The Crisis of Credit Visualized
via vimeo.com
I love this illustration of how the world really works. Really hits home.
In other words, the banks always win.
Guy Aitchison, 13 August 2010About the authorGuy Aitchison is co-editor of openDemocracy's UK blog, OurKingdom. He is one of the originators of the Take Back Parliament protest movement for fair votes and also campaigns with Power2010. Before that he was deputy director of the Convention on Modern Liberty.Following David Cameron's promise of a crackdown on benefit "fraud", a revolting campaign has been launched in the Sun against "scroungers" and "cheats". Readers are encouraged to report those they suspect of over-claiming benefits to the Sun who will presumably then expose, humiliate and demonise them as an example to others.
Take a look at the accompanying article. It really is a classic of the genre, worth studying by anyone interested in the "divide and rule" strategies of the corporate media in this country. There's the unrepentant young couple sat grinning in front of their widescreen TV and X-box ("all paid for by YOU"); there's the Somali family living in the Kensington mansion, the "hardline" Muslim cleric, the "Baby Machine", and even the "sick Raoul Moat fan". And no Sun article would be complete, of course, without the patriotic British squaddie fresh back from Afghanistan, juggling a job in construction with fathering a family and volunteering with the TA, doing his country "proud" whilst thousands of the feckless poor put it to "shame".
What the Sun won't say, of course, is that the cost of "benefit fraud" is actually relatively low and has been falling for years. At £1.1 billion it amounts to less than 1% of total benefit expenditure and less than half the costs incurred as a result of administrative errors in the Department for Work and Pensions. So there are clearly improvements which could be made to the system before we unleash the credit agencies on an already stigmatised group and risk deterring legitimate claimants.
But if we really want to make some savings in the welfare system we need to look elsewhere. Even if the government got its administrative house in order and achieved its utterly unrealistic goal of reducing benefit fraud far below what it is already, we're still only talking peanuts, in relative terms, at a mere £3 billion a year. If the government is really serious about saving money on the welfare system, it should follow the real money and take a look at the costs of corporate welfare.
Yes, whilst the costs of welfare fraud amongst the poor have been falling in recent years, the costs of corporate welfare (that staple of Anglo-American capitalism) have sky-rocketed. And I mean, really sky-rocketed. The cost of bailing out the banks since 2008 has added over £1 trillion to the UK's debt. All the while, the bankers who nearly ruined the economy, have been awarding themselves massive bonuses, allowing the "grasping, lazy layabouts to lead a luxury lifestyle funded by you"...as the Sun might put it. This is the real outrage committed against British taxpayers which we are now being asked to pay for.
Cameron and the Sun, of course, would rather you focused your rage on Chris and Jaimie and their flat-screen TV as the cuts begin to hurt. Which raises the question: Where is the left-wing publication with the resources to run an equivalent campaign against corporate welfare scroungers? Shouldn't we be thinking of a parallel campaign, with its own confidential informants' line, to uncover and expose where the real money has gone? Who are these bankers who have made off with our money? How many yachts do they have? Do they need that many?
Part of telling the true story about how we got into this economic mess should involve personalising the narrative I think, just as the tabloids do so successfully with the "baby machine", Somali family et al. Indeed, the Sun's hated gallery of "shameless" claimants are classic tabloid tropes, but apart from "Fred the Shred", the former RBS boss who provoked public fury last year, who are the corporate fraudsters who need to be held to account? It's time they were named and shamed so we can remind ourselves who the real villains are who put the economy in the mess it's in.
This article is published by Guy Aitchison, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.Comments
Toque13 August 2010 - 9:03amThe scroungers featured in the Sun are dispensible. Unfortunately our banks are not and the politicians know that. There's not really any political capital to be had in demonising the banks (bankers maybe, but banks no) because we need the banks to be successful and refinance our financially and morally bankrupt country. That's the bottom line, and the left-wing publications that you dream might say otherwise know it.
Anthony Barnett13 August 2010 - 9:39amIt's not that simple, Gareth (Toque). The banks have been skimming capital off the system which is not necessary for the successful function of an economy, indeed it is counter-productive as we have seen. They make huge mistakes and don't pay for them. There are double-standards at work.
bigC13 August 2010 - 11:24am"The scroungers featured in the Sun are dispensible."
Why does that give me a little shiver? If such sentiments were universal it would only be a matter of time before Chris and Jaimie were awakened with a 4 am knock and carted off to work camps - perhaps with an exhortation to work in order to obtain freedom over the gate?
It's important to tackle both kinds of scrounger of course. Chris and jaimie because they undermine the morale of those struggling on minimum wages and no benefits at all (Though I do not approve the Sun's methods and they would not work anyway) and the bankers because they really are costing us a fortune. That we need a banking system is beyond doubt. That we do not want one which decides for itself what the priorities are and helps itself to whatever rewards it decides are fair is also beyond doubt.
Toque13 August 2010 - 11:46amI think that you and Anthony have completely misinterpreted my comment. Just to clear the air, I don't personally regard them as dispensible, I was musing upon the Sun's view of things. I broadly agree with the sentiment behind Guy's post.
Daniel-Joseph M...13 August 2010 - 11:54amThe ramped up campaign against benefit scroungers is a diversion, of course. But you can't deny that it hits a nerve. "It's only a billion quid", will not subdue the anger this has always stoked up. There is a problem, but its not the individual greed and idleness put forward by the Sun, it's the absurdity and intrusiveness of the system. The answer to these right wing complaints is the one that the right like least - universalism!
And, ironically, of all the caricatures, who is it who eats up the most tax payers money? The squaddie, of course! The cost of his personal equipment when deployed to Afghanistan of £288,000, plus his wage packet, training, pension, etc.
Guy Aitchison13 August 2010 - 12:15pmYes, very good point re the troops. But to point that out, of course, is to "disrespect the troops" etc in tabloid terms...
Guy Aitchison13 August 2010 - 12:10pmI was just challenged by a friend who thought I was unduly stigmatising bankers and making a false comparison with the welfare system. I think it's worth reproducing my reply to him here, in case the same criticisms comes up:
"True, the main objective of the bailouts in the UK and the US was to protect the economy, but the money was handed to the banks in the hope it would trickle down, with their interests often conflated with those of the economy as a whole. The government had little choice in doing something like this, to be sure, because of the size of these banks and the interdependence of the financial sector but it was done with few conditions or oversight. The bankers then rewarded themselves lavishly for their failure.Let's not forget how the crisis originated: through predatory lending by mortgage companies to poor and vulnerable people who couldn't pay and the repackaging of these loans ("securitization") by financial institutions who then sold them on around the world with many ending up in pension funds and other supposedly secure investments. There were a whole bunch of people who connived in this, from the mortgage brokers who prayed on the poor, to the credit rating agencies who obliged the banks with AAA ratings for their securitized products, to the commercial loan companies who encouraged people to "refinance" their mortgages and handed cheap credit cards out like confetti often by lying about people's incomes. Each took their fees along the way. But the banks were at the centre of this process, and - I'm sorry - individual bankers. Either they knew what they were doing was dodgy and didn't say or they didn't know in which case they massively failed in their principal task which is to assess risks. Of course, many of them must have known that this was a house of cards, but they pursued their short-term rewards in the knowledge that the government would have to bail them out in the last resort, as it had done with banks in the past.Of course, it was the bankers who protested most vociferously at the idea of guaranteeing the mortgage payments of the poor - an alternative form of recapitalisation - citing the problem of "moral hazard". Naturally, this problem disappeared when it came to the government helping them. The banks and corporates who are so keen on cutting spending now, including welfare, to cut the deficit we're demanding ever more handouts by government a few years ago.The UK banks were less directly involved in the dodgy mortgage lending practices of the US banks, but they were still involved in inflating an economy based on debt and a real estate bubble with their "innovative" practices. None of this financial alchemy played any obvious part in economic growth, indeed it has cost our economy dearly as we're now seeing. Worse, it was all done at the expense of what banks should have been doing: the boring stuff of assessing risk, and lending to individuals and small businesses accordingly.Yes, regulators and governments must take their share of the blame, but it just won't do to try and exonerate the bankers. It's a form of re-writing history."
Falco13 August 2010 - 2:06pm"The squaddie, of course! The cost of his personal equipment when deployed to Afghanistan of £288,000, plus his wage packet, training, pension, etc. "
So your suggesting that troops sent off to war should have no pay, equipment, etc? By all means argue that they shouldn't be sent to such places but to blame the on the squaddie is exactly the sort of comptempable behavior that you violently castigate the Sun for.
bigC13 August 2010 - 2:31pmI think the poster is making an ironical point, not literally blaming squaddies for the deficit!
Guy Aitchison13 August 2010 - 6:47pmYes I'm sure that's how Daniel intended it. Although come to mention it, I do find the way in which the Sun cynically exploits the goodwill the British public has towards the troops by using them so gratuitously in its attack on welfare "fraud" extremely distasteful.
TaxMan13 August 2010 - 7:40pm£1.1bn? That's nothing compared to the size of the tax and National Insurance lost through the black economy. People will get themselves lathered into an orchestrated frenzy over benefit fraud but will think nothing of underdeclaring their own income to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.
A report published in the July 2004 issue of 'Economic Journal' estimated the UK black economy to be approximately 10.6% of GDP. That would be around £153.7bn going untaxed! Now if that amount was only taxed at basic rates (yes, let's not even consider higher rate taxes), the tax/NI take on that little lot would be over £43bn a year!!. So where is the Sun hotline to report tax dodgers? (Deathly silence)
For some reason, tax evasion is considered socially acceptable, yet the tax dodger has no more right to that underpaid tax than the benefits scrounger has to benefits payments (and even less so in some cases, like it or not). Tax 'stolen' from school and hospital budgets is no different to benefits 'stolen'.
Yet, the staffing levels of HMRC are continually being slashed by successive governments, beyond levels where they are able to cope, resulting in the black economy growing larger and larger. I speak from experience, having investigated tax dodgers on Her Majesty's behalf for almost 20 years.
Think of what an extra £43bn a year would do for the budget deficit and our schools/hospitals/squaddies (delete as applicable).
Anyone still think benefit fraud is the big problem that The Sun claims it is?
Guy Aitchison13 August 2010 - 9:03pmGood point.
Will Straw had a good piece on this, highlighting the hypocrisy of the coalition appointing Philip Green of M & S (a tax-dodger) to preside over "efficiency savings" in our public spending:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/13/philip-green-eficiency-sa...
TaxMan13 August 2010 - 9:55pmGood article. Trouble is, it focuses on tax avoidance (perfectly legal) as opposed to tax evasion (which isn't). Arguing against tax avoidance with the Tory Boys is always going to be a non-starter because it's legal, and that's what they'll always point to. Morality is an absent concept where tax avoidance is concerned.
Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegal. This is the army of self-employed Sun-reading (amongst others) plumbers, painters, brickies, hairdressers, pub landlords, taxi drivers etc (along with another army of white-collars) who deliberately and fraudulently refuse to declare all their income ("one set of books for me, another set for the taxman"), arguing "but that's my money, I earned it". Since when did they earn the right to steal from all of us, any more than the benefits scroungers who are the butt of their own hatred?
If you want to stop Phillip Green and his ilk, change the law. If you want to stop the tax evaders (and trust me, that would be much simpler and much more 'profitable' than a benefits crackdown) then resource HMRC properly and pursue these criminals with the same vigour as the benefits crackdown.
Only then will we be "all in this together".
Will Rhodes14 August 2010 - 6:23amGuy, I love ya man, but you and Sunny fall into the same trap each and every time. You write eloquently, with passion, with ease at what you see as the hypocricy at what is wrong. Falco and others write great responces as to what is wrong - "...and for the LOVE OF GOD why can't the general public see that what we are saying is right ..."
It is, but you are, as always, going into a knife-fight with a wet blanket.
Miliband, both E and D will not give the left direction, they are New Labour - so that is left to us who are on the left to do the dirty fighting. Though I detest Balls with the same passion I detest Cameron - he has, so far, the best fighting stance.
Never mind saying "Yes - benefit fraud is to be looked at and dealt with ... blah, blah frigging blah ..." People know that! Then to go on to say the bankers are wankers.
Hit high and hit hard!
You bring a knife - I'll bring a hatchet - you bring a 9mm - I'll bring an AK47 etc.
Tax avoidence and evasion 160 Bn quid(?) hit them each and every time with that. If you look at the Sun site that means you can get an army of lefties to sign up and post that (though their skin will crawl). Same with the Mail and Telegraph, get them (the readers) thinking the other way! You would be surprised at how many actually agree that the bankers should be hung out to dry because of what they have done.
212 posts I have made have been deleted - imagine if 1000 lefties did the same as I do? They cannot, but will try, to moderate them all, if 20% get through ...
Guy Aitchison14 August 2010 - 6:00pmAre you suggesting some kind of mass leftie-hijack of right-wing newspaper sites? That could be interesting, but how much could it really achieve though in terms of shifting opinion. Has it been tried before?
Cheryl5714 August 2010 - 8:03amIt's much easier to bully the poor who have difficulty in fighting back than it is to bully the rich, that's the only reason people jump on the 'benefit scroungers' bandwagon. If we are all supposed to be 'in this together', it would be much better to look more deeply into the reasons why people commit benefit fraud and finding more proportionate solutions to the problem. I am certain the level of greed involved is much less than corporate greed, which seems to go relatively unnoticed and unpunished.
:-) Xxxxx
Guy Aitchison14 August 2010 - 6:08pmCompletely agree. Although there are people breaking the law purely to make a little bit of extra money (who should be prosecuted), there's many too who are "cheating" benefits simply to make enough to live on because their benefits are too low.
Ivor_Cornish14 August 2010 - 8:35am"It's much easier to bully the poor who have difficulty in fighting back than it is to bully the rich, that's the only reason people jump on the 'benefit scroungers' bandwagon."
This is true, but it is not just because it is 'easier' but because it is a distraction from the fundamental problems at the heart of this financial disaster that this smear campaign has been launched.
Politicians are still holding to the mantra that you 'can't buck the market', without addressing the fact that many of the so called markets, which banks operate in, should not even be in existence.
owly14 August 2010 - 3:55pmThe reality is the Government has no real idea how much of the Welfare budget is taken by fraud. The figure of £1.1 billion is meaningless, and is far higher than they care to admit.
But no matter how much you lot moan and whine, Benefit Fraud is exactly that: FRAUD. It is a crime and should be treated as such.
TaxMan14 August 2010 - 5:51pm...and Tax Fraud is exactly that: FRAUD. "It is a crime and should be treated as such".
There is an obsession with making benefit fraud the most reviled crime of the day because it distracts from the much more quantitive and significant crime of tax fraud.
Benefit fraud tends to be a crime involving the lower classes whereas tax fraud is present at all class levels, but significantly the working, middle and upper classes.
Do you not find it strange, all this effort and vigour going into a campaign to save £1.1bn, yet no-one, least of all Dave Cameron, wants to talk about or make any effort at tackling the tens of billions lost through tax evasion (lets even leave the tax avoidance argument to one side).
If you're willing to put such effort into tackling benefit fraud, why would you not put at least the same effort into the similar, but significantly bigger, problem, of tax fraud?
As you say " Fraud. It is a crime and should be treated as such"
Anonymous16 August 2010 - 9:30pmIf you want to argue these pionts, get over to unemploymentmovement.com, because what we face is War! A moral crusade by the elite that is not only matched by its vindictiveness but also by its need to sow discontent & discord between the working classes.
bigC17 August 2010 - 7:58am"But no matter how much you lot moan and whine, Benefit Fraud is exactly that: FRAUD. It is a crime and should be treated as such. "
Quite right. And the only way you can effectively combat it is by properly resourcing investigation. The same applies to tax fraud - though the advantages of properly resourcing HMRC are about 40 times greater.
Post new comment
You can avoid the word verification above by joining the openDemocracy community - if you have already registered, log in here
Britain's enemies are not the unfortunate family's that must claim benefit to lead a meager existence. it is the corporate robbers who wrecked the economy and then came looking for handouts....
The End of Capitalism?: Interview of Alex Knight
Part 1. Crisis and Opportunity
by Michael Carriere / July 29th, 2010
Alex Knight is a proponent of the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway. Since 2007 he has edited the website endofcapitalism.com. He has a degree in electrical engineering and a Master’s in political science, both from Lehigh University. He lives in Philadelphia, where he is a teacher and organizer.
The following exchange between Michael Carriere and Alex Knight occurred via email, July 2010. Alex Knight was questioned about the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway.
The interview will be available in four parts. Scroll to the bottom to read all of Prof. Carriere’s questions.
Part 1. Crisis and Opportunity
MC: The current financial crisis is clearly a moment of peril for both individuals and the broader system of capitalism. But would it also make sense to see it as a moment of opportunity?
AK: Absolutely. I see opportunity springing from every crack in the structure of capitalism. For all those who wish to see a different world, this moment is dripping with opportunity because the old order is crumbling before our eyes.
The crisis extends far beyond the broken financial system. Millions of people are losing their jobs, homes, and savings as the burden of the crisis gets shifted onto the poor and working class. Public faith in the system, both the government and the capitalist economy, has been shattered and is at an all-time low. And it’s not just the economic crisis. The bank bailouts, the endless wars in the Mid East, the BP spill and the meltdown of the climate, and about a dozen other crises have shaken us deeply. It’s become common sense that the system is broken and a major change is needed. Barack Obama was elected in the US precisely by promising this change. Now that he is failing to deliver, more and more people are questioning whether the system can provide any solutions, or whether it’s actually the source of the problem.
Shattered faith is the dominant sentiment today. You can see it in people’s faces – the disappointment, grief, worry, and anger. To me, this loss of faith presents an enormous opening for putting forth a new, non-capitalist way of life. People are ready to hear radical solutions now, like they haven’t been since the Great Depression.
Historic Crossroads
If we go back to 1929, we’ll see some interesting parallels to our current moment. When that depression started, millions lost their livelihoods to pay for the bankers’ crisis. Faith in capitalism sunk to rock bottom. The public flocked to two major ideologies that offered a way out: socialism and fascism.
Socialism presented a solution to the crisis by saying, roughly: “Capitalism is flawed because it divides us into rich and poor, and the rich always take advantage of the poor. We need to organize the poor and workers into unions and political parties so we can take power for the benefit of all.”
Socialism attracted millions of followers, even in the United States. The labor movement was enormous and kept gaining ground through sit-down strikes and other forms of direct action. The Communist Party sent thousands of organizers into the new CIO, at the time a more radical union than the AFL. Socialist viewpoints even started getting through to the mass media and government. Huey Long was elected Senator from Louisiana by promising to “Share Our Wealth,” to radically redistribute the wealth of the country to abolish poverty and unemployment. (He was assassinated.) Socialism challenged President Roosevelt from the left, pushing him to create the social safety net of the New Deal.
On the other side, fascism also emerged as a serious force and attracted a mass following by putting forth something like the following: “The government has sold us out. We are a great nation, but we have been disgraced by liberal elites who are pillaging our economy for the benefit of foreign enemies, dangerous socialists, and undesirable elements (like Jews). We need to restore our national honor and fulfill our God-given mission.”
When people hear the word fascism, they usually think of Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, where successful fascist movements seized state power and implemented totalitarian control of society. Yet fascism was an international phenomenon during the Depression, and the United States was not immune to its reach. General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in US history, testified before the Senate that wealthy industrialists had approached him as part of a “Business Plot” and tried to convince him to march an army of 500,000 veterans on Washington, DC to install a fascist dictatorship.
Today we are approaching a similar crossroads. When I hear the story of the Business Plot I think about the Tea Party, which has sprung from a base of white supremacist anger, facilitated by right-wing elements of the corporate structure like Fox News. This is an extremely dangerous phenomenon. The tea-partyers have moved from questioning Obama’s citizenship, to now trying to reverse the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, such as the ability of everyone, regardless of color, to enjoy public accommodations like restaurants.
I think it’s fair to name the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Christian Right, etc. parts of a potential neo-fascist movement in the United States. Their words and actions too often encourage attacks on people of color, immigrants, Muslims, LGBT folks, and anyone they don’t see as legitimate members of US society. Ultimately, many in this movement are pushing for a different social system taking power in the United States: one that is more authoritarian, less compassionate, more exploitive of the environment, more militaristic, and based on a mythical return to national glory. This is not a throwback to Nazi Germany. It’s a new kind of fascism, a new American fascism. And it’s a serious threat.
Tea Party racism in Denver, April 15, 2009
On the other hand, this crisis is also an opportunity for all of us who see capitalism as a destructive force and believe the message of the recent U.S. Social Forum that “Another World is Possible. Another US is Necessary.” “Socialism” in the post-McCarthy/Cold War era of the United States is a dead word, because it carries a lot of baggage from the Soviet Union. Rightly so, the USSR was a terrible dictatorship that is hardly an example to follow. The question is, how do those of us who are progressive and anti-capitalist articulate our ideas to resonate with a mass audience in this moment?
Common Values
I argue that we need to speak to the population in a language of our common values: democracy, freedom, justice, and sustainability.
Adopting this mainstream language is not an attempt to be deceptive. These words have captured people’s hearts for a real reason: they offer a window to the world we want to see. It is the government, corporations, and media who deceive us by evoking these words to justify their atrocities, as in “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” (Over a million dead, and the Iraqi people are no closer to any kind of “freedom” I would want.) Rather than surrendering these noble ideals to the right wing, where they become meaningless dogma, I see immense potential to take language back and use it with honesty, as if words actually mean something.
So what if progressives reclaim these common values and make them guideposts on the way to a better society? For example, how can we talk about freedom if there is no self-determination, either in Iraq or here in the US? Let’s be honest, what freedom do we really have? The freedom to choose Coke or Pepsi, or similarly, to vote Democrat or Republican?
What about the freedom to determine our own destinies outside the constraints of corporations and government? What freedom is more basic than freedom from poverty and suffering? How can anyone speak of freedom if they have no income and no opportunity to escape unemployment? Or if they have nowhere to live because their home was foreclosed? What if their community is torn apart because so many youth are filling the prisons on nonviolent drug offenses? Is a prisoner free? Is their mother, spouse, or loved ones free? What does freedom mean if you’re queer or trans, and you face emotional and physical violence every time you express who you are and live your own life? How can we claim to be a free society if immigrants live in fear of being locked up by ICE and deported? What freedom do you have if your neighbor has none?
I think real freedom requires self-determination, the ability of an individual or community to choose their own destinies. We can’t pretend we have freedom in this country until “we, the people” have a say in our neighborhoods, towns and cities, in our workplaces, our schools, and our government. This requires that the public actively participate in managing their own affairs, for example through neighborhood councils to have a say in the neighborhood, through labor unions to have a say at work, student unions to have a say at school, and other democratic organizations that give people the power to defend their rights. There is a dire need to hold our corrupt representatives in Washington accountable to popular will. But to be truly free, might we also need to structure government in a new way, so it can be run by the people themselves? Or even to abolish the government, if it can’t do what the people say?
So I believe when we get to the meaningful core of the word “freedom,” it poses a radical challenge to capitalist society. We can say similar things about “democracy,” “justice,” and “sustainability,” and I would add, “love.” I’ll talk more about this in response to your third question. These values reinforce each other, and if we honor them for their true depth of meaning, they can be effective tools for change.
The Power of Imagination
This might sound good, but do progressives have the power to achieve these kinds of changes? It may sound farfetched. The media and government, especially in the U.S., have done an excellent job convincing us that we can never win. People with our views are routinely excluded from official conversation on the news or in elections. When we try to protest and take our voices to the street, they corral us within “free speech zones” so we look crazy and feel powerless. If a progressive voice does get through to the public somehow, it’s dismissed as “unrealistic.” We’re pressured to just vote for the lesser of two evils and be silent. The result of this silencing is that we have no idea how many people share our values and aspirations, because we’re often too intimidated to proclaim our views proudly. Worse, to some degree we’ve internalized this silencing so that we hesitate even to imagine our progressive hopes and dreams, lest they accidentally slip past our lips into polite conversation.
The stifling of progressive views is part of a larger culture of silence that helps the system maintain control. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman call it Manufacturing Consent, the use of media and propaganda to create a passive, obedient population. The message we receive constantly from media is that we are spectators, not participants. Rather than take a stand on an issue and risk being wrong or foolish, why not leave it to the experts? Besides, we’re too busy being consumers, workers and students to worry about politics. Better to not make waves. We might as well amuse ourselves with television, celebrity gossip, and Facebook, and try not to get involved. From all the propaganda we consume over the course of our lives, we come to develop the core belief that we are powerless to affect change. This myth of powerlessness is one of the biggest lies in the history of the world, and we need to dismantle it.
What the U.S. Social Forum proves is that there is a large, broad-based movement for change here in the United States, the very core of the global capitalist machine. There are millions of average, everyday people all across the nation who are working and pushing in a progressive direction in large and small ways, whether on immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, housing, health care, education, prison justice, queer and trans justice, environmental justice, peace in the Middle East, etc. The system doesn’t want you to know about this, which is why they don’t show it on television. Our movements are alive and well. They are strong. They are inspiring. And in many places they are winning.
Coalition to Save the Libraries confronts the Philadelphia City Council and its Budget Cuts, May 21, 2009
I’ll just share a local example from here in Philadelphia. In late 2008, Mayor Nutter announced he would close 11 libraries due to budget constraints. Seemingly out of nowhere – but actually out of strong communities throughout the city – a movement emerged to oppose and prevent this decision, facilitated by the multiracial, multigenerational Coalition to Save the Libraries. The coalition organized creative actions at library branches slated for closure and at City Hall. People from across the city came together to imagine what kind of library system would best serve the public. Pressure kept mounting until the Mayor had to abandon his closures. All the libraries remain open to this day, despite continuing budget cuts and layoffs. Kristin Campbell wrote a fuller description of how grassroots organizing saved the libraries.
We can look at this victory and downplay it as limited because it only restored a public service that shouldn’t have been attacked anyway. But like all grassroots organizing it points towards a better future, for the simple reason that people became empowered by working together. Capitalism is a system of disempowerment. It cannot tolerate our active participation in public affairs. As soon as we begin to break our silence and speak out against the injustices we are being subjected to, the system begins to quake and it searches for ways to pacify and silence us again. If we remain alert, active, and vocal, we can break the culture of complacency and bring more and more people into the awareness of their own power. So I think that’s the opportunity we have in this crisis.
I want to excite people’s imaginations of what a better world might look like. There is no better time to do it. If my theory is right, then capitalism, the system that has dominated the world for the past 500 years, is coming to an end. Recognizing this opens up a world of possibility for the future. Maybe that’s scary, because who knows what will happen? We might be driven into a neo-fascist nightmare. Things might keep getting worse, in which case maybe we should just find reasons to enjoy our current way of life while it lasts. I can see some of my friends saying that. But that leaves out two crucial truths that I want to highlight.
The first truth is that capitalism is a terribly abusive and destructive system, which we would be better off without. The second truth is that if we organize and push for a better world, we might win. So the time for complacency is over, and the time for taking bolder steps toward our dreams is here.
Originally published on The End of Capitalism. Michael Carriere is an assistant professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he teaches courses on American history, public policy, political science, and urban design. He is currently working on a book, with David Schalliol, titled The Death and (After) Life of Great American Cities: Twenty-First Century Urbanism and the Culture of Crisis. He holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of Chicago. Read other articles by Michael.
This article was posted on Thursday, July 29th, 2010 at 8:00am and is filed under Activism, Capitalism, Fascism, Interview, Solidarity, Tea Party movement. --> ShareThis
13 comments on this article so far ...
MichaelKenny said on July 29th, 2010 at 10:51am #
No need to be so pessimistic! There’s no “might win” about it. The global capitalist system is indeed breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and a shift towards a non-capitalist future is certainly underway. No system can survive if the people who run it cease to believe in their own system. That’s what brought down the communists. After 1968, the young of Europe, both east and west, wrote off communism as just another form of fascism and started looking for something else. By the 1980s, the “communist” elite wasn’t communist at all and were just trying to get rich. As soon as the people seriously revolted, the communist middle class just shrugged their shoulders and went with the tide. Communism was capitalism’s crutch. And,of course, vice versa. Once one fell, the other, logically, should fall soon after. In Europe, at least, that seems to be precisely what is happening. I sense the same lack of belief in the current system all over Europe today as was the undoing of the communist dictatorships in the 1980s. The communists held on for about 20 years. The US elite has being trying to ram US-style cowboy capitalism down Europe’s throat for about the same length of time. Wall St’s attacks on the EU and the euro have woken a lot of people up to the fact that US and European interests are not merely not the same, but are actually in conflict. The defeat in Afghanistan will probably seal the fate of US-style capitalism, at least in Europe.
Where will Europe go? Probably Green. The young are very concious of the environment. More so than anything else. The political debate in 21st century Europe will probably be between what the German Greens call “fundis”, fundamentalists who want want to make radical changes, fairly fast, in the way that European society works and “realos”, who want the same thing, but want to take it in small steps. In other words, the debate will not be “Green or not Green”, but how much Green and how fast. And no, I don’t see communism rising from the dead or the EU collapsing!
How relevant any of that is to the American scene is not a question for me. The defeat in Afghanistan will remove the US from the world stage for about a generation, and so Americans will have little influence on, and be little influenced by, what happense elsewhere.Don Hawkins said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:30pm #
Today we are approaching a similar crossroads. When I hear the story of the Business Plot I think about the Tea Party, which has sprung from a base of white supremacist anger, facilitated by right-wing elements of the corporate structure like Fox News.
I think it’s fair to name the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Christian Right, etc. parts of a potential neo-fascist movement in the United States. Michael Carriere
Now just on the off chance your correct you mean Beck and all the swastikas he had on his show talking about the progressives was all along about him. I mean Fox new’s seem like such nice people and very well dressed. If that is the case very devious indeed but if that is there big plan does this mean some of us will have to go to camps or maybe put to sleep? I thought the progressives would do that maybe they both ate thinking about the same plan just who get’s to control the show. George Monbiot wrote this
The Tea Party protests began after the business journalist Rick Santelli broadcast an attack from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on the government’s plan to help impoverished people whose mortgages had fallen into arrears(3). To cheers from the traders at the exchange, he proposed that they should hold a tea party to dump derivative securities in Lake Michigan in protest at Obama’s intention – in Santilli’s words – to “subsidise the losers”. (I urge you to watch the broadcast – it is the most alarming example of cheap demagoguery you are likely to have seen. It continues to be promoted by Santelli’s employer, CNBC(4)).
The protests which claim to defend the interests of the working class began, in other words, with a call for a bankers’ revolt against the undeserving poor. They have been promoted by Fox News, owned by that champion of the underdog Rupert Murdoch, and lavishly funded by other billionaires(5). Its corporate backers wrap themselves in the complaints of the downtrodden: they are 21st Century Marie-Antoinettes, who dress up as dairymaids and propose that the poor subsist on a diet of laissez-faire. Monbiot
So maybe Monbiot didn’t go far enough there is something more sinister at work. Well whoever get’s to control the show will have there hands full. Then again sitting at a secure location directing the downtrodden is not exactly hard work. Oh I almost forgot I think Beck and Fox New’s in general read DV and probably just me but Beck used some stuff written on DV the other day little does he know he fell right into the trap check and mate Beck your going to need more than boot’s mate you see we have the truth the knowledge you don’t. The force is strong
“You will know (the good from the bad) when you are calm, at peace. Passive. Use the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. Yes Glenn Beck said watch Star War’s again so I did how do you like them apples Charlie.
Josie Michel-Bruening said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:52pm #
Thank you, Michael Carriere. I seldom enjoyed an article as much as this one.
Don Hawkins, you should not rely on Europeans.
As for most Germans they are copying US life style.
US leadership is dominating our government, as well as our medias.
The description of your society in the article above fits to ours, regrettably.
Well, there is a minority, joining social forums and fighting for justice, for human values and respecting nature etc.Josie Michel-Bruening said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:59pm #
Sometimes, it is easier to find friends for these above explained ideas than in you neighbourhood.
It reminds me for instance at John Jensen having also written for this forum and at all friends supporting them all over the world.teafoe2 said on July 29th, 2010 at 7:29pm #
The take on the Tea Party trip is very good, I agree with it.
I also agree that Capitalism is looking shaky at the moment, and have read enough Hegel to know that sometimes things change gradually and other times catastrophically. So it could be that things will be getting out of hand pretty soon, from a capitalist standpoint?
So I’m in full agreement with the notion that US society needs to be re-organized on non- or post-capitalist lines. I just wonder how that will be accomplished without taking into account the role of Economic Class in the current setup.
BTW, I have to register dissent from these academics’ simple-minded parroting of the coldwar propaganda notion that the USSR was nothing but a “terrible dictatorship” in the same category as Naxi Germany. The real facts are a lot more complex. Yes there was much wrong, a lot of injustices, stupid mistakes like backing Jiang Jie Shieh instead of the 8th Route Army, backing UN Res. 181 to set Zionism up in business as the “State of Israel”.
But the USSR did the heavy lifting in the war against Hitler, and many other positive things like supporting Cuba vs US colonialism. The CPUSA did a lot of positive things here in the US. So let’s not just parrot the Ronald Reagan/Winston Churchill version. Reality is more complex.
For myself, whenever somebody starts oozing about “Freedom” and “Love”, I check to see I still have my wallet.
Deadbeat said on July 29th, 2010 at 8:22pm #
Here’s an IMPRESSIVE critique of Liberalism by BAR’s Jared Ball. This is the kind of RADICAL critique I’ve been waiting to here!!!
franco_american1962 said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:02pm #
Vulgar Marxism crops up in the least likely of places. Anyone who thinks that Capitalism can be jettisoned, and in its place, something like central planning can be implimented, think again. One ineluctible conclusion that I have drawn, in large part from my readings of Hayek, Von Mises, and Popper, is that economic self-determination IS a cornerstone of American democracy. Look at the history of central planning, and you will find the true moral, spiritual, and economic desolation (For starters, I challenge anyone to read volume 2, Karl Popper, “The open society and its enemies”). If Capitalism is to be jettisoned, in favor of an economic sytem that is “preordained”, what then does that leave the individual American. If one is not pleased with one’s station in life, one does have every opportunity to ameliorate his station; not so in a centrally planned economy; your job is assigned, and one is consigned. Everything hedges on steering clear of “quick fixes”; of fixations on Utopian social engineering. American freedom and liberty rests upon the pillar of economic self-determination, i.e., choosing one’s trade and career; and, as Karl Popper suggested, a “piecemeal engineering” of our democratic institutions. Let Marx and his historicism rest in peace.
franco_american1962 said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:16pm #
“The first truth is that capitalism is a terribly abusive and destructive system, which we would be better off without. The second truth is that if we organize and push for a better world, we might win. So the time for complacency is over, and the time for taking bolder steps toward our dreams is here.”
Sounds hauntingly familiar! Again, the angst of vulgar Marxism.franco_american1962 said on July 29th, 2010 at 9:37pm #
“I see immense potential to take language back and use it with honesty, as if words actually mean something.”
So this is a battle of words? What is this inanity about taking language back? The only solution I can see working is practical, not semantic. The first thing our nation might consider is the Constitution. As for the notion of a “progressive” society, sorry, but that smacks of statism. The entire polity has devolved into a two-party system, practically indistinguishable one from the other. Since the end of World War II, the federal govt. has seen to it to insinuate itself into our lives; the kind of state presence that was needful in winning a world war, is not the kind of government we need in peacetime. Its time to rachet down the bureaucracy, and turn the ship of state back on course. All great civilizations in history had one thing in common: the rule of law. Civilizations are founded on the rule of law, and not that of men. So in this sense, a “progressive” society might not be progress at all.David Silver said on July 30th, 2010 at 7:35am #
For capitalim to “self destruct” I believe it requires a trigger–a huge,
organized Resistance to reach the critical mass. Alex implies we have a “broad based national movement” that has a consciousness of the common enemy –aka as the ruling class-the Transnationals and Banks.
I don’t think so.
Finally the interview doesn’t tell us what political and economic system will follow capitalism Many in the neo-marxist perspective, the New Left and Social Democratic perspectives are looking for a hybrid neithe capitalist nor Socialist. Whic was prevalent at the World Social Forum.teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:09pm #
David S, I find your points well taken. Especially re a “trigger”: “if you don’t hit it, it won’t fall”.
I have to agree with M Kenny that “socialism” is a hard sell in the US of A. How could it be otherwise, given the decades of coldwar antiworkingclass/antipoor brainwashing the US public has been subjected to.
I don’t know that I find the term “hybrid” very promising. To me it’s the sort of nomenclature that would be employed by those hoping to reintroduce capitalism via the back door.
If somebody can come up with an idea for a way to organize society in a better way than at present, I don’t care about the label. But it seems that the first requirement of a real change is to abolish private property in the means of production. The second would be to find a way to stop those who enjoy topdog status in the present status quo from subverting the new scheme of things and reinstalling the system we have now.
It may be rational from a propaganda perspective to avoid use of the term Socialism, or reference to the work of Marx, Engels et al. But can people who are trying to lead a movement to topple the present setup and launch something entirely different afford to ignore what has been learned in past attempts to understand the problem?
Josie Michel-Bruening said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:06am #
I would like to join this comment: teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:09pm #
And I would like to add the following:
Any “ism” you can recognize at its fruits, despite of all brainwashing and all falsifications of history according to the current make-believed vancisher.
The current fruits of the global competition in “who or which country is the best in exploiting the resources of nature for its own prosperity?” are obvious.
“Competition” seems to be a key word to me.
Beyond of all mistakes the former USSR might have made, the competition of armament between thetwo different systems brought about their fall.
At the same time when the Berlin wall was fallen, all social compromizes
in the society of Western Germany which we were allowed to enjoy for being a bullwark against Communism were given up. And that was what successive US administrations had fought for.
May be, some of us did not notice yet the downfall of Capitalism.
Well, they are “free” to fail.Max Shields said on July 31st, 2010 at 10:22am #
teafoe2 said on July 30th, 2010 at 6:09pm #
Good to see you’re acknowledging the limits of Marx/socialism particularly in terms of “selling”. But the hard sell if you will comes about because Marxism (like Capitalism) is riddled with major problems when presented as an edict or manifesto for action. Like it or not there is a legacy of what has been described vulger Marxism. Shades of Marxism or more accurately socialism have had success but hardly living examples of pure Marxism.
A simple principle of maximizing the distribution of human welfare with the use of minimal resources is a sustainable means of creating a viable living condition not only for humans but for the entire life support system on this planet.
Add to the discussion
You must be registered user to comment on DV.
Log in or create an account.
Are the Smurfs Closet Communists?
By Kristen M. Sonntag, Esq.It seems that these days Saturday morning cartoonists are taking too many artistic liberties by creating odd "realities" for children to watch. Children see what happens in cartoons and then model the carefree, imaginative games they play at recess on the behavior of cartoon characters. Early morning children's television serves up such visual delights as the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. And who could forget the always irreverent Biker Mice From Mars? Do we actually expect children to digest such desensitizing folly? What happened to the days of yore, when the Brothers Warner informed the country that "hunting wabbits" was the chief concern of the day? And what about the Hal Roach Studio's presentation of a lovable loose woman (the one and only Betty Boop of course,) who sought only happiness with the help of her little pet dog? These works remain a delight today, yet, it must be noted, whether a current 'toon or an classic, only rarely does a cartoon attempt to convey any sort of serious political message or ideological influence to its' spectator. With the exception of the occasional antifascist message in cartoons from the 1940s where Hitler, Hirohito, or Mussolini made the occasional "cameo" guest appearance, political themes in 'toons are few and far between. Or, that was the sad case until the late 1970's.
For, in those heady days a bold Belgian cartoonist by the name of Pierre Culliford first concocted some small blue creatures standing three apples high, which he called Smurfs. After the cartoon-industrial complex known as Hanna-Barbera got a hold of the rights to The Smurfs they took it upon themselves to make them an American classic, and by the early 1980's thousands of disillusioned children like myself tuned in every Saturday morning to catch their Smurfy antics. The Smurfs evolved into a phenomenon of sorts. We all sang the catchy "La la la la la la..." theme song, and many of us had Smurf paraphernalia.
I myself am guilty of having owned a complete set of Smurf drinking glasses in kindergarten, which I acquired at Pizza Hut for a mere 99 cents. We all knew their names; Papa Smurf, Handy Smurf, and Painter Smurf were most often seen, and all the girls loved Smurfette. The Smurfs were also a refreshing break from the cartoons of the 1970's. Fat Albert and Speed Racer were passé, and Scooby Doo (another Hanna-Barbera creation) had long outlived its usefulness as a tool of totalitarian social control. The Smurfs were the dawn of a new era. The Smurfs were to childhood dreams as the Beatles were to puberty. The Smurfs presented moral lessons in a facile, repetitive manner, making it comprehensible to all children with normal cranial capacity. The Smurfs were as American as apple pie. Or were they?
Upon immediate reflection, who could find any imperfections in the colony of a hundred or so blue elves? They were never violent, they never swore, and to the best of my knowledge there was never any nudity in the Smurf village. Children and parents alike were lulled into complacency by this seeming Smurf-topia, only to be blinded to a harsher reality. The Smurfs were communists. "Communists?!", you say. It's hard to believe, and trust me, it was hard for me to accept, as all of my most cherished childhood fantasies were smashed to bits. It was only quite recently, whilst I was engaged in a heated discussion about the wide variety of devious strategies Scooby Doo employs to teach children the fine art of bribery (a lesson for another day,) that I flashed back to the days when cartoons were actually more important to me than sex, and I remembered my beloved Smurfs. Once I began to ponder upon the behaviors of the Smurfs I was forced to realize the truth and the whole "Commie Smurf" theory, as I like to call it, spiralled out of control quite naturally from there.
Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is an excellent source of supporting evidence for my "Commie Smurf" theory, although Das Kapital remains a far more entertaining bathroom book. Now, I know it can be difficult to differentiate between the philosophies of communism and socialism, for they often go hand in hand. However, we must take care not to confuse the Smurfs with the wretched victims of Stalinism, or a lumpen-proletariat attempting to overthrow the bourgeoisie through class warfare, and please perish the thought of the sickle and hammer as a Smurf icon. Rather, think of communism as a way of life, a social arrangement, if you will. Let's begin with the word "communist." What epistemological root word stands out? "Commune." The Smurfs live together in a small communal village, occasionally retiring to their mushroom huts; no Smurf ever leaves, and no new ones ever arrive. The Smurf village is an independent city-state of sorts, and every citizen is fiercely devoted to preserving the harmony of the entire community. In the Manifesto, Marx says, "In this sense the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a simple sentence: Abolition of private property." Well, all Smurf lands and territories belonged to all of the Smurfs, and there was no way in Hell that any single Smurf could even think of getting away with claiming a plot of land for himself or his own personal benefit or profit.
Land wasn't all the Smufrs shared. Food and provisions were stored in the communal mushroom-shaped huts and were distributed in equal portions to each and every Smurf throughout the year. Farmer Smurf didn't sell his crops to individual Smurfs; it was understood that whatever he grew was for everyone, not for the profit of a single individual Smurf. Each Smurf worked for the common good, another principle of Marx's: Baker Smurf was the universal chef, feeding hungry Smurf mouths, Handy Smurf was there for whoever needed a shelf built or screw tightened, etc.
Individual Smurf occupations are also an important indication that the Smurfs were indeed communists. Whatever their position in the village, be it Painter or Baker, they were allowed only that position and having multiple functions in society was completely out of the question. One episode depicted the Smurfs switching jobs. Vanity Smurf tried to paint, Poet Smurf tried to build, etc. Of course hilarity ensued, but the results were absolutely disastrous for the Smurfs. The moral of that episode was "Stick to what you do best" or to put it in more communistic terms, do the job you have been assigned and don't ask any questions. Another episode depicted the arrival of a new Smurf (Out-of-town Smurf?,) but he was promptly ousted because he had nothing of value to contribute to the common good of the village.
Now, with these incisive revelations in mind, remove yourself from the "Smurf-centric" mindset, and ponder Gargamel for a moment. Gargamel, that bitter, cranky, constipated old sorcerer who lived in the castle overlooking the Smurf village, was their archenemy. But who would be the most terrifying enemy of a village of elfin blue communists? Why a greedy capitalist, of course! Gargamel's main plan for the Smurfs was to capture them and turn them into gold. He sought only personal wealth and prosperity, the primary goal of all capitalists. He was completely indifferent to the ethical consequences of his actions, which would almost certainly result in the complete and utter destruction of the unity of the Smurf social order. Gargamel was greedy and egocentric, creating a dramatic juxtaposition to the Smurfs, who shared and were concerned with the welfare of all their brethren.
Rejection of the intelligentsia is yet another strategy for communist revolution suggested by Marx and effectively employed by the Smurf community. Brainy Smurf was the "square" Smurf, always with his blue nose buried in a book, always spouting off some confounding scientific mumbo-jumbo (note an eerie similarity to the Professor on Gilligan's Island.) Since communism stresses unity through equality, anyone with arcane knowledge of matters which are beyond the scope of comprehension of the village idiot, must be classified as a dissident with the capability to disrupt the common good of the entire social order.
Who knew that the Smurfs, those adorable blue creatures we once held so near and dear to our hearts, could actually be communists? It is a shocking truth, for if The Smurfs can no longer be considered innocent entertainment, then what can? We, the children of the future, have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by Hanna-Barbera, innocently sitting back and being taken in by The Smurfs theme song. I hate to sully your experience of something as pure and good, dare I say as downright delightful as The Smurfs, but it is time that the wool be pulled from our eyes. May the youth who watched The Smurfs adoringly yesterday stand strong today, and let us break down the barriers that separate cartoonists from the common man. Let us breathe the air a little deeper now that we have broken the shackles binding us to the false goodness of television. Let us laugh and be free, like the Smurfs we once knew. Be gone, politics and hidden meanings. Let our children, and our children's children learn of our foolish trust in television, and allow them to learn political philosophy from something, anything, other than cartoons.
My point (and there is one) is this: Perhaps some day media manipulation of politics and taste will end, and when that day comes people will be forced to develop their own likes, dislikes, wishes, dreams, political beliefs, and ideologies without media interference. I'm not saying that The Smurfs turned my generation into communists. What I mean is simply this: the media are a powerful industry, and virtually anything can be subliminally planted into anyone's mind, particularly the impressionable minds of young children. There is no doubt in my mind that The Smurfs undeniably championed communist ideals, and in publishing this essay, it is my hope that I may enlighten a few more people to this important topic of rare consequence, and may perhaps foster greater understanding of The Smurfs evil ideology world wide.
Return to the main archives page
Bring back the Smurfs! :)
A very polite and well behaved rebel warrior
