Democratic Theory
Democratic Socialism versus Unregulated Capitalism: A Rant by a Pissed-Off Liberal
02/12/10 14:07
Democratic Socialism (think Denmark, Sweden, Germany) is not an evil. It is a good. Rampant, unregulated capitalism is not a good (think Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria). It is an evil.
Until recently, America has charted a course between the two. I favor the former, conservatives favor the latter. I would like us to be more like Denmark or Germany, Conservatives would love us to be like Mexico. Conservatism the world-over is winning. Just look at yesterday's news: Britain's Tory government is slashing services in the name of deficit reduction. The conservative trick has always been to bloat the military budgets of the countries they are in when they exercise control. Then they claim no money is available for services that will benefit the peoples of their respective countries so domestic services must be cut to keep the budget "in line". We balance our budgets on the backs of the weak, not the strong. This is a moral wrong.
You cannot tell me that here in the U.S. with a defense budget larger than all of the countries of the world COMBINED, cannot do more to shore up our economy and provide for its people's fundamental needs. We can do this and more. And none of this will interfere with the functioning of the lightly-regulated marketplace we have in this country.
But I would be remiss not to point out, that in America these issues have always been a "theoretical argument". Liberals like me and conservatives fight the idea of a "public good" in a vacuum. The levers of power are controlled by corporations who effectively co-opt the process with financial contributions to the election coffers of the members of Congress. Subsequently, the market IS, in fact, highly regulated: regulated to provide all the decision-making power about our national economic policy to the hands of the companies who finance our elections. That means they have socialized all of their risk, and privatized all of their profit (remember the bank bailouts everyone hated so much, or the GM bailout, et al.). I'm not against profits, but I am against making the public pay for private losses because of malfeasance or negligence. I am also opposed to the wealthiest among us (corporations included) paying little or no taxes.
In addition, conservatives own the six companies that own ALL of the national media in the U.S. How is it possible to have an informed electorate when that electorate is fed "infotainment" nonstop? The media are another arm of control in the battle for power over our institutions. In effect, to wrest control of the government from the plutocratic institutions that control it now, we must amend our Constitution to publicly finance elections, else this theoretical debate will never result in policy decisions that reflect either democratic socialist policies or laissez-faire capitalist principles. That's a debate I'd love our country to have, because I believe my side would win.
In addition, we must end the fiction that corporations are people, endowed with the same rights and privileges. How many people do you know of that have multiple-billions of dollars and live on indefinitely? Corporations are different entities in the world and should be governed differently than individual citizens. They are designed to do one thing: make money for their shareholders. Which is fine. But to permit them access, influence, and control over the levers of power, speech, and regulation in our political economy is insanity; it is, in effect democratic suicide. Decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, must be overruled by legislation (constitutional amendment).
There is one other related item that is crucial to my argument here: the global environment. If the people of the industrialized world (and the U.S., in particular) truly exercised power over their political economy we would have had electric cars and solar & wind power production decades ago; long before peak oil became a reality in our lives. The fact that we do not and that it is only happening in small fits now is direct evidence of the paralysis the monied interests of our country have an interest in creating. This has consequences for the environment, not just the economy. Corporations in their self-interest have lead our planet to the edge. I suspect, based on the climate models we've known about for years, that we've passed the "tipping point". We are in for a world of hurt in the coming decades. My hope is that our environmental pressures will force political changes that are for the good, not the bad.
But at the moment, conservatives are more effectively using political paralysis and economic crisis more effectively than liberals/social democrats, and are continuing to take us off the cliff. They are the ones making their theoretical arguments of unregulated capitalism and "government is bad" for the people into real laws. The irony is, as stated already, "government is bad" is the mantra they get elected on; and, indeed, they do nothing for the people in the name of the government. But "government is very, very good" for their corporate benefactors and patrons, for whom they give large, lucrative government contracts, tax breaks, repeal regulations for, and give bailouts to when times get tough.
When law school is finished for me, I hope to be a huge problem for those in the world who would undermine Social Democracy.
The needs of citizens & democracy first. The needs of small business second. The needs of corporations and the rich, dead last: they can take care of themselves.
America deserves a democratic socialist government. I want us to be the Denmark of North America. Not the Mexico of the North.
Until recently, America has charted a course between the two. I favor the former, conservatives favor the latter. I would like us to be more like Denmark or Germany, Conservatives would love us to be like Mexico. Conservatism the world-over is winning. Just look at yesterday's news: Britain's Tory government is slashing services in the name of deficit reduction. The conservative trick has always been to bloat the military budgets of the countries they are in when they exercise control. Then they claim no money is available for services that will benefit the peoples of their respective countries so domestic services must be cut to keep the budget "in line". We balance our budgets on the backs of the weak, not the strong. This is a moral wrong.
You cannot tell me that here in the U.S. with a defense budget larger than all of the countries of the world COMBINED, cannot do more to shore up our economy and provide for its people's fundamental needs. We can do this and more. And none of this will interfere with the functioning of the lightly-regulated marketplace we have in this country.
But I would be remiss not to point out, that in America these issues have always been a "theoretical argument". Liberals like me and conservatives fight the idea of a "public good" in a vacuum. The levers of power are controlled by corporations who effectively co-opt the process with financial contributions to the election coffers of the members of Congress. Subsequently, the market IS, in fact, highly regulated: regulated to provide all the decision-making power about our national economic policy to the hands of the companies who finance our elections. That means they have socialized all of their risk, and privatized all of their profit (remember the bank bailouts everyone hated so much, or the GM bailout, et al.). I'm not against profits, but I am against making the public pay for private losses because of malfeasance or negligence. I am also opposed to the wealthiest among us (corporations included) paying little or no taxes.
In addition, conservatives own the six companies that own ALL of the national media in the U.S. How is it possible to have an informed electorate when that electorate is fed "infotainment" nonstop? The media are another arm of control in the battle for power over our institutions. In effect, to wrest control of the government from the plutocratic institutions that control it now, we must amend our Constitution to publicly finance elections, else this theoretical debate will never result in policy decisions that reflect either democratic socialist policies or laissez-faire capitalist principles. That's a debate I'd love our country to have, because I believe my side would win.
In addition, we must end the fiction that corporations are people, endowed with the same rights and privileges. How many people do you know of that have multiple-billions of dollars and live on indefinitely? Corporations are different entities in the world and should be governed differently than individual citizens. They are designed to do one thing: make money for their shareholders. Which is fine. But to permit them access, influence, and control over the levers of power, speech, and regulation in our political economy is insanity; it is, in effect democratic suicide. Decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, must be overruled by legislation (constitutional amendment).
There is one other related item that is crucial to my argument here: the global environment. If the people of the industrialized world (and the U.S., in particular) truly exercised power over their political economy we would have had electric cars and solar & wind power production decades ago; long before peak oil became a reality in our lives. The fact that we do not and that it is only happening in small fits now is direct evidence of the paralysis the monied interests of our country have an interest in creating. This has consequences for the environment, not just the economy. Corporations in their self-interest have lead our planet to the edge. I suspect, based on the climate models we've known about for years, that we've passed the "tipping point". We are in for a world of hurt in the coming decades. My hope is that our environmental pressures will force political changes that are for the good, not the bad.
But at the moment, conservatives are more effectively using political paralysis and economic crisis more effectively than liberals/social democrats, and are continuing to take us off the cliff. They are the ones making their theoretical arguments of unregulated capitalism and "government is bad" for the people into real laws. The irony is, as stated already, "government is bad" is the mantra they get elected on; and, indeed, they do nothing for the people in the name of the government. But "government is very, very good" for their corporate benefactors and patrons, for whom they give large, lucrative government contracts, tax breaks, repeal regulations for, and give bailouts to when times get tough.
When law school is finished for me, I hope to be a huge problem for those in the world who would undermine Social Democracy.
The needs of citizens & democracy first. The needs of small business second. The needs of corporations and the rich, dead last: they can take care of themselves.
America deserves a democratic socialist government. I want us to be the Denmark of North America. Not the Mexico of the North.
Commonwealth
17/05/09 15:38
This is one of my favorite essays on the kind of future we could all enjoy. As Obama navigates rough waters and attempts to steer the country in a new, sustainable, and more prosperous future Sanders’ essay came back to mind. For the most part, his vision is one I share. Read More...
Sustainable Economics Is More Than Possible: Our Lives Depend Upon It
16/05/09 15:45
This was an essay I wrote in 2005. I make the case that sustainable economic models are essential for our continued survival...
Biological diversity is under assault, the ozone layer is being depleted, weather patterns are changing, sea levels are rising, and human society, particularly industrial society, is the primary culprit. This scientific reality is so well-documented that it hardly bears citation (Boyd, 5, 6); in fact, these scientific realities are the premises of all the books cited in this argument. It is not a question of whether sustainable economics is possible. It is a question of when, how easy the transition can be made, and what the implications of implementing sustainable economics will be. Read More...
Biological diversity is under assault, the ozone layer is being depleted, weather patterns are changing, sea levels are rising, and human society, particularly industrial society, is the primary culprit. This scientific reality is so well-documented that it hardly bears citation (Boyd, 5, 6); in fact, these scientific realities are the premises of all the books cited in this argument. It is not a question of whether sustainable economics is possible. It is a question of when, how easy the transition can be made, and what the implications of implementing sustainable economics will be. Read More...
New Agrarianism as New Technology
15/05/09 15:52
This was an essay I wrote in critique of a certain strand of New Agrarian, Sustainable Agricultural thought that sees technology as antithetical and destructive of the natural environment. While some of these arguments have salience, I see the central critique of technology as flawed in the extreme. New Agrarianism is itself a new technology. Technology -- properly used and incentivized in law -- is the salvation of this planetary society. The abuse of technology and legal systems that do not quantify or penalize the destructive effects of misused technology are the culprits, not the technology itself. Read More...
The HERMES Act: A Way to Reclaim the Media for Democracy
14/05/09 15:57
Corporate ownership of the major media channels as well as the destruction of the “fairness doctrine” with media deregulation have lead to both an explosion of entertainment media and a simultaneous erosion of informative programming; in short, the news has become “infotainment”, not the information diet a democracy requires be present for an informed electorate. This essay is an attempt to capture the problem in one piece of legislation that could reinvigorate news media while preserving our diverse entertainment landscape. Read More...