hurts the market, that private owner ship is always preferable to public ownership, and that taxation is tantamount to theft.

A religion needs a priesthood

Free market capitalism is a false religion. And like any religion, it depends on clergy to maintain the faith. This priestly class doesn’t wear cassocks or Roman collars — but they do play the same role that clergy have always played in maintaining the existing class structure.

The theology of capitalism was not handed down on stone tablets. The language of capitalism’s theology is science. The priestly classes of this new religion study the science of economics. It is up to this academic clergy to understand the complicated mathematical equations they use to support their beliefs.

That same calculus is a wall used to keep the uninitiated from perceiving the Talmudic mysteries of their faith. Like Rapley says, just as you can’t work at the Vatican without speaking Latin, any economist who might be illiterate in the language of complex mathematical theory is ignored. The revelations of economics are not for the uninitiated. Just as it takes years of training and education to become a Catholic priest, no one becomes an economist without following the correct path of learning and indoctrination. The authority of this priestly class on economic matters will not be questioned.

An anthropologist might recognize that this priestly class plays the same role clergy have always played. According to Rapley, popular anthropology explains that “priestly castes grew up alongside ruling classes, justifying the privileges of both and socializing the masses into passive acceptance of their leaders’ superiority.” Is it a coincidence that historically the clergy were made up of wealthy classes, third and fourth sons unlikely to benefit from the laws of primogeniture?

The wealthy Borgia family, Italian nobles, perfected this idea by winning the papal throne twice. Says Rapley, “much as medieval religions offered an organic conception to justify a society stratified between aristocrats and the rest, so too did the new economic faith say our own stratification was natural…” Today’s inequality is supposedly proof that society’s winners getting what they deserve. The reality is that servants to power are working overtime to justify the existing status quo. It has always been thus. Today is no different.

If there is one change it is that the modern religion, free-market capitalism, does not advertise itself as a religion. Nor do its clerics perceive themselves in this way. Capitalism’s clergy are academics and professors. We don’t call them “father” or “bishop,” we call them “doctor,” out of respect for their learning and education.

But, just as in the past, it is the economic clergy’s job to justify the existing class structure. Instead of the old explanations that the aristocracy was blessed by God, here to exercise His will on earth, high priests like Milton Friedman proclaim that today’s aristocratic rich deserve everything they have because they worked hardest for it.

To put it another way we all might be familiar with, the rich are the “makers;” everyone else is the “takers.” Without lavish rewards, we are told, the rich maker class would have no incentive to create the new things that make our lives better and make them so much money. It was nothing new when former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said things like that during the Obama years. It’s just about the oldest trick in human civilization.

Now, I am no expert in theology, but Harvard divinity professor Harvey Cox is. Cox too sees the similarities between the free market faith and the religions of old. He writes that he experienced a sense of déjà vu reading the financial press:

The lexicon of the Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine’s City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption.

Just as these modern theologians interpret capitalism’s sacred texts for guidance about living your best life, there are also spiritualists probing at the mysteries of the faith. Financial expert John Mauldin sees this phenomenon at work, writing,

In the not too distant human past, shamans and soothsayers conjured theories about how the world worked and how to predict the future. Some examined the entrails of sheep, while others read meaning into the positions of the stars … In today’s world, economists serve exactly the same function. They skry their data sets — a latter-day version of throwing the bones — and then, based on the theory by which they believe the data should be interpreted, they confirm the orthodox policy choices of their political masters.

Like ancient alchemists, modern wizards of Wall Street work similiar magic, converting imaginary derivatives and credit default swaps into huge (sacred?) cash cows. Who needs to convert lead into gold when it’s so much easier to log into an online brokerage account and convert $200,000 into $2,000,000?

In the next piece, we’ll look at an extremely important figure in the rise of the free market faith, British Lord John Meynard Keynes, and how he brought about a second coming of capitalism.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How to Make a Religion out of Money: Economists, the Priests of Capitalism appeared first on Fair Observer.

These perceptions arise from a fundamental misunderstanding about why Trump’s base supports him. People wonder: Why does this group continue to passionately support a man facing 91 criminal charges in four felony cases? Why would someone back a candidate the constitution could potentially disqualify from the ballot due to an insurrection clause? Why rally behind someone who openly flirts with totalitarianism and jokes about imposing a dictatorship on day one of his administration?

We may be approaching these questions from the wrong angle.

This point of view assumes that Trump supporters are making an irrational choice because, to some, it seems illogical to support a flawed candidate like Trump.

What if we instead reframe this question slightly? What if we assumed that Trump supporters are rational actors making a sensible choice that conforms with their point of view? What can we see and understand about the 2024 election that eludes and confuses mainstream commentators?

Let’s start with this:

We are watching the disintegration of the American political system happen in real-time. The governor of Texas is openly challenging federal authority. President Joe Biden and the Democratic party are employing judicial warfare, or “lawfare,” to block both Donald Trump and Democratic primary challengers from electoral ballots. A decades-long strategy to pack American courts with hard right, pro-business judges is paying dividends all the way to the Supreme Court, which is actively searching for more cases to upend the status quo. And let’s not forget that an angry mob ransacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

People are discarding long-held norms. The glue that once held together what was already a rickety Rube Goldberg-like contraption of a nation-state has dried out. Our system is falling apart.

Americans’ trust in government institutions

Trust in government is disintegrating. Recent polling numbers by the Pew Research Center have cratered to all-time lows. At this point, fewer than 2 out of 10 Americans are likely to say they trust our political class to do what’s right, the lowest measure seen in more than 70 years of polling. People were less cynical about our government even in the years after Watergate than they are now.

There is also a broad loss of faith in American institutions. Only one in four Americans has confidence in the Supreme Court. Trust in public health officials, businesses and even religious leaders has declined. Pollsters registered surprise in 2022 when, for the first time, more Americans (38%) said they had “no trust at all” in the media than the group that said they had a great deal or even a “fair amount” of trust in our fourth estate (34%).

At the risk of being dismissed for engaging in “both sides-ism,” I will say that both major parties have played their roles in getting us here. Both are the handmaidens of business. No one is fooled just because one party is out and proud about this and one pretends otherwise. Both parties have played a role in hollowing out the American economy. They have welcomed deindustrialization in favor of financialization, choosing Wall Street profits under the misguided assumption that helping businesses helps everyone.

Many Americans have concluded that the fix is in. It’s understandable why Americans are losing faith in a system that barely even tries to maintain the pretense that government should represent the public interest over private profit.

Here is the context in which the 2024 presidential election is happening: On one side Team Status Quo. Biden speaks to those who somehow believe things are functioning basically as they should despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Biden asks the electorate to keep its blinders on and pretend that the American system can keep staggering along this way for another four years or more.

On the other side is Team Wrecking Ball. (There is no third side because there can only ever be two sides in a system that employs winner-take-all elections and actively takes steps to outlaw alternatives like ranked choice voting or proportional representation, which would give us fewer hopeless options than just the Democrats or Republicans.) 

Donald Trump has long “joked” about his desire to become president for life. To use just one example: When discussing Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said in 2018, “He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”

Trump’s response to an anxious Sean Hannity about any incipient dictatorship prompted not a denial but more “jokes.” In Trump’s retelling of the incident, “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’” How reassuring.

According to The Washington Post, there is even talk that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act as soon as he takes office, allowing him to deploy the US military against American protestors, part of a larger scheme to punish or silence his political opponents.

Donald Trump is the candidate for those who want to blow this system right up. His answer to our dysfunctional government is to entrust it to him. And Trump’s supporters are buying it. The American system limits the public’s means of political expression severely. We have but two options. When a dissatisfied population has the choice between keeping our broken, unrepresentative system and the option to self-destruct, some have decided it is time to mash that self-destruct button as hard as possible.

In the American two-party system, there are just two seats at the table and money occupies both. Americans don’t trust our institutions, and they don’t trust one another. What might one expect to happen when there are only two options and neither will consider the needs of the mass population? Some will conclude that the answer is to blow this system up and roll the dice on whatever replaces it.

Trump’s Art of the Deal

There is nothing inherent about Trump that makes the Republican base blindly follow him. If we take a brief trip down the memory hole, we can see that Trump was not always so beloved by Republicans. In May 2015, before the formal announcement of his candidacy, an ABC/The Washington Post poll showed only 16% of Republicans had a favorable view of Trump, while 65% saw him unfavorably. By his coronation at the Republican convention in 2016, the trend had been reversed, with 65% of Republicans seeing him favorably. After Trump became president, his favorability ratings shot past 80% amongst Republicans.

Trump has long positioned himself as a conduit for the frustrations of his supporters. He is the one, he tells them, who gives voice to the voiceless. This is not a new strategy. It’s possible to draw a direct line from Trump’s pitch back to Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority rhetoric. Trump says that he is called to serve. He tells us that he doesn’t need politics, politics needs him.  Ultimately, it’s a very traditional sales pitch.

The January 6 Capitol riot did little to dent his support. If anything, the full-scale attack by the establishment that followed has made Trump seem more authentic to his base. As former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker told the Associated Press, “One of the key things that President Trump has done well on is kind of position this as, ‘They’re going after me because I dared to take on the machine, I dared to take on the swamp, I dared to take on the establishment.’” 

Some Trump supporters take this idea further. One supporter told MSNBC, “When Jesus died, he died for us… so when Trump is facing all these things, he’s doing it for us in our place.”

Trump has successfully judo-flipped the perception of his legal onslaught into a net positive with supporters. MSNBC statistician Steve Kornacki showed how the first indictments against Trump turned a potentially competitive GOP primary into a Trump blowout. He said, “It almost seems to have triggered a rally around Trump effect among Republicans.”

The fact that there is a clear partisan divide on whether the US government is trustworthy should not come as a huge surprise. Historically, this trend line has swapped back and forth. Whenever “your guy” is in power, the home team tends to say they trust the government more. As expected, those who identify as “liberal” or Democratic have much higher levels of trust, according to the Pew Research Center (23%, still not great). But now, only 4% of those who identify as conservative Republicans say they trust the government to do the right thing. Clearly, in their view, the legal attacks on Trump are illegitimate. 

The Dysfunctional Two-party System

Trump supporters are most disenchanted with American politics and stand ready to push the TNT plunger down to blow things up. It’s silly to pretend that support for Trump does not include a faction of people who have had it and want to hit the reset button. They see an opportunity to begin dismantling the current system. They hope that doing so will benefit them because Trump tells them he is the avatar of their will. Like it or not, this represents a rational response to a dysfunctional political system that severely restricts political expression.

But just because it is a rational response does not make the immolation of the American system desirable or guarantee any improvement for the mass population, least of all for Trump’s base. Should a Trump dictatorship emerge, it would doubtlessly be a nightmare. His propensity for deal-making would almost certainly mean good things for corporate power and bad things for anyone drawing a paycheck. (Please see Trump’s 2017 tax cut for the rich if you doubt this.) Authoritarian regimes all tend to go that way. Even Trump’s most devoted supporters would probably miss freedom of expression and the ability to disagree with government policies.

It is easier to destroy than it is to build. The Republican Party has spent most of the modern era since Reagan trying to dismantle the existing system in favor of one that is more pro-business. Trump supporters are ready to finish the job. And waiting in the wings is the fanatically right-wing Heritage Foundation, prepared with a step-by-step instruction manual on how to crown the next Republican president a dictator perpetuus.

I am reminded of a passage from Thomas Frank’s book What’s the Matter with Kansas? (An excellent example  for understanding how the GOP has stoked and leveraged the anger of the American population for decades in service of its core business agenda.) Frank writes:

The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. “We are here,” they scream, “to cut your taxes.”

— Frank, Thomas. What’s the Matter with Kansas? Picador, NY. 2004 p. 109

The prospect of a Trump reset does not offer anything hopeful. His supporters might get their wish. But whatever will happen should Trump manage to obliterate the American system is nightmarishly unpredictable.

Trump supporters aren’t wrong for being angry and frustrated. They aren’t wrong for wanting something better. They aren’t wrong for feeling powerless, at the end of their rope. Plenty of conservatives’ sworn enemies feel the same way. It might not seem like it, but there is enormous potential for finding common ground.

What’s needed is empowerment. What’s needed is hope. What’s needed is a vision of the future that prioritizes the public interest over money power. Neither major party is offering that. 

Sadly, it is not irrational to vote for Team Wrecking Ball.

[Liam Roman edited this article]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post It’s Simplistic to Assume Trump’s Devoted Voters Are Irrational. appeared first on Fair Observer.

— Murray Dobbin

Have you ever noticed how religions have changed over human history? In the book The Art of Loving, author Erich Fromm lays out a timeline unlike any I had ever seen before.

In the beginning (to borrow a phrase), primitive humans did not see themselves as separate and distinct from the natural world. The earliest religions used animal masks and nature totems. If a village depended on hunting deer, for example, their tribe might have a deer god that they worshiped. Because they were dependent on that animal for survival, it was fetishized, in the religious sense of the word. Objects or icons associated with that animal might be venerated and imbued with supernatural potency.

In the next phase, according to Fromm, mankind was no longer completely dependent on nature. As humans left the Stone Age, the development of newer and better tools led to a kind of recognition of humanity’s mastery over nature. As artists and artisans developed the ability to shape metals, and hunting and gathering gave way to more complex agriculture, gods changed too. This period was marked with idols made of clay, silver and gold. Think of the Chachapoyan Fertility Idol stolen by Indiana Jones at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark. At this point man transformed the product of his own hand into a god. As Fromm says, mankind projected his own powers and skills onto the things he made, imbuing them with magical properties.

God in our own image

Moving on from there, mankind finally struck on what a god must really look like: Himself. With man’s ultimate mastery over nature, Fromm says, humankind began to perceive itself as the highest, most dignified thing in the universe. Likewise, humanity’s gods reflected this. At this point in history, graven images were replaced with an assortment of gods that possessed human traits and looked like us. Here the Greek, Roman or Norse pantheons spring to mind. These polytheistic gods behaved like humans, with very human weaknesses and grudges against one another.

It was only in the most recent period that humanity began to worship singular deities — though, Fromm says, this too transformed over time. Early monotheistic religions went through what he called a “matriarchal” phase — emphasizing the godhead’s unconditional love for people, who were all equal in the eyes of God. Later monotheistic religions developed into a “patriarchal” phase — with conditional love based on following the laws of a father God. Those who obeyed the demands and principles of the Lord were the only ones who would be accepted by Him.

Fromm posits that monotheism is the final stage in God’s evolution. But isn’t it possible that something might come after that? Could it be that a new religion might spring up without anyone noticing? One that perhaps includes many of the elements of the earlier iterations of human development, but is also unmistakably modern? One that blends science, the mastery of mankind over nature, and a patriarchal godhead that rewards devotion and punishes the unworthy?

The newest stage in human religion

Obviously the answer, in my opinion, is yes. But what, exactly, am I implying?

There is a new religion on the block. One that does not care if you still worship at your traditional church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. This new religion is a blend of man’s ancient tendency to worship his own handiwork and marvel at his mastery over nature combined with an all-powerful entity that rewards the faithful and punishes the weak. This religion has its own sacred texts, holy men and even cable channels. This new religion has spread to every corner of the globe and won converts in the halls of power in just about every nation on earth. This religion has its own priestly class preserving orthodoxy and excommunicating heretics. The religion is known as Free-Market Capitalism — and its all-powerful deity is called The Market.

A bit too far? Perhaps. But it is worth taking the time to examine the ways that free-market capitalism is like a religion. We should also think about the ways that this brand of economics is unlike the science that it pretends to be.

We should also understand how modern free-market capitalism is incompatible with the proud traditions of humanity’s major religions, especially (and most ironically) Christianity.

This is part one of my series on why free market economics is a false religion. Stay tuned for the rest!

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post A New Religion to Bring You to Your Knees: Capitalism, if You Please… appeared first on Fair Observer.

One of my personal favorite Chicagoans, labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan, explains in his excellent book Which Side Are You On? Trying to Be for Labor When It’s Flat on Its Back. “When people ask me, ‘Why can’t labor organize the way it did in the thirties?’” he says, “the answer is simple: everything we did then is now illegal.”

Since the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, American labor has been fighting with both hands tied behind its back. Management doesn’t want a fair fight because, in a fair fight, they’ll lose.As Geoghegan writes, “There’s no other country (outside the Third World) where it’s tougher legally to organize a union.

The law passed in 1947 when Republicans and Southern Democrats joined together to override Democratic President Harry Truman’s veto. The goal was mainly to crush organizing on the grand scale that had been seen in the 1930s. It outlawed mass picketing, secondary strikes of neutral employers, sit-down strikes — all of the most effective tactics that made the 1930s such a boom time for union organizing.

Defanging union pension funds

Taft-Hartley also outlawed unions from having full control of a pension fund as long as employers contributed to them. This would have given unions the power to start buying companies, something United Mine Workers of America president John L. Lewis had already begun doing in the 1940s. At one point the United Mineworkers pension fund owned the National Bank of Washington. This was a huge threat to capital and a major motivator for the passage of Taft-Hartley. Because of that law, it’s now federally illegal for a union to control a pension fund in this way, while at the same time completely commonplace for business owners to control them or even destroy them.

Roadblocks to labor organization

Taft-Hartley intentionally impaired card checks a method by which the employees of a firm turn in authorization forms, or “cards,” in order to establish a union. The act crippled union organizing with hearings, campaign periods, secret ballot elections and more hoops to jump through before a union can be recognized in the US. All of these are huge advantages for union-busting companies that want to stop unions.

According to Geoghegan, when Canadian workers want to form a union, all they have to do is sign cards that say they authorize the union to represent them. If they get 55% of workers to sign, the employer must bargain with that new union. There are no hearings, no extra elections, no endless lawsuits. Geoghegan writes, “Canadian workers just sign cards, and bang, they’re in a union. It goes so fast, there is no chance to fire them.”

Finally, it was Taft-Hartley that helped transform modern American unions into giant, lumbering bureaucracies by making collective bargaining agreements enforceable as “contracts,” putting the onus on unions to hold their members to the language of those contracts.

As Geogeghan says, Taft-Hartley envisioned a world where unions would no longer need to strike anymore. Instead, there would be arbitration and lawyers. How nice — for business owners. (This is a huge clue about who was in the driver’s seat when this law was written.)

People need to realize that unions are weak in the US because of laws passed with the direct intention of weakening unions. This was purposeful. Unions have one primary imperative that stockholders and their handmaidens in management hate: raising worker wages. This is what makes unions good for us and bad for the rich.

When I sit here and talk about repealing one of the main laws that have operated like a giant chunk of kryptonite to union organizing for the past three-quarters of a century, I am completely aware that neither the Democrats nor Republicans would ever sit by and allow it to happen. Voting blue will never end Taft-Hartley. We need to build a working-class organization to advocate for changes like this because the wealthy control both major parties in this country.

Let’s make it easier to join a union and set the working class free in this country — while raising our wages at the same time. Repealing Taft-Hartley is a great place to start.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How Shrewd Legislation Crippled the American Labor Movement appeared first on Fair Observer.

Every article you read about RFK Jr. is going to emphasize that his candidacy is a long shot. Some sources — like a recent Vox podcast — will even come right out and say he’ll never win.

The dominant message to the American public is that if you’re not voting Democrat or Republican on Election Day, you are “throwing your vote away.” This is the knee-jerk response to any discussion about a candidate that does not have a D or an R next to their name. 

There are huge institutional barriers designed to block upstart challengers from operating outside the two-party system in the US. Stat-heads can summon Excel spreadsheets that “prove” it is impossible for an independent or third-party challenger to win the Electoral College. In fact, no independent has won the presidency since George Washington. Obviously it would be easier to get around that problem if the popular vote counted in presidential elections. But the US continues to hand victory to the loser of the popular vote about 11% of the time. 

These psychological and structural barriers exist and will still be firmly in place on November 5, 2024. But RFK Jr. can still win.

Watershed polling

A recent Quinnipiac poll showed Kenedy with a surprising 22% share of the electorate in a head-to-head matchup against Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Another poll shows Kennedy pulling ahead of both major party contenders among voters under 45 in several key battleground states. This is a significant breakthrough. 

Unexpectedly, Americans are becoming aware that 2024 could be a three-way race: An independent candidate could potentially upset the two-party hammerlock on power.

But is this a surprise? Joe Biden and Donald Trump are hugely unpopular. According to 538, a majority of Americans holds an unfavorable view of both candidates: 54% for Biden, same for Trump. To say that the people are not jazzed about a replay of the 2020 election is supreme understatement. In contrast, more view Kennedy favorably than unfavorably. 

Old name, new game

So who is Robert Francis Kennedy Junior, who promises to inject fresh blood into the 2024 race?

Well, the name is a clue that he is actually some very old blood, at least by American standards. The Kennedy name is the most recognizable brand in US politics, putting even the Bush dynasty at a distant second place. RFK Jr. is the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy Sr. and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. It makes one wonder how many Americans would vote for RFK Jr. even if they didn’t know a single other thing about him besides that surname.

The Kennedy provenance gives establishment credibility that past independent and third-party candidates would have killed for: the advantage of an entire life spent in politics. RFK Jr. has been attending high-profile parties since childhood, including the one Frank Sinatra threw for his uncle Jack at the 1960 Democratic convention. As a result, Kennedy knows the fathers of practically every prominent modern American, and there’s a good chance he’s met their grandfathers as well.

However, several members of his family have gone out of their way to disavow his candidacy. Four of eight living siblings put out a statement saying, “Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision or judgment … We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country.”

While his family is busy spurning him, Kennedy has now spurned the Democratic Party his family’s traditional home. The Democrats currently hold the White House, and incumbency is always the strongest  advantage in any election. Earlier this year the Democratic National Committee voted to support President Biden’s plan to reorder the primaries according to his preference. On top of that, Democrats won a court case in 2017 that gave the major parties an all-clear to play favorites during the primary election season. Facing what he called roadblocks to “fair primary elections,” RFK Jr. is now running as an independent.

RFK Jr.’s political views: third-party mindset

Voters may know what they’re getting with Biden and Trump, but Kennedy is a true wild card. He told New York Magazine, “I still consider myself a Democrat, and I have all the values that I grew up with, nothing changed.” But outside of his positions on the environment and abortion, there isn’t much overlap between RFK Jr. and his family’s party.

The perception of many Democrats is that RFK Jr. is an anti-vax nutjob. His unorthodox views on the subject are like catnip to the millions who listen to Joe Rogan, but absolutely anathema to mainstream MSNBC-watching Dems — though Kennedy has not actively sought the approval of traditional Democrats, anyway.

It is precisely Kennedy’s ability to appeal to voters outside of the traditional Democratic spectrum that makes him a threat to both major parties. Taking a page from Trump’s playbook, Kennedy has recently said he plans to “formulate policies that will seal the border permanently.” He has also been critical of gun control. He has stressed that, while he might support a bipartisan assault weapons ban, he was “not going to take people’s guns away.”

As a Democrat who was willing to criticize President Biden, Kennedy was a frequent guest and darling of the right-wing media circuit during his period in the Democratic primary. After announcing his independent run, however, that relationship may have soured. Republicans like Trump spokesman Steven Cheung swiftly went on the attack, saying in a statement, “Voters should not be deceived by anyone who pretends to have conservative values.”

The GOP has good reason for anxiety. Current polling shows Kennedy is likely to take a bigger chunk of Republican voters than Democrats. No doubt even more alarming to party insiders, a Politico analysis of campaign finance reports shows Kennedy is pulling in significantly more big-money political investment from those who traditionally give to Republicans, hitting the GOP where it hurts.

Kennedy’s image as an anti-establishment populist has enabled him to stake foreign policy positions far outside what either major party could stomach. His primary attack on the Democratic establishment is that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are “warmongers.” He has also criticized the CIA as an institution designed only to provide more wars to keep the military-industrial complex afloat.

But there are also reasons to question how anti-establishment Kennedy truly is. Despite a willingness to call out chemical and oil companies, industrial agriculture and Big Pharma for their culpability for chronic disease, he does not support single-payer healthcare. His views on the Israel–Palestine issue are unlikely to win over many on the left either.

Kennedy also regularly reaffirms his economic orientation as that of “a free-market capitalism kind of guy.” This really shouldn’t be surprising, of course, considering Kennedy’s roots. As he wrote in his own family memoir, American Values, “During the Depression, there were only twenty-four known millionaires in the country, and among them were” both of his grandfathers, Joe Kennedy and George Skakel.

The US’s perfect independent candidate?

Herein lies the irony of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign for president. He is the most establishment candidate, strictly on the strength of his family and the privileged personal position and connections the Kennedy name confers on every member, and yet he possesses an anti-establishment streak. This candidate spent his entire career as an environmental attorney (and if a job like that doesn’t make a person distrustful of what corporations or bureaucracies tell them, nothing will). He is somehow establishment and anti-establishment all rolled into one. 

It is precisely this combination of factors that might make him the perfect candidate for this moment. Independent voters, a huge plurality according to recent polling, have an unfavorable view of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. They are looking for something that neither major-party candidate is offering. If Kennedy gives independents reason to show up on Election Day, he can win.

The 2020 election contest had record voter turnout — the biggest in more than a century, 66%. But 80 million eligible voters still didn’t vote: one-third of the US voting population. 80 million is more than enough votes to turn the tide in Kennedy’s favor.

It is the winner-takes-all election system that bequeaths two-party politics to the US. It is winner-takes-all that gives us the lesser-of-two-evils phenomenon, making any independent or third-party candidate a “spoiler.” But another reality of a three-way race is that it is possible to win with a simple plurality of the vote, as little as 34% if the race is a dead heat. As Kennedy himself said, “The Democrats are terrified I’ll spoil the election for President Biden. The Republicans fear I’ll spoil it for President Trump. The truth is — they’re both right! But only their inside-the-beltway myopia deludes them into thinking we have no chance to win.”

Of course RFK Jr. can win.

[Bella Bible edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Breakfast with Chad: The RFK Enigma

Political Apathy Is Rational, but Don’t Fall For It

Why Is Congress So Polarized? It’s the Institutions

The post Can Bobby Kennedy Win the Presidency Now? Of Course appeared first on Fair Observer.

One of the most important aspects of fascism, and also one of the most overlooked, is the link between fascism and capitalism. Fascism is a last-ditch effort to preserve the existing capitalist system and class structure — by force.

My hero, Michael Parenti, made a fantastic presentation entitled “Functions of Fascism” that is the basis for this piece. You can find it on Youtube or in the TUC Radio archive. I’d highly recommend it. What I would like to do is compare the main characteristics of fascism as outlined by Parenti and compare them to what we see today with Donald Trump.

First, defining fascism can be puzzling for some people because, as Parenti describes, fascism is a confusing combination of revolutionary-sounding mass appeals and reactionary class politics. Fascism promises to solve society’s problems while, at the same time, it uses violence and terror to protect the interests of the wealthy few at the top. It is basically a new order designed to serve the same old system.

Parenti outlines five main characteristics of fascism, using Italy under Benito Mussolini and Germany under Adolf Hitler as his primary examples.

First on the list is the glorification of the leadership cult. This one is so clear it doesn’t really need an explanation. Donald Trump is the leader and his followers rally behind him. Without strongman Trump, we wouldn’t be having this conversation about fascism in the US. Trump is the leadership cult.

Next is the glorification of the nation-state. This too requires little explanation. The MAGA hat. Make America Great Again. Trump promises a restoration of some imagined past American greatness. That’s two big checkmarks already.

Third is the glorification of military conquest. This one is admittedly not a perfect fit. Of the two major candidates, Joe Biden has the more aggressive, warlike foreign policy. However, nobody beats Trump for jingoism and aggressive patriotism. Trump doesn’t point to international conquest so much as suppression of any domestic resistance to his vision. We’ll give a half-check for this one.

The fourth characteristic of fascism is what Parenti calls the propagation of folk mysticism. In Germany, this manifested as the buildup of a Teutonic Aryan race and the vilification of the Jewish population. What we are talking about is the creation of in-groups and a xenophobic rejection of out-groups. Here in the US, this manifests as the preoccupation with white domination and a rejection of Muslims, immigrants from Central America and South America, trans people, women who want bodily autonomy … I’m sure you can come up with more examples.

Trump recently said he plans to build massive concentration camps and expel immigrants. The Republican Party has been passing all sorts of anti-trans and anti-abortion laws that feel very much of a piece with the shedding of rights as the noose tightened around the German Jewish population in the 1930s. This is a key piece of the fascist puzzle, and Trump and the Republicans slot right in there.

The final characteristic of fascism, according to Parenti, is opposition to socialism, communism, anarchism, or any left-wing, egalitarian movements or doctrines. I am reminded right away of Trump’s words from Veterans Day, 2023, when he promised to “root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country — that lie and steal and cheat on elections.”

As Parenti notes, most analysts, American analysts especially, ignore this aspect of fascism. While it’s common for the Right to accuse left-wing movements of trying to “destroy democracy,” fascist totalitarianism actively seeks the destruction of democracy — but in a way that protects the interest of property and the existing class structure. This, Parenti emphasizes, is the true difference between left and right. The Right always seeks to preserve or expand the existing hierarchy of power and privilege.

If you’re a member of the working class, meaning you’re part of the vast majority of citizens in this country, Donald Trump isn’t really interested in raising your wages or helping you out in any meaningful way. He already proved this during his first term in office, the passage of his massive tax cut for the wealthy and corporations being a prime example.

Is Donald Trump a fascist? Well, he checks four and a half out of five boxes, for a score of 90%. That’s an A minus — but still grade-A fascist.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

What Will the World Look Like if Trump Wins?

Trump’s Monumental Lies Without Consequences Endanger a Nation

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

The post What Happens When You Compare Trump to Five Characteristics of Fascism? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Fear versus hope. Fear is a powerful motivator.

The Democratic Party’s fear-based argument in 2024 is that if you don’t vote for them, you are helping usher in the new era of American fascism embodied in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. We are instructed to take this threat very seriously. I suppose it’s a coincidence that making the 2024 race about encroaching fascism distracts from the fact that the Democrats have an extremely weak presidential candidate — Joe Biden, who would find it very difficult to win reelection next year on his merits.

There is potency to this argument that the Republicans are plotting a full-scale move toward fascism if they win the presidency in 2024. Democratic operatives are quick to warn that a vote for anyone but Democratic candidates is a vote for encroaching fascism. That’s scary. That’s some real fear-based thinking.

That kind of fear-based thinking was commonplace during the George W. Bush era.

How politicians use fear to manipulate you

Let’s take a step back in time to the 2004 presidential election.

President George W. Bush was running for reelection against Senator John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry. The campaign was hard-fought, focusing mainly on the Iraq war and terrorism. Like today, Bush’s reelection pitch was fear-based. 

Remember, this was just three years after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The government was still in full-on freakout mode. The American public was feeling very edgy. We were all waiting for the next big terror attack. When was it gonna be?? I think we were all coping with a little society-wide PTSD. And Bush’s message was: Stick with me or the terrorists are going to start blowing all sorts of shit up here in the US of A.

So, the hysteria over a creeping terror threat was still very immediate. The newly-formed Department of Homeland Security developed a scary, color-coded “Advisory System” to let the public know about any potentially imminent attacks. The rainbow colors went from calming green (low) to emergency red (severe), yet never seemed to drop below the yellow (elevated) indicator in the middle. 

In his memoir, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft pressured him to raise the terror alert level just days before the 2004 election. Ridge revealed a “dramatic” discussion with them on October 30th, writing like a naïve little lamb,

I wondered, “Is this about security or politics?” Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.

Ultimately the terror alert level was not raised in that instance. Ridge turned in his resignation exactly one month later, claiming in his book that this incident was what convinced him it was time to go.

But make no mistake, fear-based politics is what helped secure George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004. And you can bet that plenty of the oldsters who run the Democratic Party learned that lesson well. And are employing that lesson right now before our very eyes.

Fear kills your hope for a better alternative

Fear-based politics works. I’m not even trying to argue that there isn’t a strain of truth to the Democrats’ sales pitch! In one 2022 poll, 42% of Republicans agreed with the statement that “Strong, unelected leaders are better than weak, elected ones.” Of course, 31% of Democrats agreed with that as well. Donald Trump has been joking for years about how he would like to be president for life — and let’s not forget that he had his own Beer Hall Putsch in 2021 trying to make that happen.

My point isn’t that Republicans aren’t steering towards authoritarianism in a frightening way — it’s that fear-based politics, while effective, only works to support the status quo. When you’re voting because you’re terrified about some vision of a dystopian future, you’re not able to imagine a better one. Fear shuts down hope.

If you’re scared to death, you’re not thinking about the future, because you don’t even know if there will be a future. This is the problem with having only two parties. If one is going over the ledge into straight-up authoritarianism and the other can only say, “Let’s keep things the way they are,” nothing will ever get better. 

Democrats aren’t offering anything but more of the same. Will democracy be “secured” if Democrats win in 2024? Won’t the threat of encroaching fascism still exist in 2026, 2028, 2030? If it does, you can bet that Democrats will still be using it to scare you into voting for them. And nothing will ever get better for a working class that’s just struggling to make ends meet in an economy run by and for the rich and corporations — who are the true beneficiaries of any fascist system. Go ahead and look that up if you don’t believe me.

But hey, that’s just like, my opinion, man. Do with that what you will.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The Democratic Party vs. Its Voters

Don’t Be Discouraged. Voting Will Make You Powerful

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

The post Politicians Want You to Be Afraid of the Other Guy appeared first on Fair Observer.

We are told that it is our civic duty. We are supposed to vote because it is a celebration of our freedom and liberty. We are told that it is a patriotic act.

I suppose all of these things are true, but these are not the reasons that people have fought and died to win their right to vote. Suffragettes didn’t face the threat of having their children taken from them simply because they were feeling patriotic. African Americans didn’t withstand firebombs and lynching because they wanted to celebrate liberty. Voting is much more than this.  

If voting is simply a civic duty, then it is a duty that is very easily shirked. Patriotism and celebrating liberty are great and all, but not really sufficient reason to miss work waiting on line for hours and hours at a polling place. If voting were only a patriotic gesture, then you could be forgiven for not bothering with it.

By the same token, if you don’t happen to feel very patriotic, then not voting is its own political act. It is a self-defeating one to be sure, but it is a way that you can register your dissatisfaction with a political system that has left you behind. Non-voting can be a quiet middle finger extended to a greedy and corrupt political class.

These reasons for voting are shallow.

Voting is power

The real reason to vote is that voting is a way to take control of our destiny. Voting is the only way people like you and I have to restrain the power of wealth.

Voting is the most efficient way to make institutions listen to our demands. It’s sometimes possible for these institutions to ignore angry people out in the street. It is much harder to ignore those angry people when they seize the levers of power. We can do that.

Voting is economic power. Consider the suffragettes. Women won a great deal more than just the right to vote with the 19th Amendment. Before women got the vote in 1920, they could not serve on juries in most states. Many universities, medical schools and law schools barred women. Married women did not have legal custody of their own children. Women only gradually gained the right to control their own property throughout the 19th century. Before this, a married woman’s earnings, inheritance and any other property were all effectively her husband’s property in the eyes of the law.

No one understands the economic power of the vote better than the rich. A look at voting rates among the wealthy class is proof., According to the US Census Bureau, the wealthy vote at much higher rates than everyone else. In 2008, 81.6% of Americans making over $150,000 a year said they voted, the highest of all income brackets. Compare that to Americans making less than $15,000 a year, who had only a  50.1% chance of voting.

In their study entitled “How the Dominance of Politics by the Affluent & Business Undermines Economic Mobility in America,” David Callahan and J. Mijin Cha noted that the rich are more likely to take part in every political activity.

They vote at higher rates, contribute more to campaigns, are more likely to contact an elected representative, join an organized interest group, work for a political candidate, discuss politics with friends, and so on.

We should learn from the rich, even if it’s much easier for them to justify voting because the major parties are much more sensitive to their needs than the needs of the non-rich. The rich vote because they see it makes a material difference in their lives. But there are a lot more of us than them. If we all started voting in our own self-interest, we could make the government more attuned to our needs than theirs. It is not impossible to get the government to listen to us and what we want, even though it might feel that way. We can do it. But first, we must get organized.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Don’t Be Discouraged. Voting Will Make You Powerful appeared first on Fair Observer.

Above all, the formidable, ubiquitous presence of corporate political organizations persuades many citizens to retreat from the contest. That may be the gravest damage of all. Faced with this assembled power, many people accept their own impotence and defer. They assume that the hard work of democracy — debating public issues, contesting elections, helping organize their own lives — is work that belongs to others.

The way I see it, there are two ways one can react to feelings of political powerlessness. The first is emotional, the second is rational.

What is the emotional response? Cynicism.

Cynicism is what happens when a person sees a rigged system and concludes that nothing can ever be done about it. It is a normal human response to feelings of helplessness. When people believe that no one is paying attention to them, it is natural for them to feel they should respond in kind. “Fine!” you might think. “If you’re going to ignore me, then I’ll ignore you.” What follows is a smug feeling of superiority over others. “Hmph, please.” Being cynical is a defense mechanism, a defense against our overwhelming sense of impotence. Cynicism is a protective psychological coating that stops us from getting our hopes up — and the disappointment that follows. It is also completely self-defeating.

The second reaction is the logical response: Apathy.

It actually makes sense for a rational person to feel apathetic about politics, as political scientist Anthony Downs famously concluded in his 1957 article, “An Economic Theory of Democracy.” It works like this: In a large electorate, like what we have in the United States, a single vote is basically insignificant. Since the cost of voting is low (in terms of time and effort) millions of citizens can afford to vote — so they do. Since so many people vote the chance that your single ballot will affect the final outcome is vanishingly small. Because of this, it doesn’t really matter, rationally, if you bother to pay attention to who you’re voting for or why. Therefore, apathy about politics is a rational response in a large democracy. Downs notes, “Since the odds are that no election will be close enough to render decisive the vote of any one person, or the votes of all he can persuade to agree with him, the rational course of action for most citizens is to remain politically uninformed.”

But what makes rational sense for one individual completely erodes our democracy when applied on a mass scale. When lots of people check out, it is fair to expect that the government to do a much worse job representing us. Downs goes on to say, “Government does not serve the interests of the majority as well as it would if they were well informed.” Although it would be “collectively rational” for voters to inform themselves, it is “individually irrational for them to do so.” Since there is no way to ensure that we work together to achieve what’s in our collective interest, we each behave rationally and therefore sabotage ourselves collectively. In this case, behaving rationally hurts us.

It is not an unreasonable response for people to tune out of our political system and stop voting. But it is honestly the worst response we can possibly have. On top of that — checking out only increases the power of those who are already in charge.

The American electoral system feeds off our despair. The less confidence we have that voting matters, the less we vote. The less we vote, the less politicians need to care about what we think. As our political class addresses fewer of our needs, we feel even less inclined to vote. It’s a depressing downward spiral, and it’s killing what remains of this country’s democracy.

Don’t give in to these feelings. Normal people like you and me possess a lot more power than we realize. Together we can shake the foundations of our political system. But the first step is believing that change is possible. Once you realize that your voice has power, it’s only a matter of putting it to work to start making that change happen.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Political Apathy Is Rational, but Don’t Fall For It appeared first on Fair Observer.