Tax the Rich or Privatize the State?/Authoritarian Politics in the Age of Casino Capitalism

[논둑길맨발로]

August 28, 2012

Countering the Cutting Frenzy

Tax the Rich or Privatize the State?

by SHAMUS COOKE

The Great Recession and its possible continuance has brought the issue of privatization to the forefront of American politics. But most Americans aren’t even aware that this debate is happening, because the media and politicians aren’t using the word “privatization;” instead less threatening substitutes are used to ram through a corporate agenda that aims to massively transform public resources into corporate profit.

The mass privatization frenzy is the corporate solution to the budget crises occurring on the city, state, and national level — crises caused by the recession that the banks and corporations created themselves, and are now positioning themselves to benefit from again, beyond the infamous bailouts.

The effects of the recession will continue for years, and the already slowing economy is exacerbating these effects, most notably the bankrupting of government budgets. Politicians from the Democratic and Republican parties both holler that “there is no money,” and therefore massive cuts have to be made to public services, while public employees must either be laid off or have their wages destroyed.

But another corporate solution to this corporate-caused problem is now proceeding full speed ahead: Urban Infrastructure Banks. Under this scheme, the funding of publicly-run infrastructure — roads, bridges, public buildings, etc. — will be taken out of the public realm and transferred to the corporations, who will fund these projects as long as they profit from them.

The right-wing Economist Magazine explains:

“The private sector will invest money in projects and get it back in the shape of tolls, user fees, premium pricing or even tax breaks.”

So essentially, a big bank will front a city the money — presumably at a giant discount — to buy a road or bridge; the tolls charged will go to the bank with interest (profit), while the bank is also likely to get tax-exempt status for its profit. The bank will also have a profit motive to do the cheapest possible maintenance work, if any at all. Working people will thus pay more to use these services so that the banks can make a profit.

This nefarious right-wing plot is being pushed hardest and fastest by the Democratic Party. The Mayor of Chicago, Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is the poster boy for city privatization. Again from the Economist:

“…Mr Emanuel wants to spend about $7 billion to rebuild the city of Chicago — on everything from streets, to parks, to the water system, schools, commuter rail and the main airport… The city will finance the running costs of the [Urban infrastructure] trust itself to the tune of $2.5m. Several financial institutions are already lined up to make investments totalling $1.7 billion, among them Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, Ullico, Citibank and JPMorgan.”

Democrats everywhere were inspired by Rahm’s corporate crusade to privatize Chicago, so much so that Bill Clinton organized a national conference of Democratic Party mayors to promote the idea. This from the official press release of the Clinton Global Initiative:  

“I was thrilled when Rahm Emanuel set up America’s first urban infrastructure bank in Chicago, and I see this ongoing conversation among America’s mayors as an important step towards finding a workable model that can be replicated in every other city around the country,” said [former] President Clinton. “My hope is that coming out of this meeting, mayors will realize that attracting private investment in their cities’ roads, bridges, water and sanitation systems, waste to energy projects, and new electrical grids is an idea that will put people to work, stimulate the local economy, and increase the value and quality of life of their cities in the long term.”

Obama, too, has caught the fire of public infrastructure privatization, and has proposed a plan for the federal level.

This privatization debate has already entered the realm of other cherished social programs — Medicare, Social Security, and public education — under the catchword of “choice.”   Obama’s misnamed Race to the Top education plan consciously aims to privatize public education in a more blunt manner than Bush dared, as it awards states money if they create privately run charter schools.

And while the Democrats shed fake tears about the Republicans’ plan to privatize Medicare, the giant Medicare cuts that the Democrats have already proposed imply a total re-structuring of the program, i.e., its privatization. Any publicly run program that is underfunded — and thus requires individuals to pay extra for the baseline service — can be considered half privatized.

The alternative to this bi-partisan privatization madness is to drastically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pre-Reagan levels. It is a deliberate lie to say that “there is no money” to fund public programs. Taxes have shrunk for the wealthy and corporations for decades, thus causing these budget deficits that working people are made to pay for.

President Obama has made “taxing the rich” one of the pillars of his election campaign, but all he promises to do is to remove the Bush tax cuts for the rich — the same promise he broke after the last election. But Obama combines his “tax the rich” slogan with promises to balance the national budget by making massive cuts to social programs: Obama’s proposed budget included $3 trillion in cuts, including hundreds of millions of cuts in Medicare and other social programs.

Therefore, labor and community groups need to put forward a completely independent demand to tax the rich and corporations, including the demand of NO CUTS to social services. There is enough money in the United States to fully fund a national jobs program, Social Security, Medicare, public education and all vital social programs. But this money has accumulated in the hands of the top 1%, who must be taxed at 70 percent or higher for the benefit of all working people. All forms of income and wealth of the 1% must be “on the table” for taxation.

Shamus Cooke is a social worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/28/tax-the-rich-or-privatize-the-state/

August 27, 2012

Neoliberalism's Culture of Cruelty

Authoritarian Politics in the Age of Casino Capitalism

by HENRY GIROUX

The United States has entered a new historical era marked by a growing disinvestment in the social state, public goods, and civic morality. Matters of politics, power, ideology, governance, economics, and policy now translate unapologetically into a systemic disinvestment in institutions and policies that further the breakdown of those public spheres which traditionally provided the minimal conditions for social justice, dissent, and democratic expression‎. Neoliberalism, or what might be called casino capitalism, has become the new normal. Unabashed in its claim to financial power, self-regulation, and its survival of the fittest value system, neoliberalism not only undercuts the formative culture necessary for producing critical citizens and the public spheres that nourish them, it also facilitates the conditions for producing a bloated defense budget, the prison-industrial complex, environmental degradation, and the emergence of “finance as a criminalized, rogue industry.”[i] It is clear that an emergent authoritarianism haunts a defanged democracy now shaped and structured largely by corporations.  Money dominates politics, the gap between the rich and poor is ballooning, urban spaces are becoming armed camps, militarism is creeping into every facet of public life, and civil liberties are being shredded.  Neoliberalism’s policy of competition now dominates policies that define public spheres such as schools, allowing them to stripped of a civic and democratic project and handed over to the logic of the market.  Regrettably, it is not democracy, but authoritarianism, that remains on the rise in the United States as we move further into the 21^st century.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election exists at a pivotal moment in this transformation away from democracy, a moment in which formative cultural and political realms and forces – including the rhetoric used by election candidates – appear saturated with celebrations of war and Social Darwinism. Accordingly, the possibility of an even more authoritarian and ethically dysfunctional leadership in the White House in 2013 has certainly caught the attention of a number of liberals and other progressives in the United States. American politics in general and the 2012  election in particular present a challenge to progressives, whose voices in recent years have been increasingly excluded from both the mainstream media and the corridors of political power. Instead, the media have played up the apocalyptic view of the Republican Party’s fundamentalist warriors, who seem fixated on translating issues previously seen as non-religious—such as sexual orientation, education, identity, and participation in public life—into the language of a religious revival and militant crusade against evil.

How else to explain Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s claim that the struggle for the future is a “fight of individualism versus collectivism,” with its nod to the McCarthyism and cold war rhetoric of the 1950s.  Or Rick Santorum’s assertion that “President Obama is getting America hooked on ‘The narcotic of government dependency,’” promoting the view that government has no responsibility to provide safety nets for the poor, disabled, sick, and elderly.   There is more at work here than simply a ramped up version of social Darwinism with its savagely cruel ethic of  “reward the rich, penalize the poor, [and] let everyone fend for themselves,” [ii]  there is also a full scale attack on the social contract, the welfare state,  economic equality, and any viable vestige of moral and social responsibility. The Romney-Ryan appropriation of Ayn Rand’s ode to selfishness and self-interest is of particular importance because it offers a glimpse of a ruthless form of extreme capitalism in which the poor are considered “moochers,” viewed with contempt, and singled out to be punished.  But this theocratic economic fundamentalist ideology does more. It destroys any viable notion of the and civic virtue in which the social contract and common good provide the basis for creating meaningful social bonds and instilling in citizens a sense of social and civic responsibility.  The idea of public service is viewed with disdain just as the work of individuals, social groups, and institutions that benefit the citizenry at large are held in contempt. As George Lakoff and Glenn W. Smith point out, casino capitalism creates a culture of cruelty: “its horrific effects on individuals-death, illness, suffering, greater poverty, and loss of opportunity, productive lives, and money.”[iii] But it does more by crushing any viable notion of the common good and public life by destroying “the bonds that hold us together.”[iv]  Under casino capitalism, the spaces, institutions, and values that constitute the public are now surrendered to powerful financial forces and viewed simply as another market to be commodified, privatized and surrendered to the demands of capital.  With religious and market-driven zealots in charge, politics becomes an extension of war; greed and self-interest trump any concern for the well-being of others; reason is trumped by emotions rooted in absolutist certainty and militaristic aggression; and skepticism and dissent are viewed as the work of Satan.

If the Republican candidacy race of 2012 is any indication, then political discourse in the United States has not only moved to the right—it has been introducing totalitarian values and ideals into the mainstream of public life.  Religious fanaticism, consumer culture, and the warfare state work in tandem with neoliberal economic forces to encourage privatization, corporate tax breaks, growing income and wealth inequality, and the further merging of the financial and military spheres in ways that diminish the authority and power of democratic governance.[v] Neoliberal interests in freeing markets from social constraints, fueling competitiveness, destroying education systems, producing atomized subjects, and loosening individuals from any sense of social responsibility prepare the populace for a slow embrace of social Darwinism, state terrorism, and the mentality of war—not least of all by destroying communal bonds, dehumanizing the other, and pitting individuals against the communities they inhabit.

Totalitarian temptations now saturate the media and larger culture in the language of austerity as political and economic orthodoxy. What we are witnessing in the United States is the normalization of a politics that exterminates not only the welfare state, and the truth, but all those others who bear the sins of the Enlightenment—that is, those who refuse a life free from doubt. Reason and freedom have become enemies not merely to be mocked, but to be destroyed. And this is a war whose totalitarian tendencies are evident in the assault on science, immigrants, women, the elderly, the poor, people of color, and youth. What too often goes unsaid, particularly with the media’s focus on inflammatory rhetoric, is that those who dominate politics and policymaking, whether Democrats or Republicans, do so largely because of their disproportionate control of the nation’s income and wealth. Increasingly, it appears these political elite choose to act in ways that sustain their dominance through the systemic reproduction of an iniquitous social order. In other words, big money and corporate power rule while electoral politics are rigged.

The secrecy of the voting booth becomes the ultimate expression‎ of democracy, reducing politics to an individualized purchase—a crude form of economic action. Any form of politics willing to invest in such ritualistic pageantry only adds to the current dysfunctional nature of our social order, while reinforcing a profound failure of political imagination. The issue should no longer be how to work within the current electoral system, but how to dismantle it and construct a new political landscape that is capable of making a claim on equity, justice, and democracy for all of its inhabitants. Obama’s once inspiring call for hope has degenerated into a flight from responsibility.  The Obama administration has worked to extend the policies of the George W. Bush administration by legitimating a range of foreign and domestic policies that have shredded civil liberties, expanded the permanent warfare state, and increased the domestic reach of the punitive surveillance state. And if Romney and his ideological cohorts, now viewed as the most extremists faction of the Republican Party,  come to power, surely the existing totalitarian and anti-democratic tendencies at work in the United States will be dangerously intensified.

A catalogue of indicting evidence reveals the depth and breadth of the war being waged against the social state, and particularly against young people. Beyond exposing the moral depravity of a nation that fails to protect its young, such a war speaks to nothing less than a perverse death-wish, a barely masked desire for self-annihilation—as the wilful destruction of an entire generation not only transforms U.S. politics into pathology, but is sure to signal the death-knell for America’s future.  How much longer will the American public have to wait before the nightmare comes to an end?

An awareness of the material and cultural elements that have produced these deeply anti-democratic conditions is important; however it is simply not enough. The collective response here must include a refusal  to enter the current political discourse of compromise and accommodation—to think well beyond the discourse of facile concessions and to conduct struggles on the mutually informed terrains of civic literacy, education, and power. A rejection of traditional forms of political mobilization must be accompanied by a new political discourse, one that uncovers the hidden practices of neoliberal domination while developing rigorous models for critical reflection and fresh forms of intellectual and social engagement.

Yet, the current historical moment seems at an utter loss to create a massive social movement capable of addressing the totalitarian nature and social costs of a religious and political fundamentalism that is merging with an extreme market-fundamentalism. In this case, a fundamentalism whose idea of freedom extends no further than personal financial gain and endless consumption. Under such circumstances, progressives should focus their energies on working with the Occupy movement and other social movements to develop a new language of radical reform and to create new public spheres that will make possible the modes of critical thought and engaged agency that are the very foundations of a truly participatory and radical democracy. Such a project must work to develop vigorous educational programs, modes of public communication, and communities that promote a culture of deliberation, public debate, and critical exchange across a wide variety of cultural and institutional sites. Ultimately, it must focus on the end goal of generating those formative cultures and public spheres that are the preconditions for political engagement and vital for energizing democratic movements for social change—movements willing to think beyond the limits of a savage global capitalism. Pedagogy in this sense becomes central to any substantive notion of politics and must be viewed as a crucial element of organized resistance and collective struggles. The deep regressive elements of neoliberalism constitute both a pedagogical practice and a legitimating function for a deeply oppressive social order. Pedagogical relations that make the power relations of casino capitalism disappear must be uncovered and challenged.  Under such circumstances, politics becomes transformative rather than accommodating and aims at abolishing a capitalist system marked by massive economic, social, and cultural inequalities.  A politics that uncovers the harsh realities imposed by casino capitalism should also work towards establishing a society in which matters of justice, equality, and freedom are understood as the crucial foundation of a substantive democracy.

Rather than invest in electoral politics, it would be more worthwhile for progressives to develop formative conditions that make a real democracy possible.  As Angela Davis has suggested, this means engaging “in difficult coalition-building processes, negotiating the recognition for which communities and issues inevitably strive [and coming] together in a unity that is not simplistic and oppressive, but complex and emancipatory, recognising, in June Jordan’s words that ‘we are the ones we have been waiting for.’”[vi] Developing a broad-based social movement means finding a common ground upon which challenging diverse forms of oppression, exploitation, and exclusion can become part of a wider effort to create a radical democracy.

In part, this means reclaiming a discourse of ethics and morality, elaborating a new model of democratic politics, and developing fresh analytical concepts for understanding and engaging the concept of the social.  One avenue for developing a critical and transformative politics  might take a cue from youth protesters the world over and develop new ways to challenge the corporate values that shape American, and increasingly global, politics. It is especially crucial to provide alternative values that challenge market-driven ideologies that equate freedom with radical individualism, self-interest, hyper-competitiveness, privatization, and deregulation, while undermining democratic social bonds, the public good, and the welfare state. Such actions can be further addressed by recruiting young people, teachers, labor activists, religious leaders, and other engaged citizens to become public intellectuals who are willing to use their skills and knowledge to make visible how power works and to address important social and political issues. Of course, the American public needs to do more than talk. It also needs to bring together educators, students, workers, and anyone else interested in real democracy in order to create a social movement–a well-organized movement capable of changing the power relations and vast economic inequalities that have created the conditions for symbolic and systemic violence in American society.

Addressing such challenges suggests that progressives will invariably need to take on the role of educational activists. One option would be to create micro-spheres of public education that further modes of critical learning and civic agency, and thus enable young people and others to learn how to govern rather than be governed. This could be accomplished through a network of free educational spaces developed among diverse faith communities and public schools, as well as in secular and religious organizations affiliated with higher educational institutions. These new educational spaces focused on cultivating both dialogue and action in the public interest can look to past models in those institutions developed by socialists, labor unions, and civil rights activists in the early twentieth century and later in the 1950s and 60s. Such schools represented oppositional public spheres and functioned a democratic public spheres in the best educational sense and ranged from the early networks of radical Sunday schools to the later Brookwood Labor College and Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. Stanley Aronowitz rightly insists that the current “system survives on the eclipse of the radical imagination, the absence of a viable political opposition with roots in the general population, and the conformity of its intellectuals who, to a large extent, are subjugated by their secure berths in the academy; less secure private sector corporate jobs, and centrist and center-left media institutions.”[vii] At a time when critical thought has been flattened, it becomes imperative to develop a discourse of critique and possibility—one that recognizes that without an informed citizenry, collective struggle, and dynamic social movements, hope for a viable democratic future will slip out of reach.  

Henry A. Giroux holds the Global TV Network chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Canada. His most recent books include: “Take Back Higher Education” (co-authored with Susan Searls Giroux, 2006), “The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex” (2007) and “Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics Beyond the Age of Greed” (2008). His latest book is Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability,” (Paradigm.)

Notes.

[i]. Charles H. Ferguson, Predator Nation (New York: Crown Press, 2012), p.21. See, for example, Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Random House, 2006); Chalmers Johnson, Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Hope (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010); Angela Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003);

[ii] Robert Reich, “Romney-Ryan Will Bring Back Social Darwinism,” The Kansas City Star (August 14, 2012). Online: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/14/3762436/robert-b-reich-romney-ryan-will.html

[iii] George Lakoff and glenn W. Smith, “Romney, Ryan and the Devil’s Budget,” Huffington Post (August 22, 2012). Online:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/romney-ryan-and-the-devil_b_1819652.html

[iv] Ibid.

[v] See Jeffrey R. Di Leo, Henry A. Giroux, Sophia A. McClennen, and Kenneth J. Saltman, Neoliberalism, Education, Terrorism,: Contemporary Dialogues (Boulder: Paradigm, 2012).

[vi] Angela Davis, “The 99%: a community of resistance,” The Guardian, (November 15, 2011)

[vii] Stanley Aronowitz, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Situations,  IV, no.2, (Spring 2012). p. 68.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/27/authoritarian-politics-in-the-age-of-casino-capitalism/