What is socialism (Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me)

Originally posted on the Marx and Coca Cola blog

Recently Congressman Paul Broun (Retardlican-GA) had this to say about the Stimulus Bill:

I see this as a huge leap toward socialism as a nation. It's creating new government programs, it's creating new government jobs, that don't have any sunlight to those programs, to those jobs. It expands programs that are already there. It further - some of the tax relief, I believe and hope the gentlemen will agree with me, actually just furthers through the refundable tax credits a dependency upon government. My friend Star Parker had wrote a book one time that she called Uncle Sam's Plantation. And what this does is it economically enslaves people. And that's what we see happening.

Putting aside for a moment that this is all gibberish (Really? Tax credits are slavery. And "creating new government jobs, that don't have any sunlight to those programs", What the fuck does that mean?) let's explore this idea that somehow any government spending is equatable to socialism (I have a feeling that this idea will pop up a lot over the next couple of years). Socialism, like capitalism, is an economic system, which is the way goods and services are distributed throughout a society. A society can't have to two different economic systems. That would be like a hunter-gather tribe living next to a feudal estate next to a modern factory farm and operating as a coherent unit. Eventually one system would come to dominate the others. While the nation-sate may be the largest player within our capitalist system it is one of many. When governments spend money on goods or services (à la the stimulus) it does so in capitalist market with the other players (individuals, corporations, charities, etc.)

But how is this "socialist" stimulus plan any different from regular government spending? As this handy graph from the Heritage Foundation shows discretionary spending, especially military spending, increased dramatically during George W. Bush's term. Rather it was Medicare part D, No Child Left Behind, or his two wars he used government spending to fuel economic growth (for a good account of how W turned Northern Virginia into a Silicon Valley of lobbyists and defense contractors see Thomas Frank's The Wreaking Crew). George Bush was a Keynsianist in everything except name. But why didn't the free marketeers stand up and decry Bush as a socialist? The government spending programs that are described as "socialist" are school construction, health care for children, etc., in other words spending that benefits the vast majority of working people. Government spending that lines the pockets of the rich is "capitalist". It would also mean that the hundreds of billions of dollars that are spent on defense is not meant to actually protect Americans, but to enrich the few. This idea that social spending is socialism is the view that is also taken by various "communist" parties and the likes of Hugo Chavez. Republicans are just like Trotskyists; no wonder they can't win an election.

So from this we can conclude that socialism is anything Paul Broun doesn't like. For example if he saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and didn't like it, it would be a "socialist" movie. And just as bad as slavery.

JM

We are all socialists now

From the Marx and Coca Cola blog
A long time ago Milton Friedman asked Richard Nixon why he never took his economic advice to which Tricky Dick replied "We are all Keynesians now". Less than ten years later Ronald Reagan would declare "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.", and we were all Reaganomists now. At least until last week.
What makes this economic downturn different from the other recessions post-1980 is not so much the size, but the reaction of the powers that be. While Treasury Secretary Lex Luther wanted a 700 billion dollar blank check that "may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." (a plan referred to as an economic PATRIOT ACT), the usually spineless Democrats have actually said no. They have plans of their own. The most likely of these to pass is Chris Dodd's (D-CT) which would cap CEO pay, include foreclosure relief, and give the government a share in the profits the bailed out firms. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is floating an idea to put a tax on stock transactions. Getting a lot of ink on the Internet is Debbsian socialist Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) four point plan which includes a wealth surtax, increased regulation, increased social spending, and busting up the big financial firms. None of this is really socialism, but everything's been laissez-faire so long it looks like the Paris Commune in comparison. While this kind of faux-populism is to be expected during an election year crisis other less than expected critics are questioning the status quo.
From a Yahoo article entitled Many economists skeptical of bailout comes this quote from University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales:

"For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of a few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system. The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists."

A capitalism without capitalists if you will. Eric D. Hovde, the CEO of Hovde Capital and Hovde Acquisitions, writing in an op-ed praises government regulation, and decries Wall Street's influence on government. Actually most of the op-ed is a concise and well written history of this mess that blames everyone who deserves it. For example:

"In an attempt to protect his legacy after the Internet-bubble collapse, [former Fed chairmen Alan] Greenspan provided unprecedented stimulus to re-inflate the economy and maintain his popularity with Wall Street. (Remember the "Greenspan put"?) But in doing so, he spawned the largest debt and asset bubble in U.S. history."

In case you couldn't tell Greenspan was a close personal friend of Ayn Rand. In putting the blame where it's due Hovde also gives what I think is the definition of capitalism:

And in my view, there's no need to look beyond Wall Street -- and the halls of power in Washington. The former has created the nightmare by chasing obscene profits, and the latter have allowed it to spread by not practicing the oversight that is the federal government's responsibility.

What was the great fraud of Reaganomics was the belief that the government and the free market are two totally different and opposing forces. The government was either well intentioned (or evil) but incompetent, and only interfered with the perfect, all wise free market. The events of the last week have shown that's to be bullshit. There is no such thing as a "free" market. During the good times the state is there to put a veneer of respectability on fraud and extortion. During the bad times it's the knife that cuts off a finger to save the hand, but it is always capitalism's co-conspirator. This current down turn will lead to the state taking a greater role in the economy, and we might even get some increase in social spending (a la the New Deal). Capitalism will be saved from itself, and inevitably when the economy gets better and we've all forgotten (remember the Glass-Steagall Act? Me neither) these reforms will be repealed; we'll be right back here. The bad times is also when we should push for a real change that scraps capitalism and it's good buddy: the state, not just make them nicer.

JM

Playing the world's smallest violin

From the Marx and Coca Cola blog

You can imagine how sad I was to see this story on the front page of my local fish wrapper: Rich are not so different when economy is down. I cried a little. The story does briefly raise one interesting point:

"To be sure, the poor and middle class are being hurt more, but upper-crust thriftiness could reverberate across the rest of the economy.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes account for nearly a quarter of all spending, according to data compiled by research firm Moody's Economy.com from a 2006 federal survey....

Other government data show households in the top one-fifth of the U.S. population ranked by income earn about half of all total personal income before taxes — an imbalance that gives the wealthy immense economic clout, said Sara Johnson, an economist at the research firm Global Insight.

"Consumer spending makes up 70 percent of gross domestic product, and when one group accounts for a very substantial share of consumer spending, they also account for a large share of the economic activity that creates jobs," Johnson said."

The richest 1% have the largest share of the national income in two decades. According to the Wall Street Journal this is due in large part to that group's declining tax rate.

Instead of a story about how an accumulation of wealth, and by extension economic power, in the hands of fewer and fewer people is having a disastrous impact on the economy at large, the story instead focuses on the "hardships" endured by the not-working class:

"Many are asking their personal shoppers and private-jet providers to seek the best deals rather than over-the-top extravagances."

Boo-hoo. They'll have to start eating the nonorganic arugula.

"He also may buy a hybrid to supplement the two Mercedes in his heated four-car garage."

So sad. Think of his children.

"A lot of our clients stop by a deli on the way to the airport, rather than have a catered meal on the plane" costing $50 per boxed lunch, said Justin Sullivan. Sullivan is the founder of Regent Jet, an Andover, Mass.-based broker that buys blocks of aircraft time to trim costs for high-end clientele whose multi-leg itineraries can sometimes exceed $100,000."

Eating from a deli! What is this, Mexico? And this quote from the managing director of investments at the beleaguered Wachovia Securities:

""People are examining, 'Do you keep the yacht, do you go to the classic-car auction, do you take the private jet?' Those sound like nice problems to have, but at the same time, they are issues."

(Marx and Coca-Cola will be on hiatus while JM recovers from his rage-induced coma.)

JM

Stimulating packages

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Power and Privilege

From the Marx and Coca Cola blog

And this man wants to be president. From MSNBC :

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama released their Senate financial disclosure statements on Friday, revealing that Mr. McCain and his wife had at least $225,000 in credit card debt...The bulk of the McCains’ obligations stemmed from a pair of American Express credit cards that are held in Cindy McCain’s name. According to the disclosure reports, which present information on debts in a range rather than providing a precise figure, Mrs. McCain owed $100,000 to $250,000 on each card.

Unlike the millions of Americans who can't afford to pay their bills, because wages haven't risen in years, and are using their credit cards just to get by, Cindy McCain's:

filing, however, indicated that she had substantial holdings in property and stocks — including shares in Anheuser-Busch, which this week became the target of a takeover bid that is expected to send its value climbing. Her land holdings included parcels in Arizona and California, one of which was sold last year for a profit of more than $1 million.

In other filings, the McCains have reported total household assets of $24.6 million to $39.5 million. In recently releasing a summary version of her 2006 tax return, Mrs. McCain reported income that year of more than $6 million, some $300,000 of which was derived from her salary as the chairwoman of Hensley, which was founded by her father.

But here's the punchline courtesy of Huffington Post:

In fact, according to a prior disclosure form filed in May that was provided to The Huffington Post, a significant amount of the McCains' credit card debt is being held by American Express at an interest rate of zero percent.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact he's a US senator. Mavericks don't need to pay their bills.

Whats the Matter with Pennsylvania?

From the Marx and Coca-Cola blog

Recently at a campaign event Barack Obama made the following comment about the dying Rust Belt towns in Pennsylvania:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I couldn't agree more (except for the gun part. People like guns, because like cigarettes, they're cool). The goal of this blog is to channel working class bitterness away from religion and xenophobia into actual constructive action (I admit it's a long term project). According to a McCain spokesman that makes me a latte-drinking, New York Times reading, Volvo drinking liberal freak show:

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," [Steve] Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

This from a candidate that thinks everything is going great in Iraq.

Hillary, who's made 109 million dollars since leaving the White House, also disagrees:

"Well, that is not my experience," she said. "As I travel around Pennsylvania I meet people who are resilient, optimistic, positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard every day for a better future for themselves and their children"

Move along. Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. People are working harder, but for a lot less then they used to. Not for a better future, but just to keep their heads above water. Obama with his typical silver tongue, fired back in Indiana:

"When I go around and I talk to people there is frustration and there is anger and there is bitterness. And what's worse is when people are expressing their anger then politicians try to say what are you angry about? This just happened - I want to make a point here today.

"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how're you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What's going on there? We hear that's its hard for some working class people to get behind you're campaign. I said, "Well look, they're frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.

"And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement-- so, here's what's rich. Senator Clinton says 'No, I don't think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack's being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he's obviously out of touch with people.'

"Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain--it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch? Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch? No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania. I know what's going on in Indiana. I know what's going on in Illinois. People are fed-up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America."

As I've said before I like Obama's populist rhetoric. It will probably carry him to the White House. His actual policies, however, aren't much of a change from the liberal consensus. So when he says "And so people end up- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them." he's not quite right. The working class can't vote their economic interest, because even Democrats, like Obama, believe that the market is a force of nature. You may be able to cover people's head, but you can't stop the rain from falling. Us working folk shouldn't expect the government (or religion, or nationalism) to save us. So we'll have to find another way.

JM

Getting screwed in America

From the Marx and Coca-Cola blog.

It’s not often you hear a politician in America talk about class, especially about the working class. So I was surprised to learn that senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had asked his constituents to send him their stories about being caught in the "middle-class squeeze". He received over 360 responses, which is pretty good for a tiny state like Vermont. For those of you who don’t know much about Bernie, he was elected to the senate in 2006 after a about 10 years in the House. He describes himself as a democratic socialist (he has a picture of Eugene Debs in his office, he never combs his hair, loves Scandinavia, etc.). Despite (Because of?) his "European" politics he does quite well in the electoral arena (he beat the riches man in Vermont by 33% the last election). He’s probably the only politician who would actually care if anyone is having trouble making ends meet.

Before I post some of these stories I should say a few words about the term "middle class". There is no such thing. What we think of as the "middle class" is actually a section of the working class that has either attained a high level of education, or income, or both. So professionals, paper pushers, managers, as well as some union and skilled jobs are considered "middle class". These jobs are thought of as secure from the economic turmoils that affects the working class. But as these people testify that is not actually the case:

"My family has been hit so hard by this economy, we are barely staying afloat.
We have remortgaged the house 4 times in the last three years to pay credit card debt. Now we are trying to tap into our annuity to pay more credit card debt. The debts on the credit cards are all for bills. Mostly grocery, oil and the mere cost of living.

My husband is a union carpenter who works outside the state of Vermont and they just changed our fantastic insurance plan to a terrible one with barely any coverage. I have none of my doctors on it and I suffer from a painful burning nerve damage, due to a hysterectomy that I had four years ago. I am not eligible for social security disability and I am unable to work.

We had a dream to live in Vermont (we are originally from Long Island) and to own our own home, that dream came true seven years ago. I am afraid our dream is slipping through our fingers and it wont be long before we lose our home, the way things are going."

Most of the stories mention either the increase in either oil or food prices.

"As a couple with one child, earning about $55000/year, we have been able to eat out a bit, buy groceries and health insurance, contribute to our retirement funds and live a relatively comfortable life financially. We’ve never accumulated a lot of savings, but our bills were always paid on time and never any interest on our credit card. Over the last year, even though we’ve tightened our belts (not eating out much, watching purchases at the grocery store, not buying "extras" like a new TV, repairing the washer instead of buying a new one...), we find ourselves with over $7000 of credit card debt and trying to figure out how to pay for braces for our son! I work 50 hours per week to help earn extra money to catch up, but that also takes a toll on the family life--not spending those 10 hours at home with my husband and son makes a big difference for all of us. My husband hasn’t had a raise in 3 years, and his employer is looking to cut out any extra benefits they can to lower their expenses, which will increase ours!"

"I cannot afford the middle class. I live on Social Security Disability Income and live in subsidized housing.

Between the cuts in Medicare, increased prescription costs and escalating food prices, I have cut my expenses to the bare bone. Not even my food stamp allotment is enough. By the way, whenever a Food stamp recipient turns 65 as I did in February, we are no longer eligible for food stamps. Instead, we receive a cash allotment through our EBT cards.

When I grocery shop, I buy generic brands and whenever possible, I buy in bulk, thereby saving more than I would shopping either White Market of Price Chopper.

I know people who are choosing between buying gas so they can get to work; paying for medical care/prescriptions; and/or buying food. Too often they can no longer afford child care.

Thank you, Bernie, for caring about us."

"Wife of 50 years and I retired after 50 years of work. We had what we believed was enough to let us live frugally but ok. The last 3 years have been tough. We live on $1593.00 a month plus a income of $2200. a month from rental of our spare rooms. Our mortgage alone is $3300.00 a month This is our fault some what due to the ease of borrowing money. We have stopped paying all cards and bills. The first of June we will be forced to file a petition of Bankruptcy.

We will lose our home we built out of a old barn. And has been our home for 30+ years. We do not know what to do next.We have attempted to consolidate our bills.We have been turned down by even those who loaned us money originally. We do not want to loose our home. What can we do? If a bank or other institution will only listen. I believe we could weather this period."

You can read the rest of them here. I recommend you do, it’s not often you here the experiences of regular people. And feel free to leave your own in my comment section.

JM

The Visible Man

From the Marx and Coca-Cola blog:

Last week Barack Obama gave a big speech in Philly on race in America, mostly to distance himself from comments made by his former pastor (apparently when you run for president the opinions of people you know automatically become your own). At the risk of losing my ultra-leftist street cred, I have to say that some of his speech was not all together wrong. It will probably be the only thing intelligent this entire presidential campaign season.

Before I get into the speech I should talk about how race is treated in this country. America likes to think of itself as a classless society. Instead we have race, which has become a short-hand for class. Black equals poor, and white equals rich, and we ignore the other races. While it's true that black people make up a disproportionally percentage of the poor, we ignore the fact that 75% of black people live above the federal poverty line. We also ignore the fact that the majority of people below the poverty line are white. If you are black and have a job, or are white and have trouble paying your rent, you don't exist. And starting after the repeal of Jim Crow, and accelerating in the 80's, this view has been the consensus in politics and the media. It has turned public policy (and consciousness) away from important economic issues to one of trifling identity politics. And that brings me back to Barack's speech:

About 16 minutes into it he actually challenges the liberal consensus of race (the speech itself is 37 minutes long. About 36:30 longer than the typical campaign speech). He starts by doing something I've never seen a politician do, and probably never will again: he puts an issue in historical context.

"But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.

That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities....And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."

This pretty much sums up where we are today. While slavery and Jim Crow where embodied in the legal code, and since the laws where changed are now gone forever. The problems today are economic. They are built into the capitalist system, and they can't be legislated away. And like all issues of class it's an issue of power and opportunities. That's why things are slow to get better. Liberals like to attack racism today like racism of old; through busing or affirmative action or other legislative programs. It rarely helps though. The hardships facing working class black people today are the same facing all people of the working class. Barack touches on this:

"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.
Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor.

They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.

So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

He goes on to explain how this misplaced anger fueled the rise of Reaganism. And he is right. Since black equals poor concerns about closing factories, failing schools, and substandard health care aren't important to white voters. They only care about flag burning or gay marriage or whatever. That's why in the last four years we've seen Democrats move away from identity politics back to economic populism; they got tired of losing elections. Obama especially can't be seen as the "black candidate" if he wants to win. In the primary so far he's done really well with guilty upper class whites, and poorly with working class whites.

"Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns -- this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding."

In this speech at least Barack seems to understand that the economic infrastructure is the root of the problems in America, though he characterizes capitalism-as-usual as some defect in an otherwise healthy system. Like most politicians he will only mention the "c-word" (that's "class" get your mind out of the gutter) if he talking about that mythical "middle-class" every likes to think they belong to. As long as the working class anger is directed at other races, and not at the capitalist system "a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many." will continue. Towards the end he gives this prescription for what ails us:

"This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned."

But talking is all he's going to do. Poking around his website it appears to me that his reforms are rather weak. He talks a lot about tax breaks. Tax breaks for "working families" (I guess us single people don't work. We just sit around in front of our laptops all day.), tax breaks for college students, tax breaks to strengthen marriages, blah blah blah tax breaks. His health care plan seems to consist of expanding medicaid, and putting a cap on private insurance premiums. He wants to make NAFTA friendlier not end it. He pays the typical Democratic lip service to labor unions and welfare programs. Nothing I would call "change".

I have the audacity of hoping that Barack's speech is part of a larger change in the way Americans are thinking about society. There seems to be a movement in thought towards a politics of class. Instead of looking at a world split up between races or genders or civilizations or whatever we need to look at a world divided between those who control the wealth and those that labor to create it. Only if we can unite for our economic interest can we have real change we can believe in.

But what do I know. I'm just a poor white dude. I don't really exist.

JM

Check out Marx and Coca-Cola Blog

The Spectre of Communism

From the Marx and Coca-Cola blog

160 years ago today The Communist Manifesto was first published (has it been 160 years already!). Here's a section I think is apropos to today:

2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophis de la Misère as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.

I'm Getting Tired Of This

From the Marx and Coca-Cola blog:

Another one of those kinds of stories. From The Old Grey Lady:

"A North Dakota manufacturer has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a suit saying it had repeatedly shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including those for the first troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan."

And I bet they will never see another government contract.

"Twelve days before the settlement with the Justice Department was announced, the company, Sioux Manufacturing of Fort Totten, was given a new contract of up to $74 million to make more armor for helmets to replace the old ones, which were made from the late 1980s to last year."

Of course. Rip off the taxpayers. Endanger people's lives. Walk away with a net of 72 million. Sounds about right. But no one should worry:

"Sioux upgraded its looms in 2006, company executives say, and the government says it has started inspections at the plant.

Of course, it was the looms' fault. Fucking looms. And the government does such a good job inspecting industries that I'm sure this will never happen again. No one knows how many troops were killed or injured (lots of troops have come back with traumatic brain injuries) because of this, and I bet 74 million dollars the Pentagon won't do an investigation to find out.

The right-wingers always like to talk about how the government should be run like a business. The free-market is the best way to deliver goods and services. Capitalism regulates itself. Blah blah blah. The truth is that when making money is more important than the actual product, corners will be cut, and quality will suffer. And sometimes people's safety will be sacrificed (actually like a lot of the time).

On a side note, Sioux Manufacturing is owned by the Spirit Lake Nation, a Native American tribe. Native Americans serve in the armed forces at disproportionate high rates. Greed doesn't have any loyalties.

JM

Bushville

From the Marx and Coca-Cola blog:

From Reuters:

"Between railroad tracks and beneath the roar of departing planes sits "tent city," a terminus for homeless people....The noisy, dusty camp sprang up in July with 20 residents and now numbers 200 people, including several children, growing as this region east of Los Angeles has been hit by the U.S. housing crisis."

It's not just people who have lost their houses who are facing hardship. The housing crisis has caused a slew of problems for everyone. The abandoned houses have become a magnet for drugs and other crime, lowers property values, and property tax revenue which could force cities to cut spending in areas like policing or fire prevention. And renters could face homelessness themselves due to an increase demand for apartments. Foreclosures are even started to affect public health.

"All those empty swimming pools in California's Inland Empire have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, which can transmit the sometimes deadly West Nile virus, Riverside County officials say."