Graeber

 

Uplift...

Capitalists sometimes point out that capitalism has lifted many people out of poverty. 

This is true. 

However, at the same time, capitalists have used their total control of the mass media to brainwash those lifted out of poverty so that they spend all their money on useless and worthless crap. 

But the real genius of capitalism is that, they haven't just convinced us to waste our money on a load of crap, they have convinced us to compete against each other in accumulating crap. 

We're not people to capitalists. We're resources to be exploited.

Race and Capitalism

What is racism? This is clearly not a simple question. And there will be many different opinions. In my view, "racism" is a doctrine associated with the complex of  European imperialism, capitalism, and Christianity.

For the last 600 years, Europeans have rampaged around the world, stealing land (on a continental scale), plundering natural resources, and murdering or enslaving all those who resisted. And everyone resisted.

All that genocide, enslaving, and looting ought to have been seen as reprehensible and contrary to the religion that Europeans spread, along with smallpox, wherever they went. Three of the Ten Commandments of the Christian religion are:

• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house/as
• Thou shalt not kill

These commandments are not vague or ambiguous. They are not open to exceptions or interpretations. God said, Do not steal. They stole. God said, Do not covet. They coveted. God said, Do not kill. They killed.

So the European imperialist project was fundamentally immoral by European's own standards.  

However, the religious establishment (including the Protestants) that preached this morality was itself very much in favour of imperialism and made common cause with capitalists. The Christian establishment benefited in two ways. Firstly, the survivors of European invasion often converted, expanding the sphere of political influence of the church. And secondly, in return for absolution, the murderous, looting capitalists made lavish donations to the churches, making them unimaginably wealthy.

Still, all that covetousness, stealing, and murder required some kind of rationalisation. The brightest minds of the British Empire bent to the task, and the philosophy of liberalism was one product of this. But liberalism alone doesn't justify all that immorality. 

The idea that there are distinct "races" of human beings isn’t simply about difference. "Race" was always a hierarchy, with pale-skinned Europeans at the top and people with dark skin on the bottom. In the racist mind-set, dark-skinned people were human enough to be raped, but somehow not human enough to be protected by the Ten Commandments.

The irony of judging people by their skin colour in brought out in the many aphorisms that we have in English that counsel against superficial judgements:

• Don't judge a book by it's cover
• Beauty is skin deep.
• All that glitters is not gold.
• Appearances can be deceiving.
• All fur coat and no knickers
• Still waters run deep.
• The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

“Race” was never about race. It was always about justifying capitalist immorality. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount didn't apply if "the other races" were less than human. The "race" doctrine allowed Europeans to convince themselves that this was the case. Which in turn allowed them to act without any moral constraints: genocide, murder, rape, theft. There was no sin that European capitalists would not commit to in pursuit of profits.  

When it comes to European history, everything is about a handful of psychopaths greedy for wealth and power; using the rest of us as pawns in their vicious games. 

Consumption

Consuming less is an act of rebellion. Consuming the minimum is revolutionary. 

In Marx's view, 150 years ago, the economic contribution of working people was their labour. Sometimes called "the labour theory of value". 

Marx was not prescient. He could not have envisaged was how capitalism would define (or redefine) the contribution of working people in terms of the goods and services they consume. It is out consumption that drives demand, which drives profit. And profit is the raison d'etre of capitalism. 

Our desire to consume is ignited and fanned by constant and intense propaganda (aka advertising). We have never been exposed to more advertising than right now. 

Capitalists see labour as an overhead, not a contribution. We are supposed to "work hard" because that keeps overheads low and maximises profit for the capitalists. Lets face it, working hard has no benefits to us since they don't pay us extra for working hard and it leaves us with no energy for, e.g., our families. The exception is those who have been shouldered into the so-called "gig economy" (formerly known as "piece work" an unfair and outdated system that unions managed to virtually eliminate 100 years ago). 

Since consuming is our great contribution to society, it makes sense that products have a limited lifespan and have to be replaced often. People with money will tell you it's better to buy quality because it lasts. But if you don't have money you don't have the choice. The poor are stuck with the shoddy ersatz knockoffs that breaks as soon as you get them home. Low quality goods drive ongoing consumption.

There is no more working class or middle class. Everyone is "consumer class" now. And we are now further from the levers of power than we have been since our ancestors were serfs in a feudal state. The main parties in Britain all have the same economic view, the only view that is taught in universities. It literally does not matter who we vote for in the UK anymore. 

And yet over-consumption and planned obsolescence seem likely to make the earth unfit for human habitation in our lifetimes. 

Consuming less is an act of rebellion. Consuming the minimum is revolutionary. 

And if you consume less, you don't need to work hard. You can put energy into what matters to you. 

So... Grow your own and make your own. Do without. Recycle. Reuse. Buy second hand. 

Liberal Values Part of the Problem

A big part of the problem in the USA seems to be that US liberals believe their views on morality are absolute and universal. There are parallels in the UK as well, though they are generally less clear because of class, history, and other local factors.

Liberals seem to think, "we love diversity, so everyone must love diversity (eventually)". We just need to enforce diversity and they will see how great it is and fall into line. But people are not falling into line, are they? Instead they are abandoning democracy and following dictators.

At least 1/3 of any population does not love diversity and never will. They crave sameness (conformity) and oneness (group authority).

And this is not a moral or philosophical stance. It's not a reasoned position. They haven't thought about it and in all likelihood they cannot think clearly about it. It's a cognitive limit. Authoritarians lack the cognitive capacity to cope with diversity. They find diversity confusing, frustrating, overwhelming, etc. And no amount of talking about it, or rubbing their noses in it, will change this about them.

The authoritarian personality is something you are born with. While certain things can mitigate this personality type—e.g. urban setting, education—this is not something authoritarians can be expected to change.

This means that liberal arguments in favour of diversity apply. If you are born that way, if it is genetic, then you cannot be expected to change. Yes?

This is a powerful argument for acceptance, but it should be applied evenly. If someone cannot substantially change their personality, then (according to liberals themselves) we have an obligation to embrace those people as they are.

This also means that political correctness applies. Insulting and mocking people who lack a capacity we value is not politically correct. Yes? Maybe MAGA are stupid. How does pointing this out help? Have you ever responded positively to be labelled "stupid"? Has anyone?

If we accept this argument, and I do, then we should also apply it to people with the authoritarian personality. Because this is the right thing to do, by our values. And if that is not enough motivation, then consider that the alternative is that they feel an existential threat and start promoting authoritarian parties and leaders. And this allows them to impose their values on us without compromise.

So while the idea that we make peace with authoritarians is likely to a be very unpopular opinion, I cannot see any way to avoid fascism if we don't listen to them and find a compromise.

And after all, not all of the authoritarians' complaints are wackadoodle. Things are genuinely shitty for working people under neoliberalism. And billionaires are a cancer on our societies. So why not address these complaints?

Standards of living have been declining for 50 years. So why not address this problem?

Communities have been disrupted and in places gutted by unnecessary economic changes such as exporting jobs to the third world. So why not address this problem?

Politicians seem not only to lack vision, but also to lack a moral compass that prioritizes people. This is what happens when the business community take control of the apparatus of state. So why not address this problem?

No, the Authoritarians are not the most articulate people. Yes, sometimes their ideas seem silly, naive, etc. Yes, they sometimes express themselves in ways we find offensive. And yes, sometimes it does seem awfully personal and it makes me angry. So what? Demonising them doesn't help. And arguing doesn't change anything.

The only thing that will help is that their needs are met to the extent that they do not believe it is necessary abandon democracy to get what they need.

Politics is the art of compromise. And, folks, we have to compromise or we're going to lose it all.

Capitalism: The Bottom Line.

Either something replaces capitalism or we’re all dead in the medium term. 

Capitalists are like locusts. They see a resource, use violence to claim it as individual property, exploit it until it is exhausted, and then move on to the next resource, benefitting only themselves.

Capitalists are currently committed to:

• heating up the atmosphere with disastrous consequences for global climate/weather, including rising sea levels.
• poisoning land, water, and air with toxins, carcinogens, and mutagens.
• killing off all the pollinating insects with pesticides, destroying our ability to grow food to feed billions.
• burning down all the world’s forests and replacing them with monocrops.
• emptying the oceans of fish
• encouraging us all to adopt fascism (citizens serve the state).
• profiting from war, famine, drought, and plague
• destroying democracy

While there is a profit to be made, they won’t stop.

Unless we take power away from the wealthy, we’re doomed.

Eat the rich, before the rich eat you. 

Prognostication

I hope this won't come true. But a scifi book I read planted the idea in my head and I can't get it out. 

In 2028 there will be a US Presidential election as usual. Of course, the present incumbent cannot stand, so the Republicans will go through the motions of finding and fielding a candidate. 

However, on the day, rumours of election subversion (including faked video footage) will begin from early on. There will be little time for fact checking. 

Late that the night, just as it looks like a winner is emerging, the president will solemnly announce to the world that the election has been interfered with and the results cannot be accepted. The counting will have to cease. He will point to the history of interference in recent US elections and say that this is just the next level of attack on US Democracy. He will say 

"Never fear, good citizens, I am announcing a new election on [some date in the near future]. Let the planning and logistics commence immediately. Democracy will win! And in the meantime, I will graciously stay on as a caretaker, just till the next election. I'm so gracious." 

The liberal media will report strong scepticism or even outright hostility but it won't matter. The authoritarian media will say "We told you there was election interference." After all, they helped to create the lies about election interference to begin with. There will be so much going on that no one will be able to focus.

Foreign leaders are clearly terrified of the President, they will wring their hands over the obviously faked election tampering, and sternly state that the President must hold an election as soon as possible. In fact they have no leverage on him and he knows he can safely ignore them when it comes to domestic policy. And he's called an election anyway. 

At the same time, lawsuits will rain down to try stop the President. But, as President, the incumbent has the high ground already. And he has already announced a new election, so can say he has done the right thing. And the fake evidence will be the best that money can buy. 

He is also now a hardened veteran of the US court system that can run rings around any liberal lawyer. As before, he doesn't have to win in court, he just has to delay until he gets more leverage. 

The day of the new election comes and people rush out to vote, again. However, once again the enemies of democracy will mysteriously strike and the election will have to be set aside. Now the President says,

"Well, we will have to look into this before we can announce another election. But we will be having a joint commission of the legislature (run by his cronies there) and the Justice department will also deputise 3 supreme court justices (appointed by the incumbent) to run a parallel investigation. Once we hear back from them, we'll announce a new election. I promise you we will get to the bottom of this blatant election tampering. And you know I always keep my promises."

Then nothing much happens for a year or two. The commissions are lived-streamed and become morbidly fascinating. But the picture that emerges will be confusing and no one will really understand what officials are saying. The initial adrenaline will have worn off. The media cannot help themselves and will have moved on to more exciting news. And sections of the media wildly contradict each other anyway, so no one knows what to think.

The situation starts to normalise.

People are still complaining and courts cases mount, but the backlog is huge and none will be decided within 2 years. The President doesn't have to win, as long as he doesn't lose. A delay is all that he  needs. 

If another date is announced, something will go wrong with that one also. If a new election is not announced, then a new diversion, will be announced. Perhaps the USA will need to go to war with another country? Maybe China? Or more likely a smaller fish. Maybe it's time to liberate Cuba from communism and turn it back into a casino for wealthy Americans? 

Whatever it is, the President will throw something hugely divisive on the table and let people fight it out, while privately not giving a shit about it. 

The President is a master of delaying and avoiding consequences. As long as the President has support from the Republicans and Christians, which he does, he could stay in power this way indefinitely. Without even declaring martial law. And that's a possibility too, if the "threat to democracy" is serious enough. 

Although it is still de rigueur to treat the President as a joke, an idiot, and an embarrassment, the man has been President of the United States, twice. Fool me once... 

We need to wise up and start treating him as what he is: a dangerous sociopath. A threat to society and to civilisation. 

He is not Hitler, but he is our "Hitler". Yes? 

Is Capitalism Better Than Other Systems?

 Let’s start with a few definitions.

Capital is accumulated wealth above and beyond what one needs to live well (and have a nest egg). Most rich people inherited their (initial) capital.

A capitalist is someone whose income depends not on work, but on gambling with some part of their hoard of accumulated wealth (aka “investments”).

Capitalism is the ideology that holds

1. the accumulation of wealth is the highest good; and thus leads to the greatest happiness (utilitarianism)
2. Commerce is the highest form of human culture (plutolatry: “wealth worship”).
3. those with the most wealth are most competent and temperamentally suited to rule (plutocracy “rule by the wealthy”)
4. all human interactions are transactions (transactionalism)

As far as the question goes:

Capitalism—the combination of plutolatry, plutocracy, utilitarianism, and transactionalism—is best for people who have capital. Because they are the only ones who can come out on top. They have all the influence and power.

For anyone who has no capital—who has to work for a living—capitalism is the worst possible alternative. Because without capital a person has no influence, let alone power.

Like all tyrants, the plutocrats fear being outnumbered and overwhelmed by the workers. So they keep us divided and confused. As ought to be evident from the internet.

My Answer to the Question: Who owns property in socialism?

Trying to discuss socialism in terms drawn from the capitalist ideology—whence terms like “own” and “property”—is not that easy. It’s like trying to discuss science using Biblical terminology.

Although you’ve never known anything else, the jargon of capitalism is not neutral.

The jargon you use is based on an ideology. In that ideology, working people are just another resource to be exploited. And thus the ideas that such terms represent are entirely foreign to socialism.

What we generally mean by “owning” is this: Using violence or the threat of it to exclude other people from using something valuable, for the life time of the person claiming exclusive rights. The owner class have set up institutions and systems—laws, police, courts—to normalise their violence and protect their ownership from their neighbours. Violence is normalised and institutionalised in capitalism.

By the way, this is also why capitalism has produced a discourse of “individual rights”. It’s fundamentally about the right of the owner class to own everything and their right to be the ruling class.

Socialists often emphasise our mutual obligations rather than our individual rights. And vest rulership in the collective.

The people who own things for a living and the people who work for a living tend to define “property” differently. The owning class require exclusive use of a good, because that is their livelihood and they make no other contribution. In this way, the thing owned becomes an “asset”. And

The socialist critique of capitalism is really centred around “property” in the sense of assets that fund the luxurious lifestyle of the owner class. We aren’t concerned with the tools of your trade, your clothing, or your knickknacks. Your stuff, your essentially worthless stuff, is yours, for all the good it will do you. Our focus is on assets and the system that the owner class have set up to protect their assets.

The working class tend not to own assets because the start-up costs are prohibitive. The owning class generally inherit their stake. For example, it used to be that working people could afford to buy a house with a mortgage - a long term loan in which one pays 100% or more of the cost of the house in interest, so the bank doubles their money with no work. This is what my father did (mother did not work and in those days that was affordable). But this is being taken away in order to fund more billionaires. And keep in mind that one autistic American billionaire just spent $250 million to help get Trump elected and thus get a seat at the table deciding how the violence of the state will be employed against citizens.

So most of the stuff that the worker class “own” is not the same kind of “property” because they can derive no income from it. Indeed, for non-asset goods the value usually declines over time.

For most socialists, certain things that are currently considered “property”, are thought of differently. Land is not something one can legitimately “own” for example. As a socialist society we would collectively negotiate the best use of the land. And we might divide it up, on a temporary basis, between people based on need and capacity. One may have exclusive access to land only by the consent of everyone. And it would be nuts not to grant exclusive use to farmers, for example, because they need it to grow food. But it would mean that incompetent farmers might be moved on to some other form of livelihood, by general agreement.

Just as the land itself is a good whose exploitation should benefit everyone. Similarly with what comes out of the land. Things such as oil, minerals, and diamonds cannot be legitimately owned by anyone merely on the basis of their willingness to use violence or the violence inherent in the system to exclude others.

These things exist whether someone owns them or not. And simply owning them contributes nothing to society. Indeed, exclusive ownership of assets is generally to detriment of the society. In the USA, for example, some 44 million live in poverty. Some 26 million don’t have any health insurance. And some 2 million people are incarcerated (the highest proportion in the industrialised world). All this in the richest country in the world.

In capitalism, people have no value unless they work to make the owner class richer. And since they are only ever willing to pay the minimum, for working people capitalism is a race to the bottom. At the end of the game of Monopoly, one person owns everything and everyone else is dead. It’s a quite a vision of society.

In socialism, the owner class make no contribution to society despite their evident capacity to do so. Therefore, they should get no benefit from society. And society should definitely not agree to their having exclusive access to a vast hoard of wealth while their neighbours starve or die of treatable illnesses. 

Why did Trump win? (For anyone who hasn't got it yet).

Since 2000, the median cost of healthcare, education, and housing have all risen by 250-300%. New cars are up ~170%. The median wage has risen by just 25%. 

Something like 3 out of 5 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose that paycheck, they're homeless. And US welfare is minimal. 

Since Reaganomics took hold ca 1980, the poor are either in poverty or one small step away. Middle-income earners can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle, i.e. they are now poor. 

Meanwhile billionaires are ostentatiously flourishing and using their vast wealth to gain political influence. 

Reagan also radicalised the "evangelicals" so that they see a real prospect of a theocracy in the US. A program they associated with Republicans in government. And Trump delivered them the Supreme Court last time. 

Skilled propaganda has the Democrats taking the blame for the failures of neoliberalism (btw... in just the same way that 19th century liberalism failed). Moreover, they seemed to run on "business as usual" platform. They didn't seem to acknowledge how bad things are the majority. 

Add in ongoing paranoia and xenophobia engendered by the 9/11 attacks and Covid. 

Add in the profound and growing distrust in politicians generally... for all the obvious reasons.  

The fact is that for most Americans, and certainly for all of the least affluent, America is not a great place to live anymore. 

Then along came Trump. Promising to make it great again, running against a party who were insisting that "everything is fine", we just need to tweak things a little. 

It's not like this is rocket science. If you don't look after your citizens, they will eventually revolt. This is after all, the founding myth of the USA. Voting Trump may have been the laziest citizen revolt in history, but a revolt it was. 

Unfortunately, as far as replacing failed neoliberalism goes, fascism is the worst possible choice. But fascism was the only choice on offer. And in any culture, there's always a sizeable minority who, when stressed, think a fascist is the best choice.