The Real Competition Behind the Olympic Games
The real competition lurking behind the upcoming Olympic games is between democratic capitalism and authoritarian capitalism.
For years American policy toward China assumed that trade and economic growth would generate a large Chinese middle class, and this middle class would demand democratic reforms. We were right on the first part. The games will showcase a Chinese middle class so big that almost as many Chinese now use cell phones and the Internet as do Americans, and soon as many will own cars.
But we were wrong about the democracy part. We thought capitalism and democracy went hand in glove. They don't. Economic reforms are well underway in China. Individual Chinese can own property and invest, trade and buy almost whatever they want. Private enterprise is in, collectives are out. But when it comes to civil and political rights, China today is where it was almost two decades ago at the time of Tiananmen Square.
Authoritarian capitalism works wonders if all you care about is getting ahead economically and being able to afford more stuff. Never before in history have so many people gained economic ground so fast as in China over the last two decades. But if you're someone with a grievance, or you want to criticize those in power, or you're a Tibetan or ethnic minority, or you happen to like clean air, you're out of luck.
Democratic capitalism should win in the end because it responds far better to what people want -- not only as consumers but also as citizens. Yet right now the outcome of the competition doesn't seem so clear. The Chinese economy is booming while we're in deep trouble. Eighty percent of Chinese are optimistic about the future but only 20 percent of Americans say this nation is on the right track. And most Americans tell pollsters they don't trust politicians and believe our government is run by big corporations and the rich.
In terms of this large underlying competition, think of our upcoming presidential election is our own Olympic games. It will showcase to the world whether, and how well, democratic capitalism still works.
For years American policy toward China assumed that trade and economic growth would generate a large Chinese middle class, and this middle class would demand democratic reforms. We were right on the first part. The games will showcase a Chinese middle class so big that almost as many Chinese now use cell phones and the Internet as do Americans, and soon as many will own cars.
But we were wrong about the democracy part. We thought capitalism and democracy went hand in glove. They don't. Economic reforms are well underway in China. Individual Chinese can own property and invest, trade and buy almost whatever they want. Private enterprise is in, collectives are out. But when it comes to civil and political rights, China today is where it was almost two decades ago at the time of Tiananmen Square.
Authoritarian capitalism works wonders if all you care about is getting ahead economically and being able to afford more stuff. Never before in history have so many people gained economic ground so fast as in China over the last two decades. But if you're someone with a grievance, or you want to criticize those in power, or you're a Tibetan or ethnic minority, or you happen to like clean air, you're out of luck.
Democratic capitalism should win in the end because it responds far better to what people want -- not only as consumers but also as citizens. Yet right now the outcome of the competition doesn't seem so clear. The Chinese economy is booming while we're in deep trouble. Eighty percent of Chinese are optimistic about the future but only 20 percent of Americans say this nation is on the right track. And most Americans tell pollsters they don't trust politicians and believe our government is run by big corporations and the rich.
In terms of this large underlying competition, think of our upcoming presidential election is our own Olympic games. It will showcase to the world whether, and how well, democratic capitalism still works.
posted by Robert Reich | 2:36 PM
47 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Dr Reich, Authoritarian Capitalism works only when the authority goal is the maximization of prosperity to the people. There have been may despots in capitalistic regimes who favor either the ruling class or the wealthy only, to the detriment of the people at large. Witness the history of many banana republics.
yay. first comment. Anyway, your post, Mr. Reich, instantly makes me think of WEB Dubois and Booker T. Washington. Economic empowerment will not bring democratic rights by virtue of having a greater stake in a society (ie. having property/wealth). That simply turns you into another commodity. Looking at China, I feel Dubois was right. Unless your government recognizes your inherent rights as a human being, you will never be more than cogs for an economic machine draped in a flag.
There's a good piece in the FT about this:
"For democracy advocates inside and outside of China, the Communist party’s relative success in improving its governance capacity means that arguments resting on the a priori assumption of democracy’s superiority will fall on deaf ears."
Of course, what differentiates democracy from non-democracy is the ability to peacefully throw out bad leaders. The Chinese government is afraid of a popular movement against them (see 1989), so the top leaders place their emphasis on simply making people rich enough to not care about political freedom. What dollar amount are your freedoms worth to you?
But rampant problems like corruption and environmental damage require a government response to the will of the people, and until that happens the amazing growth of the Chinese economy will always be a two-edged sword. The economy can do well for a long time, but it can't last forever. It took 70 years to bring down the Soviet Union, and their citizens were dirt poor. How long will China last? Another 50 years? How powerful will China be then? Will it be peaceful when it finally ends?
Let me propose a scenario to get your thoughts. Let’s assume the Democrats win this election and take a veto-proof majority of Congress. If the economy starts to rebound, the Democrats might increase their majority substantially in two more years. The end result may be a very weak Republican party.
The end of this could bring the U.S. to a powerful one-party system. This party could tweak the rules, such as redistricting, to stay in power. How would that system really be different from the systems of China and Russia?
"we're gonna kick your yankee asses in the olympics"! lol
This assumes the Chinese economy will keep booming and there are already signs that it is weakening. And unrest is spreading.
Alvin Toffler once predicted China would end up splitting apart. I wonder if he will be proven right.
So what if “Eighty percent of Chinese are optimistic about the future but only 20 percent of Americans say this nation is on the right track”
The quality of life in the West is far superior to that in China. It is natural to be optimistic when you buy a stove for the first time in your life, and then a refrigerator and then a microwave. When social status is determined by the cell phone you use. Sure you have a lot to hope for. Like a washing machine, a dryer, plasma TV and maybe, fifty years down the road a non corrupt system that will assure that schools at least are built with the right materials and do not collapse with the first earthquake burying scores of kids in the rubble.
Also, if I were Chinese, even a starving one, and a state pollster showed up at my door asking me if I were content and optimistic, how do you think I would answer?
I have a huge complaint from my fellow citizens in the West. They complain so much that they have forgotten the wonders capitalist democracy has done for us. Pascal Bruckner, a leading French intellectual put it succinctly in his book “The tyranny of penitence.” (The translation is mine.. .so forgive the mistakes.). He speaks of Europe but the same can be applied to the US and the West in general I believe.
“Europe has given birth to monsters: at the same time it created the theories that help us think and destroy the monsters. Continuing on the path of the Arabs and Africans, it founded the cross-ocean slave trade, but it also led the struggle against slavery abolition and ended the slave system before other nations did…. The religious wars in Europe will foster the secular ideology and the national competitions will foster the hope for a supranational community, the foreign conquests will create the movement against colonialism, the 20th century revolutions will found the movement against authoritarianism. Europe is the holocaust plus the defeat of Nazism, is the gulag plus the fall of the Berlin wall, the colonies plus the abolition of colonialism, is slavery plus its abolition. Every time we have a specific ferociousness, not only is it overcome, but it also becomes illegal.”
Sure our system in the West has its minor and huge imperfections, but it has worked for many of us. I enjoy human rights (most of the time), I live in peace, I am free to compete and free to criticize. Not just here in the US but all over the western world. From 1967 to 1974, as a kid, I lived under a brutal dictatorship in Greece that exiled my father and deprived me of a decent childhood.
So, I know the difference.
I am content.
I am grateful.
Period.
It's quite alarming how many people in the West don't seem to understand that not only are many people in the corridors of power not interested in trying to force China to reform, they basically are hoping to emulate China's new model -- Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and of course the Cheney/Bush/McCain Republicans here at home.
China is the world’s sweatshop with its brutally repressive dictatorship and vast pools of exploitable labor. The U.S and transnational corporations are all too willing to take advantage of this disgusting abuse of basic human rights and human dignity. Hardly flattering for either authoritarian capitalism or democratic capitalism.
As Chomsky makes very clear, what we -have- in the United States is Authoritarian Capitalism.
um. are you, Dr Reich, referring to the USA as a Democracy? How quaint, rather like the Geneva Conventions...
B. Dewhirst said...
"As Chomsky makes very clear, what we -have- in the United States is Authoritarian Capitalism."
Agreed; although the liberal tendency is to paint the U.S. brand of capitalism/democracy in the most favorable light; thus you get the authoritarian/democratic dichotomy. In reality China seems fascist and the U.S. heavily skewed authoritarian.
The Bush administration has been moving us towards authoritarian capitalism.
Our democractic capitalism has been skewed by excessive and unmanaged "greed", which is bisecting our society into the "haves" and the "have nots".
America does not have enough religious influence to prevent the poor from ultimately killing the rich. Civil unrest could eventually destroy ultra-capitalism.
Dr. Steven J. Balassi:
Sir, it seems to me that your scenario borders on a hysterical query portending ultimate disaster.
First, the Democratic party has long been less homogenous than the recent version of movement conservative Republicans. Granted there are dissident voices among Republicans but in the final analysis the troops tend to either rally around the President, should he be of their party, or around their Congressional leaders, who are far better at holding party lines than are Democratic leaders.
Democratic Presidents often have more trouble with their own party than with the opposition. Movement conservatism may have altered this somewhat in recent years by virtue of an insatiable desire for control requiring that Democrats pull together to overcome the greater resistance.
The vast majority of Republicans range from the edges of extreme right wing conservatism to what would be described as moderates. Democrats tend to cover the whole range of Democratic ideological interpretation from extreme left to moderate to conservative. This broad ideological spectrum, among Democrats, will provide long periods of consternation to any Democratic President.
Should your proposed scenario play out, I would agree that in the near term we will likely see a government controlled by a very strong one party rule. Some of this will be a knee-jerk reaction to years of Republican control. Some of it will be due to the variety of issues that need fixing and a balanced government generally leads to a stalemate.
For long periods in the middle of the 20th century we saw one party control and it didn't appear to impede overall progress.
Where I feel your scenario breaks down is in understanding that the American public tend to be fickle followers. They are often ruled less by reason than by "Elmer Gantry" types. When the economy is stable for a period of years then social/religious issues seem to move to the forefront. No doubt egged on by the party in opposition. The public's mood can turn on a dime and yesterday's heroes become tomorrow's scapegoats.
Should the economy falter under Democratic leadership, an axiom of movement conservatism, then voters will react at the polls and a return to equilibrium will be sought by changing the guard. Even with a strong economy, if the country begins to sense that social/religious views are drifting far afield from mainstream accepability, voters will seek change.
Redistricting is attempted to be used by both parties to ensure a continued realm of control. It hasn't worked for Republicans and one could argue that they are much better at the manipulation than Democrats. Also, redistricting is a State by State phenomenon and controlling all fifty States' legislatures is a Herculean task.
Redistricting also only occurs every 10 years and in the interim a variety of factors can alter the original objectives. It only affects the House at a national level, the Senate is not affected at all. Both parties gerrymander but it hasn't seemed to have a detrimental long term effect on our process.
The crux:
How would that system really be different from the systems of China and Russia?
I am tempted to respond with; if you don't already know, no explanation will help you. Suffice it to say, " I want to say one word to you. Just one word.", no it's not "plastics", it's elections, routine, prescribed scheduled elections!
it's elections, routine, prescribed scheduled elections!
Both China and Russia have those... and before you go screaming that they only have one political party, please point out which credible political party in the United States can reliably be counted upon to oppose neoliberal economic policies or can be counted on to honor our obligations under the Constitution and UN Charter to respect the sovereignty of other nations and not wage aggressive wars...
The answer, of course, is "there isn't one."
For most purposes, we've got one political party with two factions... but, of course, if you don't already understand that there isn't anything I can say to persuade you, as you put it...
Dr. Reich,
US Democratic Capitalism has been in a process of disintegrating to a parasitic individualism. We've become polarized around
a "ME" society rather than a "WE" society, unlike Europe.
Mike Whitney said it all quite well in his recent writing: "The System is Broken. We're Entering a Two Economy Society." Economy One is the Production and Consumption economy represented by the bottom 80% of society,and Economy Two is the Financial and Property based society represented by the top 20%.
We're in a process of financializing and privatizing our society in a self-destructive way where exotic financial products, speculation, massive unproductive debt leveraging makes the rich richer and sucks up more and more money from Industry Investment and Consumption. The market ideal now is to compete by lowering worker salaries and wages -- what has been called, "A race to the bottom."
This is bringing on a debilitating "Financial Squeeze" to the Middle Class that can hardly termed "Democratic."
Edmund Burke´s compassionate conservative ideals of community and concern for those slipping through the cracks is being replaced by Two Economies having no intercourse and no sympathy with one another. The following TABLES illustrate these trends.
___________________________________
TABLE 16: GROWTH IN NET WORTH, INCOME BY WEALTH CLASS BETWEEN 1983AND 2004 (Data in 2004 $000's)
___________________________________
............1983....2004...% Change
NET WORTH
Top 1%.....$8,315..$14,786....77.8%
Top 20%....$1,002...$1,822....81.8%
Next 20%.....$155.....$244....57.3%
Next 20%......$64..... $82....27.3%
Bottom 40%.....$5.4.....$2.2.-59.2%
INCOME
Top 1%.......$698...$1,169....67.5%
Top 20%......$141.....$199....41.1%
Next 20%......$58.8....$68.4..16.3%
Next 20%......$38.5....$41.5...7.8%
Bottom 40%....$16.8....$17.5...4.2%
___________________________________
COMMENTS:
The Top 1% saw average Household Wealth rise 78% over last two decades to $14.8 million per household in 2004. The top 20% saw their Wealth increase 82% to $1.8 million per household.
In sharp contrast, Next 20% saw their Wealth increase a meager 27% while the Bottom 20% saw their household Wealth DECREASE a whopping 59% to a tiny $2,200 in 2004.
The growth picture is equally bleak for average Household Income over last 20 years. The Top 1% and 20% saw their Incomes increase 67% and 41%, respectively. The Bottom 80% saw their Incomes grow between 16% to 4% (4% for Bottom 40% of households) or an average of 8% for Bottom 80%. Wages hardly kept up with inflation for the Bottom 80% of US Households.
About 80% of households earned less than $70,000 in 2004 with Bottom 40% earning less than $18,000. If this isn't "Structural Poverty" on a grand scale, then I don't know what is. It's a solid argument for eliminating taxes on Adjusted Gross Incomes below $18,000 (except for Soc.Security and Medicare payroll taxes).
It´s not surprising to learn there are now over 1000 billionaires compared to 13 in 1985. The over 235,000 millionaires today represent a wealth of over $31Trillion ... more than the combined GDPs of Japan, China, the EU and Brazil! This huge concentration of wealth owners looks after its own needs in its own separate world.
___________________________________
TABLE 17: COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLD WEALTH BY WEALTH CLASS AS % OF GROSS ASSETS -- 2004
___________________________________
.........Top 1%..Next 19%..Next 60%
Principle.10.9%....32.2%....66.0%
Residence
Liquid.....5.1%.....8.6%.....8.5%
Assets (bank deposits,
money market funds,
cash surrender life
insurance)
Pension....5.3%....16.0%....12.0%
Accounts
Corporate.26.9%....16.3%....12.0%
stock, mutual funds,
personal trusts
Unincor...49.3%....25.4%.....7.9%
porated business
equity, other real
estate
Misc.......2.5%.....1.5%.....1.4%
Assets
TOTAL....100.0%...100.0%...100.0%
RATIOS
Debt to....3.8%....12.0%....61.6%
Equity
Debt to...61.4%...107.0%...141.2%
Income
___________________________________
COMMENTS:
The richest households invested over 75% of their savings in corporate stocks, financial securities, businesses, and real estate. In contrast, the Middle Class 60% invested 66% of their savings in own home and a bare 12% in corporate stocks, financial securities, businesses, and real
estate.
Little wonder the top 1% pays 35% of total taxes as they own 40% of Household Wealth! Taxable income for the wealthy is still manpulated by taking advantage of tax reduction, deferment or avoidance privileges; by transfer pricing that adjusts income/expense statements to show no taxable income.
So the financial game driving our Economic Model is to keep on trading and accumulating cashflow either tax-free or at very low`effective´ tax rates.
For example, Real Estate has no Capital Gain tax so wealthy speculators can plow back net sales proceeds into buying ever more assets tax-free... while hypocritically crying they pay the bulk of society´s taxes.
Note the sharp rise in the Debt/Equity and especially Debt/Income ratios of the 60% Middle Class group... struggling to over-leverage to keep up the standard of living in the face of stagnant wage growth.
The relatively low effective taxes on the top 1% show up in their high financial liquidity with very low Debt/Equity and Debt/Income ratios of 4% and 61%, respectively.
___________________________________
___________________________________
TABLE 18: COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLD BY WEALTH CLASS AND BY ASSET TYPE --2004
___________________________________
.................Top 1O%...Next 90%
I.INVESTMENT ASSETS
Stocks,mutual.....85.4%.......14.6%
funds
Financial.........87.9%.......12.1%
securities
Trusts............81.5%.......18.5%
Business Equity...90.3%........9.7%
Non-Home..........79.4%.......20.6%
Real Estate
TOTAL GROUP.......85.6%.......14.4%
II.HOUSING,LIQUID
ASSETS, PENSION
ASSETS
Principle.........38.0%.......62.0%
Residence
Deposits..........60.9%.......39.1%
Life Insurance....57.3%.......42.7%
Pension Accounts..58.3%.......41.7%
TOTAL for GROUP...45.7%.......54.3%
TOTAL DEBT........27.0%.......73.0%
___________________________________
COMMENTS:
The above again highlights the Wealth concentration and low Debt exposure of the Top 10% versus the Bottom 90% of Households. In 2004, 86% of Investment Assets were owned by the Top 10% of our society. This trend has been rather constant, rising slightly.
Liquid Assets are favor the Top 10%over the Bottom 90%. The latter group relies heavily on its Home investments for its personal security. The Top 10% has far more liquidity (and Income flows) to invest in a broad diversity of money making Investment Assets.
___________________________________
Source of Table Data: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Household Wealth in US: Rising Debt and the Middle Class Squeeze," June 2007
___________________________________
SUMMARY:
Obviously, there´s a long way to go to "Democratize" our Capitalistic system. This can only be achieved by reversing the regressiveness of our Tax System which is responsible for the growing structural inequality and poverty.
Mike Whitney has it right when he says we must use the tax system to Reindustrialize our economy. This is only way to stimulate Investment and employment. At the same time, we need to dissolve all the special tax privileges that do not lead to productive investments.
And, most importantly, we need to invest in Human Capital skills and knowhow as part of the program to economic horizons expand rather than shrink for Mainstream America.
Failure here means the spreading economic polarization and financial squeeze of the Middle Class will continue on its destructive course.
Maybe the words of Aristotle are ominously prophetic when he warned that Democracy is the prior step to Oligarchy.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dr. Reich,
Correction: Summary: 3rd paragraph from the last:
...skills and knowhow as part of a program to expand rather than shrink economic horizons for Mainstream America.
b. dewhirst:
As per our previous dialogues, discussing reality with one whose ideologies are so extreme as to obliterate reason is akin to banging one's head against the wall.
The amusing thing is that your answer to a governing philosophy in no way guarantees relief from all the heinous acts you complain about so often. That you cannot see differences in the general ideologies of the two dominant parties in American politics is not proof that there are none.
It is far easier to embrace an extremist position, one which on paper appears Valhallic, than to deal with all the vagaries, inequities and even stupidities that exist in an opposing ideas.
Solutions to human problems are complex, burying your head in the sand and surrounding yourself with nothing but criticisms is an ultimate act of cowardice.
Why people confuse democracy and market systems is beyond me. You can have all sorts of economic systems with democracy, or with tyranny or with authoritarianism. The difference is the degree of consent form the population to the particular form of economics.
With democracy you can remove your bad leaders without a bloody revolution, and forms of authoritarianism require a revolution. If we feel we require a revolution in this country, we can see that we are on the brink of authoritarianism.
Art, if you think I'm extreme it stands to reason that you look like an extremist to me.
That you cannot see similarities in the general ideologies of the two dominant parties in American politics is not proof that there are none.
It is far easier to embrace an extremist position, one which on paper appears popular, than to deal with all the vagaries, inequities and even stupidities that exist within one's own dogma.
Solutions to human problems are complex, burying your head in the sand and surrounding yourself with nothing but ad populum falacies is an ultimate act of cowardice.
Especially when millions of people are being killed and exploited on account of your unquestioning insistence that these two parties are fundamentally different.
And why not, Authoritarian Capitalism is working fine here in the US, right?
Who jails a higher percent of their citizens, the US, or China?
Why is the Department of Homeland Security spying on domestic political activists, and in some cases ordering local police to arrest them?
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2008/06/26/news1.html
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=121666&sid=1&fid=1
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=123734&sid=5&fid=1
"Democratic capitalism should win in the end because it responds far better to what people want -- not only as consumers but also as citizens."
Not so, when you must fill out a questionaire before your senators/congressman will accept your e-mail.
b. dewhirst:
Were you a parrot in a previous life?
That you cannot see similarities in the general ideologies of the two dominant parties in American politics is not proof that there are none.
Now nowhere did I suggest that there were not some similarities between the two parties.
It is far easier to embrace an extremist position, one which on paper appears popular, than to deal with all the vagaries, inequities and even stupidities that exist within one's own dogma.
If you can comprehend, a dubious assumption, you would see that most of those posting here are attempting to "deal" with the vagaries, inequities and even stupidities that exist within our dogmas.
Solutions to human problems are complex, burying your head in the sand and surrounding yourself with nothing but ad populum falacies is an ultimate act of cowardice.
A profound statement leaving one with a sense of reductio ad absurdum. Fallacies are not fallacies until proven by logical presentation.
Especially when millions of people are being killed and exploited on account of your unquestioning insistence that these two parties are fundamentally different.
You appear to suffer the sbvor syndrome. You exhibit no capacity for understanding cause and effect.
Art, if you think I'm extreme it stands to reason that you look like an extremist to me.
Et tu, an inability to understand language? Extreme is a relative term. A norm or center is necessary before something can be defined as extreme relative to it. Are you suggesting that your view is the norm? An affirmative answer would not be surprising.
art:
Were you an apologist in a previous life?
Did you use better arguments then?
Now nowhere did I suggest that there were not some similarities between the two parties.
Now, nowhere did I suggest that there were not some differences between the two political factions.
If you can comprehend, a dubious assumption, you would see that most of those posting here are attempting to "deal" with the vagaries, inequities and even stupidities that exist within our dogmas.
Amazing how you can manage that while ignoring criticism.
A profound statement leaving one with a sense of reductio ad absurdum. Fallacies are not fallacies until proven by logical presentation.
The only reason you feel my position is extreme is that you feel more people agree with your position.
It happens to be definitionally true, and relies on the aforementioned fallacy.
You exhibit no capacity for understanding cause and effect.
If you don't think bombs and sanctions kill people, you seem to have a similar problem. Perhaps projection is another problem from which you suffer?
Are you suggesting that your view is the norm?
Of public opinion, or elite opinion?
http://www.truemajority.org/
Notsofast said “China is the world’s sweatshop with its brutally repressive dictatorship and vast pools of exploitable labor. The U.S and transnational corporations are all too willing to take advantage of this disgusting abuse of basic human rights and human dignity. Hardly flattering for either authoritarian capitalism or democratic capitalism.”
It seems to me that when wealth is wanted, a nation has to honker down and become a sweatshop of activity. Notsofast describes raw capitalism and everyone here is inclined to think that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand and are joined at the waste.. On its face, Democracy ,the way it is practiced, is a vehicle that allows the Rich to pretend that the little guy has a say in how decisions are made. We know he does not have a say in anything. Even the elections in America are a fraud. Ernest Hollings book “Making America Work” claims that Wall Street calls all the shots. What has been going on in the past 40 years proves this.
Plato, in his book ”The Republic” called democracy a crime against mankind. Napolean said that having one bad general on the battlefield was better than having more than 2 excellent ones. The only reason that America and the West tout Democracy is that the rich can engineer wealth and corrupt the people through it.
Notwithstanding, there are only 5 forms of government and none of them have anything to do with the economic system that Dr. Reich so willingly weaves together in his article. Capitalism and communism have been practiced by all sorts of governments. The Catholic Church,e.g., when it wore the robe of Constantine, practiced both and for 1000 years ruined all of Europe. It seems that American Democracy was ushered in by fat cat capitalists, our so called founding fathers, [Please bow your heads and pray?} claiming that all men in this new capitalism were created equal and so well endowed with all manner of rights that it would be difficult to believe that over 60% of the American population was buried under the yoke of slavery and many brutalized except on the 4th of July when they were all supposed to celebrate down main Street. What was democracy to slaves or for that matter what was our belief in the rights and liberties of man?
Regarding Athenian Democracy, it appears that, in the end, it destroyed itself and its most noble of thinkers, Socrates. When the war and the economy went bad, the capitalism that was based on the exploitation of man, democracy showed its true colors of mass murder and evil. The historian Bettany Hughes talks about the first Democracy in Athens ” Athens: the Truth about Democracy” She says ” democracy was not necessarily a good thing because it built an empire to enrich itself, allowed the slavery of others doing the dirty work and started self-serving wars..First, Athenian democracy was a dead end. Athenian women were less than second-class citizens - Aristotle considers them sub-standard. They were thought to pollute. Female bodies were porous: evil could come oozing from open orifices, their mouths and eyes. And for this reason they were kept not only covered but veiled. The first hard evidence we have of the use of the full face veil comes from Athens. Second, Athens depended on world slavery and world conquest.
Liberty, equality, freedom of speech, human rights, the greater good, universal suffrage are all the finest goals, but true democracy, the absolute rule of the people, is not universally or necessarily the finest way to achieve them.
Plato seems to have truly hated this kind of government. That is why he wrote the Republic.
The government of China, I suspect understands the difference between capitalism and their form of government. One could argue that they are building up their state for the benefit of all and so long as they control the Banks, their Wall Street, and their press, they can manage their nation. Here in America, Wall Street manages everything including our peril.
Wait -- which form do you think the USA had for the first two centuries? Haven't we had authoritarian capitalism, basically?
Aren't we now seeing the bad end of that stick, where the velvet wears out, the iron hand shows through, and the rich have consolidated their gains?
China's on the early end, where the illusion of prosperity for all is still claiming people.
We've lost that. Reminds me of http://www.fourmilab.ch/evilempire/
Or do I misunderstand your point?
Where do you see a 'democratic capitalism' actually happening?
Dr. Reich,
What happened to your vacation? Great to see your analysis on Larry King last week, and to see that you're back to blogging.
I look forward to your posts coming in to my Google reader. Thanks for sharing life us common folk :-)
But really, get some rest.
Peace,
Brian
Dr. Reich (and Art Layman)
Was sitting outside this evening in my favorite hotel when I read that Carl Levin and John Warner expressed (here it comes) "DISATISFACTION" with the contrast in US spending on Iraq Reconstruction and record of Iraq Spending to date (+-$12 billion) and with Iraq oil revenues from 2005 until amounting to $156 billion! How politely said!
Incredible naivety in these remarks as I would have thought by now that the US is in an advance stage of negpotiations to recover a major part of US taxpayer funding of Iraq Reconstruction (for destruction not caused by us) as well as for training/backup troops past and future.
Dr. Reich, if we are not pursuing suc a reimbursement path, then this is plain STUPID. Can you not bring this concern to OBAMA's campaign team?
The Iraq government is playing our government financial benovolence with absurd arrogance and skill. If we don't negotiate NOW to redress this multi/billion dollar matter, we will lose our leverage over time. In which case, voters can be totally irate with our government's protection of taxpayer funds. And here we are pracically bankrupt under Trillions of Debt!
Are we giving this money away for a special oil supply price in the future? If so, then I might withdraw my disgust over this pisspore business approach by our government officials.
Art, I also bring this to you attention to hear your sharp judgement on the situation ... if we succumb to such exploitation, there should be a Taxpayer Revolt!
Makes me want to believe B. Dewhirst´s cynical point BOTH parties are failing miserably the American public is not entirely UNTRUE... and on many fronts!
As written in a wonderful book, Supercapitalism, the democratic capitalism is broken. I have no more recourse to change things in Washington than the average Chinese person can change things in Beijing.
That said, I immensely grateful for the freedom to read any blog I want and to post this without fear of imprisonment! The US is a wonderful country, however, we don't have many citizens and we have far too many consumers. We need to return to the work ethic of our forefathers instead of instant gratification.
b. dewhirst:
Were you an apologist in a previous life?
Did you use better arguments then?
I make no apologies, I learned long ago that humans are imperfect as are ideologies. All that man can do is follow a perpetual quest for improvement of thoughts and actions. In seeking those goals it seems preferable to begin with an existing core that holds high the values of individual freedom and the general welfare.
The measure of the sufficiency of my arguments is tempered by the intellectual capacity of those receiving them. If they seem weak or misguided it may be that they are commensurate with my view of the abilities of my correspondent.
Now, nowhere did I suggest that there were not some differences between the two political factions.
The implication of most all of your posts, ranging from stark criticism to deranged condemnation, is that there is no basic difference between the two parties.
Amazing how you can manage that while ignoring criticism.
We mainstreamers are an amazing group. We relish well-reasoned sensible criticism. Wailing and whining, not so much.
The only reason you feel my position is extreme is that you feel more people agree with your position.
It happens to be definitionally true, and relies on the aforementioned fallacy.
Notwithstanding the incongruity of these two statements, possibly requiring a backward reference to a previously unproven fallacy, but is still an awkward reference, I do not maintain that most people agree with my positions but rather most agree with the existing framework from which my positions flow.
If you don't think bombs and sanctions kill people, you seem to have a similar problem. Perhaps projection is another problem from which you suffer?
You do seem to get confused easily.
Your original statement: Especially when millions of people are being killed and exploited (effect) on account of your unquestioning insistence that these two parties are fundamentally different (cause).
Now how we got from "killed and exploited" to "bombs and sanctions" is rather obscure, if not flat out invisible.
You need serious work on the cause and effect concepts.
I would suggest some problems you might be dealing with but even the internet has space limits.
Of public opinion, or elite opinion?
http://www.truemajority.org/
News Flash!!! Elite opinions are part of public opinion.
A reference to a website titled truemajority.org would not even seem prima facie evidence of the validity of the name.
It would appear, after cursory review, that truemajority.org does not advocate overthrowing or dissolving our current government. They have reasonable goals that most would not disagree with and they seek resolution to problems via the options available to them in our existing systems. They speak to 615,000 grassroots members; a far cry from the 121,000,000 who voted in the 2004 presidential elections.
Those who voted I'm sure had varying beliefs regarding the current political system but I would have to guess that the vast majority, by virtue of voting, are exhibiting some reliance on that system.
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19890315.htm
whatshisface: Very interesting and informative post. We should listen to your appeal about democracy and to better understand it separate it out from economic ideas. Very nice job of putting it into some historical context.
Frank:
You know I wholeheartedly agree with you.
If that issue had been high on the priority list once the Iraqi government was established, we might have been drawing down the last of our combat troops as we speak.
I'm sure there was a sense of responsiblity, on our part, for a lot of the infrastructure damage from the invasion but that should have been quantified and included in negotiations for Iraq taking on future expenditure liability for infrastructure repairs and rebuilding. Another piece should have been Iraq paying for the military support and training as complete independence was progressing.
There appears no end to the haplessness of our government in this whole fiasco. With our airpower we could have won the "war" against Saddam with the Boy Scouts. Shinseki was correct and the bulk of his correctness was in understanding the aftermath, the occupation period, and the number of troops necessary to maintain order, secure borders and protect infrastructure.
The world has long marveled at our wisdom in maintaining civilian authority over the military. The truth be known, that success has been more due to the loyalty of the military to our Constitution and the "dream" than to the wise strategic decisions of our civilian government. We have always been one fiasco removed from catastrophe in that scenario.
All we needed was to put a few civilian idiots in charge and we would be in deep doo-doo. We went one step further and put arrogant civilian idiots in charge.
Having no real plan for postwar activities, other than a procedure for cleaning up flower petals, we installed more inept people to handle the occupation period. As the timeline moved on we kept finding ourselves with egg on our faces, enough eggs to feed our whole nation for a year or more, so we came up with the marvelous idea of elections and Constitutions and then more elections. That would enable us to allow the Iraqi government to take over and we could minimize our footprint. Oh crap! What about the military? More from our arrogant idiot civilians again; we'll have our military be responsible for security while the Iraqi's focus on national unity and building a military that we can train. We'll be incharge militarily, sort of, and the government can run everything else.
The Iraqi government will want to move quickly to be militarily self-sufficient and of course, one of their first priorities will be to take over funding of all internal activities. Now taking over all this responsibility requires significant infrastructure capabilities, capabilities which seemingly the CPA managed to totally dismantle. More guilt, meaning more funding from us.
Adding insult to injury, our military now needed to coordinate their activities with the new Iraqi government lest we be guilty of violating sovereignty.
Somewhere in this time period, any businessman or even an inexperienced accountant, would have questioned why don't we have the Iraqi government start picking up the tab. After the initial invasion most of the mayhem, causing further damage, was either from Al Quaeda or the Shiite militias. Granted much of it was directed at us but without compliance by the Sunnis with Al Qaeda and the political motives of Sadr with his militias there would have been far fewer damages and deaths.
To me, since it was Iraqis beginning to cause the problems it seems a good reason to suggest that all revenues from Iraqi oil begin to fund the expenses being incurred. We would have been bad guys once again but I think it would have shifted the Iraqi focus to getting up to speed and getting us out of there. The latter may not have fit Dumbya's view of the future of US/Iraq relations but somewhere along the line you would think that the welfare of the US citizenry might have taken precedence.
As of today the sounds of Iraqis funding their own plight going forward are crescendoing. Again, my feeling is that pushing that envelope, may end up making Obama's withdrawal plan too long by half.
Damn! A lot of frustration flowing here but the main point is when an artery is severed a tourniquet is required and we are gushing green blood.
That's the view from the cheap seats.
Art,
Many thanks for the thorough feedback. If we don't a fait portion of our money back, this would be just travesty of Presidential and Congressional mismanagement.
Art,
Many thanks for the thorough feedback. If we don't get a fair share of our money back, this would be just another travesty of Presidential and Congressional management. The're earning billions and we're sending cash!
"win in the end"
This is an interesting fallacy of those who think like "long-run" macroeconomists and other religionists who believe their Gods predict an ultimate destiny. There is only the past, now, the foreseeable future, and change influenced by man.
The primary influence on change will be the prevailing tendencies of man. Will the majority work for the common good through enlightened self interest or will they turn their work towards ignoble self interest influenced by self deception, greed, envy, or other base traits.
The answer, I believe, changes over time. The gilded age of the 1890s revisted us in the 1990s. We went from all-for-the-corporation in the 1920s to a post-WW-II in which corporations really did think about their responsibility. By the 1980s we were back to greed-is-good.
What we have now is an economic system that is characterized by crony capitalism and Byzantine control over government policy and law enforcement by monied interests. That will change -- sometime -- but as long as men can be seized by avarice, envy, and hubris, you can be assured it will return in one guise or another.
Democracy works when everyone has roughly the same amount of power. Since power in modern (and most ancient) societies derives from money, to create a viable Democracy, it is best to ensure that everyone has about the same amount of money. (Refer to the American, French, and English revolutions for proof that when you have no money, you lose political power, and when you get money, you win revolutions and get political power.) American incomes are becoming more unequal, and America is becoming less democratic as a result. So is China.
Tell me, what do you think creates a real, functioning democracy? Voting? Zimbabwe votes.
And why do you think democracy is good? The Chinese and Spartans did OK without it.
Dr. Reich, your sense of appreciation for the effectiveness of fascism is reminiscent of political scientists and economists at the mid-century who cowered in fear at the supposedly competent and economically vibrant Communist bloc.
Most developmental states (dictatorships or otherwise) have found the early stages of growth are fairly easy - they can simply look to the West as a blueprint for industrial policy. But, China, like the Fascisms of the 30s and 40s, and the Soviet Union, will eventually run out of steam (once they run out of ideas to copy) and significant innovation will be required to continue to grow. Authoritarianism and entrepreneurship don't go well together. Entrepreneurs tend to chafe against paternalism.
Let us hope for the people of China and the rest of Asia (indeed, the world), that their slowdown does not cause the instabilty and repression that have followed when other authoritarian states have realized that they can no longer offer ever better "Bread and Circuses" to justify their close control of commerce, media and government.
Dr. Reich.
The answer is fairly obvious. Fundamentally capitalism, is nothing more than "making stuffs" and exchanging that "stuff". Making and owning a "red mustang" or giant SUV is no more democratic/free than driving an electric smart car or walking in well design city.
And it turns out "making stuff" and then persuading people to buy those stuff are rather trivial once the proper techniques are applied.
I mean, the chinese can churn out infinite permutation of cheap useless junk, consumer electronic, and pretty soon cars. They will do it better than anybody else. They've been making stuff several centuries before anybody else.
The so called capitalism has no "value", only a naive person will believe there is some sort of inherent "freedom" in some random techniques of making goods and exchanging it around. As if wearing made in China Jeans and Prius are a symbol of freedom.
Give an idiot enough money he will do it. To produce and consume basic goods turns out to be a rather set policy algorithm. There is no inherent value in it. It's a question of applying proper engineering solution to making goods and making somebody buy it.
The chineses are much better at making stuff than anybody. Remember why the west come to China in the first place? For "stuffs"
I see a lot of wishful thinking and a prioris in your analysis.
Today, in western countries, capitalism seems to dissolve democracy much quicker than it dissolves the authoritarian status of the Chinese government.
Eventually, authoritarian capitalism may very well prevail.
After all, in a world were citizens are willing to abandon their rights and privileges as long as their consumer status improves, why is democracy needed ?
Hello,
May I suggest a link related to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games?
Our site:
URL: http://www.2008chinaolympics.com
Title: Beijing Olympics
Please let me know if you want a link back.
Many thanks for your reply.
Best Regards,
Don
chinaolympics8@gmail.com
There are few labour rights in China. Capitals buys not just workers' labour, but them as human beings in near entirety, really. This makes capitalism run much more smoothly.
You rarely hear about this in the west. The Tiananmen square protest wasn't just a student democracy movement. The authorities decided to crush it and execute its leaders when independent labour unions and worker rights were demanded.
People who have been alert to China's development long term are not (and the remainder should not be) surprised by China"s "emergence" as a capitalist nation. Everything about their development from the original market assessment to undercutting prices, to distributing just enough wealth through the population to bring them along, was capitalisitic in nature. To miss this when it was in the early stges was due merely to inattention.
For more than ten years I've been saying that China was the #1 capitalist nation in the world, more insistantly in the past five years. They are and this is due principally to the efforts of the few who saw the huge profits they could reap personally while ignoring the damage they did to their country.
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
اسلوب
منتديات اسلوب
مدونة اسلوب
دليل اسلوب
منتديات عامة
فضاء واسع
منتديات اسلامية
اخبار
Language Forum
سياحة وسفر
صحة وتغذية
وسع صدرك
عالم حواء
ازياء واناقة
عطور و اكسسوار
مكياج و تسريحات
عناية بالبشرة
عناية بالشعر
مطبخ حواء
ركن العروس
فوتوشوب
ادوات فوتوشوب
دروس فوتوشوب
صور 2009
دروس تصوير
صور
منتديات ادبية
شعر وقصايد
خواطر
قصص
رياضة
رياضة سعودية
رياضة عالمية
سيارات
رياضات اخرى
تطوير مواقع تطوير منتديات
تطوير مواقع
تطوير منتديات
منتديات تقنية
برامج
برامج جوال - برامج نوكيا
توبيكات - برامج مسنجر - مسنجر - MSN
العاب - العاب فلاش - العاب بي سي - Games - Pc Games
ترافيان - منتديات ترافيان
تساهيل - منتديات تساهيل - فوتوشوب
زفات
منتديات دريم - زفات دريم
دريم
اغاني
Post a Comment
<< Home