PAGE 2
BUT DON’T CALL IT CLASS WARFARE
DUSAN PETRICIC
BY NANCY HOFFMAN
I am continually amazed at the lack of political interest
in so many of my fellow citizens. I realize that getting a job,
finding good daycare, having dependable transportation, feeling
safe, and other daily issues consume their lives. But they never
seem to question why these things are so difficult, why they take
up so much of our time. Our roads have pot holes, our schools
are cutting back on teaching days and new textbooks, our
airports are overcrowded, our food kitchens are running low on
meals, and American workers frequently cannot afford reason
able medical care. Yet we all know that we live in a wealthy
nation. The United States has the highest GNP in the world.
What’s going on?
I've lived in a wealthy neighborhood. I've seen people
buy new cars every year, upgrading from the Ford to the Volvo
to the Mercedes to the Ferrari or exotic Lotus Europa sports car.
I've seen them struggle to choose between a month long ski
vacation in Switzerland or a delightful two week cruise of the
Caribbean and then choose both. I’ve seen people hire and fire
nannies, housekeepers and gardeners because they didn’t
perform satisfactorily although paid less than minimum wage.
I’ve seen walls go up around neighborhoods and gates with
guards to keep out the unwanted and help reduce crime. I've
seen private Lear Jets for travel to the Super Bowl helping the
owners avoid the crowded masses in the airports.
So the point is that we have different classes in our
society, most of us — the wage earners, the working poor
and the working middle and upper middle class — on one side,
and the very, very rich on the other. And yet few people ever
question the fairness of this distribution of wealth and luxury.
One commentator recently stated that people in America believe
they are all pre-rich', about to join the ranks of the upper class,
and this explains their passivity in the face of inequity. But even
so, do the ultra wealthy and comfortable contribute so much
more to the well being of our nation that they deserve to have
so many additional benefits?
Examine the occupations for a moment. The middle
class includes owners of small businesses, farmers, government
workers, teachers, loggers, soldiers, roofers, hair dressers,
firefighters, waitresses, store clerks — in short, the people we
encounter as we go about surviving each day. Some of the
wealthier among us are doctors, lawyers, business consultants
and salesmen. But none of these people represent the top levels
of wealth in our society.
Who are the multi-millionaires? We know about the
athletes and actors, of course. They are an easy target for
an essay like this. But what do the others do? They may
have inherited their wealth, but in most cases what they do
is manipulate our capitalist economy for their own benefit.
They handle the money, they manage the corporations, they
receive profits from the exploitation of natural resources,
they buy low and sell high. The products of their labor are
insubstantial when measured by what they contribute to the
betterment of America.
So then we might ask who truly serves the greater
society in the Boy Scout definition of the word serve'. Imagine
for a moment that we give honor points to people who make our
nation better or make our individual lives easier by their labor.
The refuse collector, the doctor, the postal worker, the small
business owner — all of these would receive major allotments.
The investment broker, the Wall Street tycoon and the old
monied would receive none unless they happened to contribute
to charity, but this would be unrelated to their source of income.
Then imagine that we rewarded people, at least partially, based
on their accumulation of points. The fabulously rich would earn
less and many of the lower and middle class workers would earn
more. I know this treads dangerously close to socialism, but as
at least one columnist recently argued, can our democracy
survive the current huge imbalance in the distribution of wealth?
The problem goes back to my opening. Why are the
lives of so many of our citizens so difficult in this wealthiest of
nations? It is because our nation is investing less and less in the
infrastructure that sustains the working classes. Day care, health
care, retirement security, transportation systems and job security
have all suffered in the last thirty years. During the time that the
wealth of this nation shifted dramatically upwards into the hands
of the very few, the willingness of the ultrarich group to pay
taxes and contribute to a healthy infrastructure has continued to
decline, and they have found ways to insert their reluctance into
the laws of the land
While so many citizens are apathetic and apolitical, the
very rich are the opposite. They have taken the reins of power
in this country, buying political capital through huge campaign
contributions and paying close attention to any attempt to
restore fairness through progressive taxation. They have created
a plutocracy, a country ruled by the wealthy. Simply look at the
personal incomes of our President and his cabinet to confirm
this claim. They are so culturally and socially distant from the
wage earner that they need advisers to explain our concerns
to them. When the very rich take steps to secure their place
in society at the cost of the infrastructure, they talk in terms of
“sound economic policy.” But when working people suggest that
this polarization in the distribution of wealth is harmful, they are
subjected to cries of “class warfare” immediately stifling any kind
of informed discussion. Not only is there class warfare, but the
wage earner is rocking back on his/her heels in the last minute
of the 15th round.
Of course there is an opposition to my argument. Here
are some widely accepted “truths”:
1. The wealthy will invest and create jobs, raising
everyone up with them.
2. The wealthy take huge risks thus deserving huge
rewards.
3. Everyone has the opportunity to be wealthy, so
suggestions that something is not right in the distribution
of wealth are just ‘sour grapes.”
Okay. First, if the wealthy use their wealth to create jobs
and raise everyone, why do we continue to have unemployment
and grinding poverty after over twenty years of this “voodoo
economics”? Second, firefighters take risks, soldiers take risks,
miners take risks, fishermen take risks. Risking venture capital
pales in comparison, yet those who risk their lives do not receive
huge monetary rewards. Finally,’ it is not being a bad sport or
“sour grapes" to point out that the game is fixed when the game
/s fixed.
Consider another approach to this same issue. As our
global population swells, recently passing 6 billion inhabitants,
we might explore Wendell Barry’s famous question, ‘What are
people for?” To justify the doubling of the population, and to
argue against genocide, we need to understand what meaningful
purpose teeming populations serve on this earth. Certainly if the
number of whales suddenly doubled we would find a purpose for
them. But if the number of rats and mosquitoes doubled, things
which have no useful purpose (to us), we would find ways to
exterminate them. So if we are not going to promote family
planning and population control, and if we are going to resist
genocide, we need to have a purpose for all of these new
billions of people.
One answer to the question is people exist to govern
themselves and promote the greater good This response, of
course, is circular and does not actually address the question,
but it is the basis for much of our social and religious structure.
For example, arguing that our country is first and foremost a
democratic nation is the mythology perpetuated by well meaning
4th grade teachers throughout the land. The 'Democratic Myth'
supposes that each individual is valuable and that we all partici
pate in our own government, we exist to share in the world’s
bounty, we have dominion over our natural resources, and we
help each other enjoy a peaceful and joyful life.
Ask any economist and he or she will not hesitate to
answer the question, “What are people for?" The answer is
obvious. People exist to buy goods and to make goods or offer
services so that corporations can make profits. People are the
fuel of the great machine that we call capitalism which is not
to be confused with democracy. A corporation does not make
VAN DUSEN BEVERAGES
ASTORIA, OREGON »• 325-2362
decisions based on the votes of its workers, and corporate
leaders do not represent their employees. Decisions are made
for the purpose of profit, and corporate leaders, following their
own laws, must represent only their largest stock holders whose
interest is also profits.
This is capitalism, not democracy, and we are a capital
ist nation, rapidly becoming a capitalist world. Read newspaper
headlines if you are not convinced that capitalism is the driving
force in this new world order. Under the Clinton administration,
the slogan was “It's the economy, stupid,” and under the Bush
administration the goal is to end the taxation that cuts into the
profits of corporations, even at the expense of social programs
and the needs of the individual worker. The health of our nation
is measured by corporate health and economic categories such
as the Dow, the gross national product, quarterly profit project
ions, inflation figures and unemployment rates. But pay close
attention here. Good reports in these categories do not always
equate to good news for the individual. For example, in the
world of capitalism, zero unemployment is a “bad" thing.
Zero unemployment is a bad thing in the real world, not
the fairytale, because people are resources — human resources.
In fact, most large institutions no longer use the word ‘personnel’
when referring to their workforce. Personnel, often mistaken for
“personaT, suggests an interest in the needs of the individual
employee. The term “Human resources" more properly places
the emphasis on the needs of the corporation or employer.
Human resources are needed right along with physical resources
— materials and supplies — so the organization can produce
its product and make a profit. If all of the human resources
are employed, they can demand more fortheir labor, just as
prices go up when the supply of physical resources is less than
the demand. Profits are made by the efficient use of cheap
resources, and decisions are based on corporate needs, not
quality of life. As in the Enron fiasco, when disaster strikes
corporate leaders will preserve the profits while employees
will suffer the disaster. Natural resources, in the real world, are
assets that can become profits. They are not nature preserves
for peace of mind, parks for solitude, or shared bounty of the
earth.
Now assume you are the great corporate CEO in the
White House. Would you support birth control or family plan
ning? Of course not. More people mean lower wages. More
people mean more human resources for the giant capitalistic
machine
But surely, if people are nothing more than fodder, they
will protest and protest loudly. For humans, by the very nature of
being human, have dignity, and dignity requires that our purpose
be greater than being fuel for a machine. Our purpose must be
noble and pure, not materialistic and mean. How do we keep
people happy being human resources? The answer to this
question is in the fairytale. We keep people happy by keeping
them believing in the Democratic Myth and by believing that
they are all “pre-rich". If the people run this country and this
economy, as the myth maintains, they can't rationally complain
when the people they elect make decisions that seem to harm
them as individuals. Obviously our leaders can see the bigger
picture. Only crazy cynics and people using the fighting words
of “class warfare” would suggest that the money of corporate
lobbyists has more sway than the constituent’s vote.
And we keep people happy by amusing them with the
drugs of television, computers, patriotism and consumerism. Let
them watch sports or sitcoms and put lots of energy into caring
about the fictional world of the Blazers or “Friends." Make them
complacent, believing enormous quantities of information on the
internet take the place of quality information and truth. Give
them a war now and then so they can wave flags and give their
lives for democracy. And most importantly, let them have just
enough money to buy a new car every few years, stylish clothes,
and new technology. Let them compete among themselves for
who is most informed, most patriotic and most chic. Then our
human resources will not complain and people will humbly and
obediently serve their greater purpose — fueling the economy.
These, then, are the measures of a successful capitalist
economy, one with burgeoning populations accepting of the
unequal distribution of wealth and profits. That this is actually
a very unhealthy measurement for a society is not a new
concept. Consider the ideas of Michel de Montaigne, a French
thinker during the Renaissance. Writing around 1571, Montaigne
challenged the idea that a nation's wealth should be lavished
on the rich and cited Aristotle's view that these goods would
“vanish from memory as soon as the people are sated with
them." Montaigne suggests that a healthy nation will spend its
wealth on “ports, harbors, fortifications and walls, on sumptuous
buildings, churches, hospitals, colleges, and the improvement
of streets and roads." Consider the last time our government
constructed a “sumptuous" building. I don't think it has in my
lifetime.
A successful democratic society with a growing
population, then, must have other measures of success besides
the stock market and GNP. To evaluate a true democracy, by
and for the people, we would want to know if the people, rather
than the corporations and moneyed elites, are being served.
Instead of GNP, we would examine access to health care,
housing, public safety, education and literacy.We would demand
growing and improved infrastructure including freeways, bridges,
airports and mass transit systems. We would measure family
support and food distribution systems. Decisions in our legisla
tures would be based on what is good for the citizens not the
lobbyists. Our environment would exist for our pleasure and our
health rather than as the source of corporate assets.
We must free our democracy from the web of capitalism.
While we live in a capitalist society, preserving and protecting
our economic system must be of lesser importance than safe
guarding and nurturing our political system, our democracy.
Unbridled capitalism will destroy our democracy. So we need to
take steps to protect this "great experiment," a system depend
ent on an informed consensus of all of our citizens, even if it
means that we have to put some constraints on capitalism and
take back power from the plutocrats We need to become more
informed because that is the responsibility of citizens in a demo
cracy. We need to examine what makes our lives difficult and
what changes would alleviate these daily struggles. Then we
need to elect people who will fight the battle with us.
Nancy Hoffman is head of the English Department at
Clatsop Community College. She hosted a recent all day public
conference about the USA Patriot Act at the college in January.