OVERVIEW
MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE
POSSIBILITIES
CAPITALS
ACTIVITIES
ACTORS
BURGESS
Ideas |
|
Burgess COMMENTARY |
|
Daily Kos COMMUNITY Oxfam-working-for-the-few_zps0680b0e0 Now that you know 85 people own more than half the world, here's what to do about it by akadjian Jan 22, 2014 11:25am PST The media has done a great job covering the 85 people who own more than the poorest half of the world's population (or roughly 3.5 billion people) statistic from the Oxfam report entitled: Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality. Media examples here, here, and here. What I didn't realize until I read the report was that it has an excellent set of recommendations on how to improve the situation. Since they're excellent, the mainstream media seems to have ignored them, and I don't think Oxfam would mind, here is their series of recommendations. From the Oxfam report Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality: Call to those gathered at Davos Those gathered at Davos for the World Economic Forum have the power to turn around the rapid increase in inequality. Oxfam is calling on them to pledge that they will: • Not dodge taxes in their own countries or in countries where they invest and operate, by using tax havens; • Not use their economic wealth to seek political favors that undermine the democratic will of their fellow citizens; • Make public all the investments in companies and trusts for which they are the ultimate beneficial owners; • Support progressive taxation on wealth and income; • Challenge governments to use their tax revenue to provide universal healthcare, education and social protection for citizens; • Demand a living wage in all the companies they own or control; • Challenge other economic elites to join them in these pledges. Policy recommendations Oxfam has recommended policies in multiple contexts to strengthen the political representation of the poor and middle classes to achieve greater equity. These policies include: • A global goal to end extreme economic inequality in every country. This should be a major element of the post-2015 framework, including consistent monitoring in every country of the share of wealth going to the richest one percent. • Stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth; and • Curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Some starting points from developing countries The particular combination of policies required to reverse rising economic inequalities should be tailored to each national context. But developing and developed countries that have successfully reduced economic inequality provide some suggested starting points, notably: • Cracking down on financial secrecy and tax dodging; • Redistributive transfers; and strengthening of social protection schemes; • Investment in universal access to healthcare and education; • Progressive taxation; • Strengthening wage floors and worker rights; • Removing the barriers to equal rights and opportunities for women. 110 COMMENTS Tip Jar akadjian Jan 22, 11:25a Broken link Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality Claudius Bombarnac Jan 22, 11:40a Thx - fixed It's here too if for whatever reason it still doesn't work http://www.oxfam.org/... akadjian Jan 22, 11:51a Great diary about how the rich rule the poor Thanks for the Oxfam link to their valuable survey. I think, like most issues, educating the masses is the first step. Since these super rich now own the media, it makes this kind of data very difficult to propagate. But it's always better to begin the work as compared to throwing up our hands. The conclusions and recommendations of this Oxfam report are excellent, however I would have like to see the importance of cutting militarism worldwide as a key part of the solution, since the billions misspend in this area takes away the billions needed to address the problems of the poor--and we are all poor compared to the top 85. frostbite Jan 23, 11:31a Here here! fmlondon Jan 23, 11:13p So in the US, the rich need to become democrats - that may happen before hell freezes over, but only after they do to the democrat party what they have done to the republican. deh55 Jan 23, 11:29a You put too much faith in Democrats. After all, Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley that deregulated the banks, & the Commodity Futures Act of 2000 that deregulated financial derivatives. His treasury secretary was Robert Rubin, who had been a partner at Goldman Sachs and chairman of Citigroup, and helped cause the 2008 crash and the Lesser Depression. The Obama administration has been tight with Wall Street, and employed many of Robert Rubin's proteges. I don't consider myself a Democrat any more. I'll vote for a good Democrat, but otherwise vote Progressive, whether that's for a Green Party candidate or a progressive Independent. I'm through with voting and volunteering for New Democrats. Clinton and (finally) Obama cured me of that. Lonesome Jeff Jan 23, 9:59p Some of them are. Particularly in terms of the leadership the Republican and Democratic parties are quite different, but it is primarily in terms of strategy. The former works to make the interests of business popular through atavistic deceit, the latter tries to make what's popular work with the interests of business through intellectual deceit. That's why people who say 'they're all the same' are so wrong, yet the belief is so appealing. Conservative Socialist Jan 24, 5:26a Mark Dayton Heir of the Dayton fortune, former public school teacher, and Democratic Governor of the state of Minnesota! He ain't perfect but his heart's in the right place. And we got Al Franken too! Kayette Jan 24, 1:27p Problem #1... Few to none of those 85 got to the place they are by exspousing any of thoes reccomendations. If we expect them to change we will be sorry. quiet in NC Jan 22, 11:42a Ha! Of course a little additional pressure ... wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't take anything for granted. We may absolutely have to legislate much of this. I'd love if this were the platform of a political party, for example. It does, however, help to have a vision of what real change would look like. akadjian Jan 22, 11:56a Perhaps a short educational film about the historical consequences of huge disparities of wealth in, say, France or Russia would help. TKO333 Jan 22, 3:00p Perhaps they could help supply that pressure, By naming the 85 people. Bisbonian Jan 22, 5:22p Agreed We're talking about wealth addicts, and these recommendations are no different than telling an alcoholic to try and drink a little more moderately, because of the children. Thumb Jan 23, 6:08a Problem #2 #6/7 on the list is not sleeping well trying to figure out how to move up on the list, and make the rest of us lower same goes for the other #6/7 askyron Jan 23, 11:12a We're gonna send them a firmly worded letter? OK, sure, they'll see the error of their ways. Remembering Jello Jan 22, 11:43a Bring back the guillotine! The threat alone will make those farts respond positively to that firmly worded letter. Crider Jan 22, 1:25p Generally, the death penalty, regardless of offense, is not regarded as progressive. ...and keep in mind that those who wielded the guillotine became as repressive as those they overthrew, leading eventually to Napoleon. Kinda thing sounds great- in comic books. Remembering Jello Jan 22, 1:34p That's how those things have gotten solved in history. Chinese revolution was the last biggie. Of course it isn't pretty. I'm not advocating anything -- I'm predicting, though. There's little hope things of this nature can get solved through the ballot box in the modern world -- especially since the Big 85 are essentially extranational. Perhaps there could be somebody like FDR who runs on a completely centrist platform and then does very different things once elected. Or there could be a Teddy Roosevelt who took office through the death of McKinley, but to hang our actual hopes of a more equitable future on such luck is mostly wishful thinking. Crider Jan 22, 3:26p That's true. French, Russian and Chinese pressed people to violence. The starving class was so large and the rich were insensitive and not willing to change. Desperate times. Sandy on Signal Jan 22, 3:51p I was in high school during the Cultural Revolution, and Reverend Mother, who was progressive, had arranged for the seniors to have a half-year course on China and Chinese history. When we asked our instructor what he thought would happen next, he said, 'China has redistributed land eight times. Every time, the land was back in private hands within fifty years.' Wee Mama Jan 23, 6:17a Ya rarely meet old revolutionaries mostly because they've been around long enough to remember how the last one worked out. Remembering Jello Jan 23, 8:22a My husband has a theory about the Darwinian basis of the Chinese Communist party leadership. He speculated that one reason that the old guard held on longer in China than in Russia was that they had all made the Long March, and only really good protoplasm was left after that. Wee Mama Jan 23, 8:39a Ergo, Animal Farm snark And N/T valkyrry Jan 23, 10:12a A Sternly Worded Letter kerplunk Jan 22, 2:34p I guess Amnesty should pack up and go home? n/t Conservative Socialist Jan 24, 5:31a Niebuhrian coercion, which the powerful capitalists will find distinctly unpleasant or it wouldn't be adequate: http://gardenvarietydemocraticsocialist.com/... Forms of coercion will vary depending upon whether political democracies will develop into economic democracies by reform. The better the social welfare system the more likely that needed system change will occur in many countries. Therefore, Gramscian cultural hegemony, rather than guillotines, will be the best hope for system change in most places. But where people are truly desperate in sufficient numbers and democratic means for change are not reasonably available, people force will meet capitalist military force. It is happening every day around the world, but rarely makes it to the mainstream media (I wonder why?). By supporting occupations like Morocco in Western Sahara, the U.S. leaves the indigenous people no effective political choices. Global human solidarity is the best hope, but no guarantees exist either way. The powerful capitalists could win by divide and conquer and take humanity down with them. I hope not. Galtisalie Jan 23, 8:45a For change, all options are left on table n/t frostbite Jan 23, 11:39a I think it depends on the circumstances, including how great the need that is involved. I don't take these matters lightly, so I will try to elaborate: If it involves basic human needs like adequate food to not be malnourished, clean water, and safe shelter, and which every human is entitled to, and which global neoliberalism does not and will not ever deliver to hundreds of millions of people, humans sometimes can't wait on ballots, so they often must resort to coping strategies of desperation, such as prostitution, gangs, or crime, where desperate people sometimes prey on each other, or they if can band together in large enough numbers, they may try revolution, but the capitalists (whether market, state, or religious capitalists) usually control the military, so it is tough going, and innocent people die, which is never good. That is why international solidarity of the working people in politically democratic countries with those in other places probably will be increasingly critical, so that capitalist hegemony is lessened, and where necessary revolutions of the people can have a chance to succeed if ballots are not available in a timely and adequate manner. Beyond basic needs situations, where, as in the U.S., political democracy is available or reasonably might become available, supplemented by workplace activism (i.e., unions and other forms of labor organizing) and other forms of assertive public participation like the Occupy Movement, I do value political democracy, for all its MANY weaknesses, as the best and usually only approach in most situations to support change. But it does have a great deal of difficulty delivering economic justice, as devastated places like Detroit and Opa-locka demonstrate, and as creeps like the Koch Brothers and the DeVos clan daily demonstrate in the way they have bought democracy. They are a textbook case of corruption of democracy, as Niebuhr observed: http://gardenvarietydemocraticsocialist.com/... Meanwhile, in much of the world, political democracy does not exist, which is so easily corrupted anyway, and global neoliberalism does not care as long as the markets are open. But for the good of humanity, I will support the politically democratic route in most circumstances. Further, I agree with Joseph Schwartz and Jason Schulman: Even when a repressive regime necessitates a minority road to revolution, democratic socialists stand with Rosa Luxemburg—revolutionary Marxist leader in Germany a century ago—in her advocacy of the restoration of civil rights and liberties once the authoritarian regime has been overthrown. (12/22/12. Toward Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice: The Democratic Socialist Vision. http://www.dsausa.org/...). Galtisalie Jan 23, 2:27p 85 is the same as 1 might as well be one person owns half the world, and another one owns the next 45 percent, and one more the next 20 percent and the rest of us share what's left unequally. anna shane Jan 22, 11:48a Consider changing title...misleading From the report: The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. It is not true that the richest 85 people own half the world, which is implied. It is true that they own the same amount as half of the worlds population....which, of course, ain't great....but its very different. Balto Jan 22, 11:58a I don't get your point...are you talking land... ownership? Because 85 people have control over as much money as 1/2 the entire world population--the title seems correct to me. quiet in NC Jan 22, 12:10p Two ways to read it Because the English language can be ambiguous, this can be read in two ways: 85 people own more than what (the poorest) half of the world's population owns (correct) 85 people own more than half of the world's wealth (incorrect) RParker Jan 23, 7:50a You Beat me To it I just started reading the report and realized that the point was a bit off. Here are all of the points from the Oxfam report makes in the Summary: - Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. - The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population. - The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. - Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years - The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012. - In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer. I don't think think I've quoted too much here, but if I did, let me know. uniqity Jan 22, 1:48p Those stats are even more obscene to me. Unless those 85 people have only one inheritor apiece, those individual fortunes will spread back out a bit from generation to generation - many of those I've seen listed either amassed their wealth themselves, or are 'first generation' inheritors. But even if they fall back out and split that wealth up among multiple descendants, it'll largely still remain in the grasp of the 1%. And without political policies designed specifically to combat such concentrations of wealth and power, it'll only keep getting more and more unequal. Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN Jan 22, 3:47p The second Generation The heirs are usually worse than the first generation. They have been raised in wealth, privilege, and entitlemant. They usually have no empathy, and indeed, can't imagine any other way of life; consider Mitt Romney, or the Walton heirs. Grey Fedora Jan 22, 9:51p This is the legacy of Reagan and Thatcher. This is the legacy of the synergy that began in the mid 70s, of corporate and state interests working hand in hand with right-wing religious and cultural interest groups to crush the liberal and democratizing constitutions, institutions, and social progress that had been put into place in the developed world following the crash of 1929 and continuing after WWII. concernedamerican Jan 23, 5:12a We probably should have expected it The gains that working people made were the result of our organizing and working together through organizations we created to do our bidding. The wealthy lost ground and figured out that if they were going to regain the ground they lost, they'd have to organize too. And they did. Big time. And it worked. And because they have the benefit of having so many resources, the effect of their organizing is that much greater. We can't compete with their money. But we have more people. Waaaaaaaaay more people. And it's going to take even greater organizing among working people, and a widespread refusal to let them split us apart from each other (by appeals to racism, sexism, and other such appeals to our lower nature) for us to even be in a position to make progress. And I hate to say it, but the rich have got us over a barrel right now. Not only have they consolidated their position to its strongest in a century, but they've also invested in technologies that are going to replace 47% of the existing jobs of today with computers and robots (Why the Jobs Are Never Coming Back). So we'll all be competing for a smaller and smaller number of jobs, while they pocket the gains of automation. LibrErica Jan 23, 6:30a Thank You... This has been bothering me too. 85 people owning the same as 3.5 Billion poorest people does not 85 people own half of everything. It could mean that 3.5 Billion poorest people could own 15% of everything, the 85 own 15%, and the other 3.5 Billion unaccounted for people own the remaining 60%. It could also mean that the 3.5 Billion have 5% of everything, the 85 have another 5%, and 90% leftover is owned by the other 3.5 Billion. But it is mathematically impossible to say that 85 own half, 3.5B own half. Because then what do the 3.5 Billion 'not poor' people own? Are they the nuevo-poor? bgix Jan 23, 11:16a 85 people out of 7 billion! Time for some good old-fashioned left-wing anarchism! As another Kossack put it all so well: Anarchism is anti-capitalist, and advocates egalitarianism, mutual aid, and reciprocity, and goes back centuries. Anarchism is against any form of self-justified authority, and thus advocates horizontal, non-hierarchical social organization based on direct democracy. It is thus against patriarchy, oligarchy, racism, and all forms of unequal power relationships. -- ZhenRen It's about time! thanatokephaloides Jan 22, 12:01p except anarchy builds no structure 4 those ideals. isn't that kinda the definition of anarchy in practical terms, to just dismantle and hope the chaos among automatically coalescing little mutual-aid units (to the extent they have practical means to interact ... and what happens to units too impoverished to meet their own needs, far less offer anything valued by sturdier units sufficient to produce cooperation?) produces human virtue and socioeconomic justice? there are actually a lot of spots of unintentional anarchy in many places of the world today, with women and children in particular used as commodities, racism and religious and sectarian hatred rampant, and force of arms rules. so far in history, iirc, anarchism doesn't actually produce its objectives and does tends to produce a power vacuum inviting better organized larger entities in to take over. it appears to be a cause-and-effect misconception: the assumption that the elimination of governance eliminates all societal ills and causes equality and constructive peaceful relations among individuals and groups. but i could be mistaken, it's a while since i've read much in that area. mettle fatigue Jan 22, 4:56p No, you've not understood anarchism Your misconceptions are fairly common, and completely wrong. I hope you read this short explanation which follows. It answers each of you points. Anarchism does not mean no social organization, no social structure. On the contrary, anarchist society would be highly functional and organized. It is simply organized on a different principle. Instead of a top down, central authority governing the majority, anarchist society is based on a bottom up, horizontal network of participatory communities and workplaces based on direct democracy, which federate together to form networks on a scale from local to international. Areas of self-management which affect more than one community would be dealt with by federations of those communities. Delegates to federations would be recallable and would be mandated from below. They do not 'represent' but rather directly serve the desires of those who delegate them. Thus, anarchism replaces the central government with a different kind of organization. It doesn't simply eliminate the top down authority and then do nothing at all. Whoever wrote what you read was making things up our of the top of his or her head. For some reason people don't seem to think they need to inform themselves before going on and on about anarchism, as if knowledgeable. As to woman and children being used as commodities, that is ridiculous! Anarchism means no hierarchy, using a different form of organization which avoids this. It is anti-patriarchy, and anti-oligarchy, anti-racist. It creates social structures which prevent one person from having unjustified authority over another. Anarchist Spain which lasted nearly three years before being crushed by forces representing nearly all sides of the civil war (many people don't realize there was a revolution that occurred in the midst of the civil war) is a good example. During that short period anarchists transformed industrial and agricultural society into an anarcho-socialist region, involving more than three million people. They improved the lives of the population, increasing innovation, production, increased consumption (some had been starving before). It was on the road to great success. But all the forces during the war, despite the adverse interests, had the mutual interest of crushing this egalitarian movement, the only movement in that war which actually was benefiting the people themselves, rather than competing Powers. No movement of any nature could have overcome the overwhelming forces which combined. As to your notion of power vacuums, and better organized entities taking over, this is simply false. Anarchism produces highly organized, very capable social structures. In fact, during the civil war initiated by the fascist nationalist rebels, it was the state, the Spanish Republic, which experienced a power vacuum, since it had no idea how to fight against its own army rebelling. Guess who won the day for Spain, in those early months of the war? It was the anarchist militias which formed out of anarchist bottom-up, self managed unions, the CNT/FAI, who fought back while the State sat in confusion. They procured arms, fought the fascists, and slowly the Republic organized an army out of the citizenry. But without the anarchists, the coup would have been over in weeks, rather than nearly three years. The anarchists were a major force in that war. ZhenRen Jan 23, 9:52a your answer to mettle fatigue ..... was F'ing awesome! As it was posted exactly simultaneously with my answer to the same comment, I wish I would have waited to read yours first! I especially liked the references to 1930's Spain. (Or 's Pain as it well could have been called!) Methinks most of mettle fatigue's problems stem from an embedded meme in the English Language: the use of the term 'anarchy' to mean 'unbridled raw social chaos'. This meme is grievously unfair to anarchism. In fact, and in fairness as well, mettle fatigue him/herself recognized this linguistic shortcoming when invoking the term 'unintentional anarchy'; howbeit not giving the injustice of that shortcoming the recognition that we do. And once again, ZhenRen, my thanks to you for restoring this anarchosyndicalist's faith in what he believes in!! :-) thanatokephaloides Jan 23, 10:48a I didn't see your post when I posted Thanks, I almost missed it. ZhenRen Jan 23, 10:54a actually see http://www.dailykos.com/... below. As more or less indicated, my firsthand experience living in and learning real-world implementation of the philosophy under discussion pre-dates the invention of the term 'meme' by several decades, and the communities mentioned were formed by contemporaries of, for example, Emma Goldman. We did dance. They still do. It's their revolution. i'm looking forward to reading more below. much appreciation for your interesting comments. mettle fatigue Jan 24, 2:15p Emma Goldman, the Wobbles/IWW, and levoanarchism actually see [this comment] below. Read, approved, and recced. Good thinks there, mettle fatigue! As more or less indicated, my firsthand experience living in and learning real-world implementation of the philosophy under discussion pre-dates the invention of the term 'meme' by several decades, and the communities mentioned were formed by contemporaries of, for example, Emma Goldman. And it's not your meme, either. It's a prejudice built into the language. As I said, you also (for reasons now a little clearer than when this discussion began) made an effort to work around that prejudice to keep the discussion clearer -- and I appreciate that. My sensitivities about built-in prejudicial memes in the American English language had been excited by my needing to compose a comment here without revealing any personal information about someone while still telling that one's story (it was appropriate to the thread). Try composing a telling of another person's story without revealing that person's gender. Although doable, it does take some work! But rest assured, mettle fatigue, that I am now well aware that this prejudice isn't yours. It's wired-in to the language we all need to use. I did not know the items in your history that you described in the comment you linked, of course; so I could not have encredited you with that experience. Thank you for revealing that. Your experience is/was lived in communities designed by Emma Goldman's contemporaries to apply the ideals we're discussing. My experiences with the levoanarchist movement -- the movement which gave us Ms. Goldman, Joe Hill, August Spies, U. Utah Phillips, and many more like them -- run closer to the I.W.W. and its ideas than to any separate-community implementation of the ideals we're discussing. (The Wobblies (I.W.W.), as an organization, eschew any political alignment; but their ideas and ideals are pretty levoanarchistic, whether they want to admit it or not.) The Wobblies advocate creation of a new human society worldwide through the mechanism of 'forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.' (Cited from the Preamble to the IWW Constitution) And, as I think we can agree, that's the only way humanity is going to be able to ditch our current structure without degenerating into the 'libertarian paradise' of global social anErisian chaos that has been the unfortunate fate of Somalia in recent times. We did dance. They still do. It's their revolution. Ours, too. It would be wrong (and evil) to just let it die. And it's either make it our own or let it die. My choice: make their revolution my own. It's why I was so pleased with ZhenRen's comments. The rightists want us to think that they represent anarchism via their libertarian-leaning useful idiots; but the 'freeDUMB' they advocate is really only freedom for those who can afford it, with poverty, poisoning, and bondage for the rest of us. We know better. The Wobblies are known as the singing union. They sing the music to which Emma Goldman danced, and her descendants still do today. And long may they ever! thanatokephaloides Jan 24, 6:45p Native American anarchism . . . Anarchist Spain was a prime example of anarchism. It is my belief that many other primitive cultures were, also . . . To me the Nez Perce people (who called themselves 'the people') also represent a natural example of anarchism . . . http://www.danielnpaul.com/... Unca Joseph Jan 23, 1:55p They do seem anarchic 'Their whole civil policy was averse to the concentration of power in the hands of any single individual,' explained Lewis Henry Morgan, a pioneering ethnographer of the Iroquois. The council's jurisdiction was limited to relations among the nations and outside groups; internal affairs were the province of the individual nations. Even in the council's narrow domain, the Great Law insisted that every time the royaneh confronted 'an especially important matter or a great emergency,' they had to 'submit the matter to the decision of their people' in a kind of referendum open to both men and women. Great link. ZhenRen Jan 23, 7:29p . . . words of a native American by: John (Fire) Lame Deer Sioux Lakota - 1903 - 1976 http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/... Unca Joseph Jan 24, 2:38a Primo stuff, Unca Joseph!! /nt thanatokephaloides Jan 24, 6:51p tl;dr version: Anarchism means 'no hierarchy' not 'no order', as it's commonly misunderstood. Conservative Socialist Jan 24, 5:34a having lived in permanent socialist community, my grasp of theoretical details and historical episodes learned in 12 years of my teens/20s is probably overshadowed by the practicalities of daily real life. however, communities like the ones i knew still exist in forms evolved to meet the challenges of the longterm, even after the 'glue' of survival in the face of mutual enemies is a far less binding factor. I.e., in which all the usual community and interpersonal conflicts and unanticipated needs (e.g., care of frail elders, congenital handicaps, etc etc etc etc) that come with being human have to be met with creativity, flexibility, and adaptation, just as individual human personalities, strengths, weaknesses, failings, and changes over time, as well as the ups and downs of the community's economic survival and what endeavors it engages in to sustain itself, also have to be accommodated for permanent community to be possible and valuable to individual self-realization as well. If you and like-minded individuals are not living longtime in communities that have met the innumerable challenges, I hope you'll have opportunity to realize and and implement your ideals, working together decade after decade to overcome obstacles and build self-sustaining communities generations after generations, the test of time which does, after all, prove what can work beyond theory in books and on paper. I appreciate your taking the trouble to go formulate an extensively detailed response - thanks and good luck. mettle fatigue Jan 24, 2:02p levoanarchism sn't that kinda the definition of anarchy in practical terms, to just dismantle and hope the chaos among automatically coalescing little mutual-aid units (to the extent they have practical means to interact ... Actually, that's more like right-wing anarchism or hyper-libertarianism. Anyone familiar with the recent history of Somalia knows how that turns out. Or, as you yourself put it so well: there are actually a lot of spots of unintentional anarchy in many places of the world today, with women and children in particular used as commodities, racism and religious and sectarian hatred rampant, and force of arms rules. The operant term in this passage is unintentional. Failed States have these evils as consequences. Failed States are one example of how the current human organizational model of the State has failed in general. Levoanarchists -- the anarchists of the left -- recognize that this is a problem and have made several proposals to deal with it. Check out the Syndicalist movement, for just one example. Syndicalist anarchists (anarchosyndicalists in some of the literature) advocate the elimination of the State and severe curtailment of any business or private fortune which has amassed enough assets to constitute power. What power must exist to get humanity's needs met shall be as widely shared as possible and applied as little as possible, for the least amount of time possible, to get the needs met. The way Syndicalists have most often advocated this be accomplished is some form of radical democracy, such as 'The One Big Union Of All Workers' which would undertake the State functions which could not be completely abolished. I recommend checking out the IWW in all its aspects. The Preamble to the IWW Constitution does a better job explaining both levoanarchism and anarcho-syndicalism than I can. The point ZhenRen and I are making, along with all our fellows in the levoanarchist movements worldwide, is that we can and must do better than toss all power to the richest, greediest, and least ethical 1% amongst us if we are to make any headway at all against the serious challenges which beset us all as members of humanity. We really couldn't do much worse than the way we're doing it now. In my own humble opinion, anyway. thanatokephaloides Jan 23, 10:30a Good clarification. Interesting reading, and please see http://www.dailykos.com/... if you haven't already. Perhaps some of you can add examples of existing such communities in the present? Either way, glad to have found your thoughts/comments. mettle fatigue Jan 24, 2:22p anarchistic communities Perhaps some of you can add examples of existing such communities in the present? The 'separate community' model of socialistic anarchism is something you may well know more about than I do, mettle fatigue. The movements I have direct experience with aimed to remake all of human society along these ideological lines at once. Please have some patience with me here. I'm just getting used to having my ideals alive again after literally decades of listening to RW [expletive of choice] trolls in my home town's media channels tell me that they represent the ideas and ideals of anarchism! This despite the fact that what they beLIEve in would make any of America's historical anarchist activists hurl their cookies in a trice! Yes, I know. Get the F out of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Would that I could; but I have family obligations requiring me to do otherwise. Sigh. thanatokephaloides Jan 24, 7:01p And--how timely--Republican Party vows to repeal US law clamping down on overseas tax dodgers. They may have a crazy 'base' they need to sway, but they really only have one constituency... Crashing Vor Jan 22, 12:04p brilliant ... I didn't see anything in the recommendations about establishing trade agreements (like the TPP and TAFTA) to circumvent individual country laws either. akadjian Jan 22, 12:10p The only thing that ever corrects this sort of thing historically could referred to as the 'French Solution.' Ugly and brutal and wildly indiscriminate, but the oppressors invariably force it on their populations ultimately. I'd not be surprised to one day see quiet bands of battle-hardened, but now downtrodden and PTSD-ladden veterans bringing it directly to bankers, the super rich, etc. As a society, we do a terrible job of self-correction until the problems become acute. pajoly Jan 22, 12:15p I'd take this even farther: As a society, we do a terrible job of self-correction until the problems become acute. I'd say that as a SPECIES, we do a terrible job of self-correction until the problems become acute. ChemBob Jan 23, 8:08a The only real way to do this: • Curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests is through public financing of elections. Make every candidate for Congress agree to pledge to support a bill requiring public financing. If they refuse to do so, or back out on their promise, vote them out. Do this en masse and get younger voters involved. Income inequality resonates but it's amorphous as a policy goal. The rich aren't going to give up their money nor are companies going to seek every avenue, legal or shady, to try and maximize their profits. That's done in the U.S. through the buying of Senators and Congressmen. If you want to end income inequality, you have to get money out of the political system. Dartagnan Jan 22, 12:20p 100% Agree. How? Candidates still need money to win, more than ever. So they listen to people with deep pockets or big groups who will fund their elections. So how do we 'make every candidate for Congress agree to pledge to support a bill requiring public financing'? I like your agree about getting younger voters involved and young people to vote. You're on the right track Dartagnan JSegal Jan 22, 4:37p A lot is possible with social media in terms of collective action, but you would need something as a catalyst--some person or event that would put the issue into focus. Then it takes on a life of its own, like Occupy Wall Street. The biggest problem in my view with OWS was the lack of any correlated political action. The feeling at the time was that the movement would be co-opted and corrupted by political involvement. The lack of identifiable leaders in the movement wasn't helpful either. What OWS accomplished was to get people talking about the issue. That's not enough, unfortunately. Either you compromise and work within the confines of the existing system (which is what I would favor) or you create a system of your own, either way the existing power structure has to be made to feel the heat. Dartagnan Jan 22, 5:34p Even now, the middle class could do it ... IF we had the will to short ourselves just a leetle more every single one of us in order to pay the pragmatic costs of leafletting etc for recruitment and public education efforts. and IF we had the will to set aside just a couple or 3 or 4 hours every week to do the work involved. (i say 'we' because it kind of takes a middle-class education to have pulled together the resources and knowledge to get online and communicate like this.) tangential comment: most of the republicans i interact with (which in real life is about there is to interact with where i live, which i have no choice about) are pretty decent, kind, charitable people, who have some of them been surprisingly sharing and friendly with me despite how different i am from them. their vision seems to be limited simply in that the further away from them literally that are other folks in hard times --far away in the sense of geographical distance and perceivable difference-- the less and less confident they feel about the work-willingness and non-vice of such distant and different folks who need help to bootstrap up. Sometimes some organization or individual whom they do trust finds a way to bridge those distances and differences by powerfully enough emphasizing either or both the actual samenesses and the potential value to themselves of those distant/different folks. and from talking with them about their lives, i get a really strong sense that these decent republican folks are suspicious about the intentions of others distant/different from them through having been themselves so extensively cheated and robbed back 'thru their families' histories, by other entities distant and different from them even tho the not the same distant place or differentness as the folks they're reluctant to extend/deprive themselves to help now. their thinking is within an expectation-of-being-robbed-and-cheated mentality by anyone who isn't close enough to be just about literally watched and seen to be honest. there also seem to be across america a lot of in-name-only democrats with the same memories of being robbed and the same suspicion of anyone they can't keep their eyes on so as to stay assured. except when something or someone has persuaded them that they can trust. if we could come up with the ideas and words to reassure these anxious people that trusting is a 'good investment' as well as 'good deed' to help the needy of the world and the needy of the community by legislation that bootstraps us all, , we'd have the majority necessity to push EVERY good piece of legislation through and regain every good legislation that's been trashed by the greed mongers. my father made some progress on that, putting himself in not entirely safe situations in order to learn the underlying feelings and thoughts of people different in many ways but basically needing the same as 'liberals' say everyone needs. but the he was faced with a life-or-death gamble which if he won (lived) would have helped make a significant difference in bridging that divide. so he took the chance, for the greater good. he died. mettle fatigue Jan 22, 5:39p what, don't you realize middle class is enemy? the oligarchs don't want to share power they don't want democracy so they are taking down the middle class i didn't figure this out until recently myself i thought that the middle class was a good thing Don midwest Jan 23, 5:25a I was taught in HS or college sociology class that no society has ever had a democracy without also having a middle class. And when you read Orwell, he points out it isn't just about gaining wealth - the bastards at the top aren't happy unless they have ruined someone else's life. Plus so many of the upper five percent spend their lives trying to be perfect - they can't be happy having to be that perfect all the time. This furthers the inner insanity of needing to lord it over others. EliseMattu Jan 24, 12:29a middleclass income makes good education possible not only for its own children but also ---because of the demand/pressure by the middle class that institutions of higher education be built and sustained by the society in which they live-- for all in that society, to the extent the society overall provides means for students of lower income to also participate. middle class education in both technology and philosophy is, realistically, the root of how a forum like DailyKos can come into being and then exist this long. people who make use of this forum do so by having access to the technology, and time to learn the skills and then exercise them. people in the u.s. who can't afford to buy the equipment for themselves or don't have homes where the equipment can safely be kept can sometimes still use the equipment at public libraries, community colleges(altho the latter have become in some states unaffordable to precisely the students they were meant to serve, thanks to public education de-funding), community center organizations, etc, are sometimes created by the uppermost income classes, but as is proven in greedy times like theses, it takes middle class willingness to pull the belt in and pay taxes to support these institutions that determines how extensive access can be. middle-class has many meanings and the time-bound meanings of the past are not the only valid ones. additionally, commitment to fairness and social justice is an individual human choice, not reliably predictable in terms of socioeconomic class. mettle fatigue Jan 24, 2:45p What about 3rd party funding? Republicans are already relying more and more on external advocacy groups to do their advertising to skirt federal rules. You'd have to essentially ban this as well - and I don't think that would pass the 1st Amendment test. RParker Jan 23, 7:59a For that, I'm afraid we need a somewhat altered Supreme Court. Dartagnan Jan 23, 8:20a and a dramatically altered Constitution hard to say what's less likely, voters making public financing of elections their primary issue or the country passing a Constitutional amendment limiting free speech during elections. sweatyb Jan 23, 10:14a Let's Take Their Money It sounds like a crude solution -- but hey -- the average person on the planet would double their net worth. bink Jan 22, 12:21p I think we could take 'em By my calculations we outnumber them 83,988,235 to one. Major Kong Jan 22, 12:29p I think that is why they are still holding on to their nukes. Drones and B2 bombers can only go so far when one is facing that many pitchforks. Claudius Bombarnac Jan 22, 1:16p Where is the 'Oceans 11' version of the people's planned heist of these 85 individuals' holdings? Now that would be an amazing film franchise. concernedamerican Jan 23, 5:14a It would have to be strategy on a way bigger scale than 'Tower Heist'--- definitely a bit more like the 'Oceans' series. concernedamerican Jan 23, 5:15a Simply such framing establishes a common sense... ...of public virtue and righteous mission which goes a long way toward a paradigm shift. The plutocrats don't have to agree but we do need this shared language on the moral high ground and the measure of a healthy economic environment and what is considered optional, acceptable, desirous, good or bad for society. I don't need or want to demonize the 1%- let them fund the fixes! But the names and faces of the clearly demonic can and should be common, public fodder. Whoever wants to oppose these common sense changes should have to step forward and be counted and own the fact that they're despised and growing more and more obsolete by the day. Great diary. Thanks. kck Jan 22, 1:17p Here Are A Few Of Them. Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecommunications mogul, whose family’s net wealth is estimated by Forbes business magazine at $73bn. Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder and philanthropist, whose worth is put at $67bn and is one of 31 Americans on the list. Warren Buffett, whose estimated worth is $53.5bn, Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, with $23bn Liliane Bettencourt, sits on a family fortune of $30bn derived from L’Oréal, the cosmetics company. Duke of Westminster, whose property empire has boosted his wealth to $11.4bn. kerplunk Jan 22, 2:43p Did anyone do a price check on just how much just the American ones on the list alone total up? Are those 31 worth as much as a quarter of the world? Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN Jan 22, 3:41p Math check It's a third, not half. According to OXFAM, 85 of the richest people have the same wealth as 3.5 billion of the poorest. The remaining wealth belongs to the other 3.5 billion of us. Kathy WPF Jan 22, 2:56p How do we Organize the 3.5 billion and engage the 85. I am not asking any of the 85 to give up all of their wealth but surely they can give up the idea that this is a sustainable, desirable or necessary disparity. FiredUpInCA Jan 23, 7:00a 'The best way to know the future ... ... is to invent it.' -Alan Kay. How do we [...] Organize the 3.5 billion and engage the 85. There is plenty of opportunity at every scale to build real wealth for the lowest income. Just do it. It costs very little to open and operate a school in Africa or India. China might be a bit harder. Building infrastructure in developed countries is much more expensive than in developing countries. A national power grid, Internet, and cell phone network would allow many countries to rapidly develop. Training both doctors and nurses to provide primary medical care doesn't take any new development - just effort. And effort is fungible with money. There are many huge opportunities just waiting. The visions aren't the problem. Even the resources to realize the visions aren't the problem. Just do it. Odysseus Jan 23, 11:02a Technically, no The amounts of the 85 and the poorest 3.5 billion people are approximately equal. That suggests nothing about the size of the remaining portion. Looking at the actual numbers, the poorest 3.5 billion and the richest 85 people each control 0.71% of the wealth (approx $1.7 Trillion), leaving 98.58% (~$237.4 Trillion) for the other 3.5 billion people. The top 1% or 70 million people control almost half the wealth. RParker Jan 23, 8:12a If You Want One Billion Dollars You Only need to walk up to a bowl that contains a bunch of 'one-million-dollar-bills' and pull out 1000 of them. kerplunk Jan 22, 5:12p Greedy capitalism is a crime against humanity. Capitalism has to be redefined, so that because of the things these few people do to earn their massive profits, doesn't cause millions, or even billions of people to suffer around the world as a consequence. Crimes against humanity, if there ever was such a thing and using many of OUR earthly resources to do it. OrganizedCrime Jan 22, 7:46p Sorry, but the list reads like a joke. Doing every single thing in that list is precisely the behavior exemplified but the Davos crowd. Might as well ask dogs to stop raising their ears when they hear a whistle. If turning around the fact that a few own most of what is in the world is left to those few to decide - or make pledges to do - we are as effed as it appears we are. Pledges are bullshit. The time is long past for that crap. The wealth will need to be removed from them at the tips of bayonets. It plays right into their hands to so flower-childishly hope for anything else. It's this kind of magical thinking in fact that dooms us. Gottlieb Jan 22, 9:42p The Monopoly game is over. One player has all the money and real estate. Time to begin a new game. Yet we can't even get a decent raise of the minimum wage. Our priorities have gotten all mixed up. The poor classes need to be drenched in resources. Not punished, further. Cpqemp Jan 22, 11:47p Thank you!!! What a great message to those at Davos--especially the Americans!! StewartAcuff Jan 23, 6:38a A couple more: * Put an end to structural adjustment policies * Stop the land grabs, especially from indigenous peoples marina Jan 23, 8:06a How to beat the oligarchy at its own game Because all the people are always ahead of the politicians, it is time the people have real power. Not the kind of power that depends on oligarchy candidates looking after their corporate paychecks and revolving doors. There is a winning issue that will put any candidate ahead of all others; establish direct grassroots democracy in one simple, extremely popular step: Incorporate 300 million Americans and issue all citizens equal non-negotiable shares in the trillions of dollars worth of publicly owned resources like public lands, public airwaves, national parks, mineral resources, marine resources, public buildings, the Defense Department, government institutions and everything our taxes pay for. The dividends 300 million people accrue from existing and renegotiated leases of public resources and uses thereof would lift everyone out of poverty. We the People Inc. can then control the use of our natural resources, stop fracking in our public lands, finance renewables, decide what some of our dividends will pay for, what corporations we will deal with, set the salaries of our corporate employees, decide who and what we will support, ensure honesty and integrity in corporate dealings, decide where the people's corporation will do its banking, hire and fire our management and much more by voting one person, one vote at online stockholders meetings like any other corporate giant. The difference is that there would be no powerful majority stockholders dictating outcomes in their favor with squadrons of lawyers, economists and politicians pushing to maximize profits above all else. In other words, the People's Corporation can eliminate greed and oligarchy from the equation and substitute it for democracy, direct and decentralized through the corporate model. Studies have shown that popular decisions consistently beat politician's decisions by a wide margin. Being larger and richer than Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Nuke, Military Industries and all other corporations combined, the People's Corporation would effectively control all others. The PC would democratically set the tone and become the catalyst for the laws that run our country. The key to its success is to make our public's stock non-transferable and non-negotiable. Otherwise Wall Street Casino politics will guarantee its failure. The goal of a tiny Ruling Class is to privatize all public resources by corporate takeover. This would effectively enslave the public. We the people must incorporate before Wall Street corporations succeed in their privatization scheme and we lose all of our public property and the dividends that should accrue to all the people, the actual owners of the public treasure. frigate Jan 23, 8:56a Oh ya, let's let them decide. My sig line says what I think about that. BigAlinWashSt Jan 23, 9:08a Exactly. Lonesome Jeff Jan 23, 9:06p What? Trickle down doesn't work? But seriously, how many houses, closets filled with clothing, cars, private jets, how much food does one person really need? It's an addiction...they are slaves to their money...driven always and always to try to make more and more. I just don't get it. Simul Iustus et Peccator Jan 23, 9:14a This is the Result of Incessant Attacks on Labor! The Right wing attacks on organized labor, on the rights of working people to speak, to organize, and to work to improve their common lot has been the target of the Right Wing since before the Karl Marx, and before the Russian Revolution. The Koch Brothers Daddy went to Russia to undermine the Revolution, and then came back to the USA to begin the John Birch Society. When Labor has no rights, working people have no value. NM Ray Jan 23, 10:19a 85 What are some of their names? BaldEagle Jan 23, 11:15a But what should I do? That question is never asked. We quote Gandhi time and again but we keep doing things that perpetrate the current dysfunction. Let's keep a check on our use of fossil fuel, conserve it and cut it right back wherever we can...let's stop buying items made from new resources - there is plenty already mined that we could repurpose...let's keep our purchases to local as much as possible even leaning towards postponed gratification ...let's get our money right out of the big banks and stop sponsoring all big business wherever we possibly can. Let's see that GDP plummet. Don't expect the 'supplicantees' to do anything different until we do. PithHelmut Jan 23, 11:44a 'let's get our money right out of the big banks...' There's a better alternative to banks. Credit unions! I've never stood in a line at my credit union. I've never been charged for checking, been hit with hidden fees or charged high interest rates at my credit union. I do most of my banking online at my credit union, and I feel comfortable knowing that my credit union didn't sell subprime loans or have any part in the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. Can you say the same about your bank? Credit unions are run by members for members. Banks are run by greedy assholes who only care about the money, and how much of it they can squeeze out of their customers. Lonesome Jeff Jan 23, 9:01p Where the hell is the complete list of names? That's what I want to know: who are these 85 people--complete list please. demongo Jan 23, 12:06p And what are their heavily fortified addresses? :) Lonesome Jeff Jan 23, 8:12p What's the difference between Public-Private Partnerships and Fascism? frigate Jan 23, 12:19p righting the wrongs REVOLT against FASCISM. If 99% of humanity cannot wrestle control and grab power, commerce and wealth from the 1% and their criminally corrupt and criminally compromised enablers, then ALL of Humanity deserves to perish and this is what the future holds for Humanity. Humanity will NOT be allowed to DESTROY planet Earth, and all of her inhabitants, animals, sea life, plants, trees, fauna , resources, waters , atmosphere etc and All other life forms that visit or reside on her, terrestrial, non terrestrial alike. The Universal Community will not allow humanity to cause this corrupt and criminal act, humanity will be rendered a null set, this is FACT, count on it. And this will happen very soon unless Humanity acts appropriately. This is real and no joke, Humanity has had they're chance and they can either get-it together, or they become the null set, 0. DaveKelly Jan 23, 12:44p All I want... Is for the American economy to be run like it was in the nineteen fifties and sixties. Ever since Reagan and his Neo-con slave drivers bought off our government, America has gone to hell in a Walmart shopping basket. JohnnieZ Jan 23, 1:46p 1789 Maximilien Robespierre Jan 23, 3:57p 85 persons owning as much as 3,500,000,000 folks what if those 85 persons are comatose and are life support? perfectbite Jan 23, 7:45p You can be sure that they have wives, descendants and mistresses waiting to inherit their wealth. Lonesome Jeff Jan 23, 8:09p The problem with most of the recommendations is that they depend on the generosity of the aforementioned 85 super wealthy people, and the rest depend on the generosity of governments that in almost all cases are subservient to the super wealthy. The super wealthy are supremely greedy, but they are not stupid. They already know that they could improve the standard of living for the poor and struggling middle class if they wanted to, but one doesn't become a member of the super wealthy class by being generous to the proletariat. Lonesome Jeff Jan 23, 8:01p true but It's awesome that this is now common knowledge. It will help everyone decide whether to be active in changing this or settle for being a looser and supporting this. Unfortunately the suggestions above, while awesome, are doomed to failure for two basic reasons. 1. These suggestions are for the 85 and their puppets. The 85 didn't get that way by caring about people. Will they start at Oxfams suggestion? And the policy changes for the governments of the world are based upon these governments being willing to fight all this money and power. We see what happens to small governments who fight for the welfare of the people. Big governments who are controlled by the 85 through their money, power and corruption kill governments who try to make the changes Oxfam proposes. Asking the system that creates this inequality to stop it is like asking the Nazis to see their racism in a new light. 2. It doesn't propose how real change can happen. It doesn't talk to us. The people. But then if they did they would be labelled as a terrorist organization just like any who proposes change from the status quo. As with every major change we've seen in the world. It takes mass support to do it. The 85 only know survival of the fittest. Only if you put fear into their hearts will they change. It will take massive support for human dignity to make this change. It will take all of us. Annakis Jan 24, 5:04a 'Oxfam has recommended policies ... ... to strengthen the political representation of the poor and middle classes ... ' I think that the statement above actually points to the root of the problem - the 'economic royalists', as FDR called them, who attend events like Davos tend not to believe that the poor and middle classes are deserving of ANY political representation, because we are, obviously, not even marginally capable of figuring out what we need to succeed in 'their' world (after all, if we did, we'd be rich, too, wouldn't we?) mstaggerlee Jan 24, 11:01a Make giving Wealth away the new Status symbol Sort of like the idea behind the Potlatch but not so much calculated to consolidate power. Imagine those 85 or so people competing with each other to see who can make the biggest contribution towards really helping to make the world better for everyone. (Not just phoney PR stunts or favorite charity donations.) Make it clear that obscene wealth is as offensive and worthy of ridicule as Donald Trump's really stupid looking hair. Kayette Jan 24, 1:23p Make giving Wealth away the new Status symbol Sort of like the idea behind the Potlatch but not so much calculated to consolidate power. Imagine those 85 or so people competing with each other to see who can make the biggest contribution towards really helping to make the world better for everyone. (Not just phoney PR stunts or favorite charity donations.) My understanding is that Warren Buffett is planning on doing just that. If (and only if) that is correct, then I say 'Not bad for a plutocrat!' Leave each kid a reasonably large starting chipstack and give the rest away. It's an idea whose time has come. thanatokephaloides Jan 24, 7:12p UNITED NATIONS AND SUPER-ELITE PLUTOCRATS Perhaps the time has come for the United Nations to tax these super-elite plutocrats. They think of themselves as world rather then national citizens so paying a tax to the world body makes for good policy. The General Assembly could pass a few laws or rules of good conduct for these elites concerning working conditions, health care, safety environmental regulations, banking rules and wages. iyouwemeus Jan 24, 1:44p Just signed This is wonderful, Well over 7,000. We need to take advantage of the one two punch of Oxfam and Pope Francis at Davos. occupystephanie Jan 24, 5:14p View Full Site | Helpdesk ©2014 Kos Media |
|
|
| The text being discussed is available at http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1271695/-Now-that-you-know-85-people-own-more-than-half-the-world-here-s-what-to-do-about-it?detail=email |