People’s Capitalism
Tommy Potter"People's capitalism" was an American propaganda meme popularized in the mid-1950s as a name for the American economic system. It was endorsed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for worldwide use by the United States Information Agency, which employed the term to trumpet the successful aspects of the American economy worldwide during the Cold War. The propagandists depicted the United States as a classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves" in the Soviet Union and China.
American propaganda was not ignored in the Soviet Union, for example, a long article in the "Pravda" newspaper in 1956 concluded that "people's capitalism" is as absurd an idea as fried ice!
However, many authors offer their own recipes and their own version of good, people's capitalism. Some variants are described in Gary Brambuck's book "The Peoples’ Capitalism". What you are reading is another alternative (in my very humble opinion, this is the most lucky version ...).
Socialists and communists insist that there is no good capitalism. But does good socialism exist? The variants of socialism known in history - in the Soviet Union and its satellites, China, North Korea, Kampuchea or Venezuela - were by no means a new socio-economic formation compared to capitalism. These were new variants of feudalism with elements of the slave system.
For example, in the USSR, the new feudal lords were the party nomenklatura, which had unlimited power. Workers and peasants (collective farmers) were actually serfs. Since the thirties of the last century, a change of place of work or place of residence was possible only with the permission of the authorities. The great construction sites of socialism were erected by the hands of slaves - prisoners of the GULAG.
In order to recruit the required number of prisoners, demands were sent from Moscow indicating the required number. This is written in the article “How the machine of repression worked during the years of the Great Terror”:
...Once every 10 days, Lubyanka releases plans for the number of arrests to the republican departments of the NKVD. There they are corrected, usually upwards, and sent to the regional departments, from there to the city and district offices. Chekists in the field make lists of names for the order, including on the basis of denunciations.
The most odious builders of socialism were the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea (now Cambodia). In the course of socialist construction and creation of the new man, they managed to physically destroy about a third of the population!
A new socio-economic formation?
Over the past half century, the productive forces have developed rapidly. Computerization, robots, the Internet, artificial intelligence have dramatically increased the productivity of social labor. The level of productive powers makes it possible to provide all people with basic services. However, the results of progress went to a narrow circle of owners, and the majority of the population of developed countries did not gain anything. Many even became poorer.
Attempts of a few rich people to donate more to charity or the attempts of corporations to run a “socially responsible” business do not count. These efforts change nothing as wealth inequality continues to widen.
Previously, a new formation (or modernization of the old one) arose as a result of the class struggle. Today's ruling class is known - these are capitalists, financiers, bankers. This is an international community of wealthy people connected by common interests and international institutions such as the IMF or the WTO. They have "reformed" the global economic and financial systems to suit their interests.
At the same time, there is no powerful enough force to oppose them. This explains why the qualitatively new productive forces can not give rise to a qualitatively new society.
During the days of industrial capitalism, the organized working class opposed the capitalists. As a result, a “welfare state” was invented in Europe (which offered today the highest standard of living, but is gradually degrading) and also, as a dead end project, a world system of socialist states led by the USSR.
At present, the working class has become a relatively small stratum of highly paid conservative professionals. Most of the work is done by the precariat - people who have temporary and / or low-paid jobs. These people compete with each other and it is very difficult for them to unite!
Therefore, the only force capable of resisting international capital will not be the “class”, but the “citizens”. Citizens are workers and employees, the homeless and social workers, doctors, teachers, scientists... The growth of social inequality affects them all, but so far these people do not show signs of uniting to protect their interests.
The only thing that can unite such different people is a common ideology. In the words of Marx, "When an idea is embraced by the masses, it becomes a material force of enormous power." What could be an ideology that has not yet been born, I tried to imagine in the chapter “New Ideology”. How could be new relations of production - in the chapter “Straightjacket for Capital”.
The establishment of new production relations (in accordance with the new ideology) will not at all require the overthrow of the government, the liquidation of the exploiters or the confiscation of their property. It is quite easy to carry out transformations in the economic sphere, but almost impossible in the political sphere. Economic reforms can be carried out step by step, but not political ones.
The interests of the rich dominate all aspects of society - finance, economics, politics (especially in the area of taxation and financial liberalisation), education, ideology, laws, international treaties, etc. Therefore, a revolutionary change in the political system is required. The power of the ruling class must be eliminated and a new elite must be established. We believe in a "voter dictatorship", which is a revolutionary form of direct democracy. Unfortunately, revolutions only occur after major catastrophes such as war or economic crisis. People prefer stability, even if it means a steadily worsening situation.
In the economic sphere, the imposition of progressive taxes with very high, confiscatory rates on the very rich eliminates the threat to democracy posed by 'big money'.
The division of private ownership into personal property and capital (proposed in the tax reform for the purpose of various taxation) has far-reaching consequences. Capital, even if part of it is in the bank, cannot be used for personal consumption. That is, the rights of the owner of capital are significantly limited. If, for example, the owner decides to sell shares and buy a villa, he will first have to declare income and pay a high income tax.
Situation, where everyone reseives unconditional income in the form of citizen dividends (financed mainly by taxes and partly by money creation) has even more far-reaching implications. Citizens' dividends and the proposed tax reform are actually creating a new economic formation, a cross between capitalism and socialism.
In this formation, every citizen, as a recipient of dividends from the country's production capacities, becomes like a minority shareholder who has the right to receive dividends, but does not have the right to directly manage the use of capital. Such "people's capitalism" contributes to the strengthening of democracy, as voters become interested owners - a kind of "middle class". (As discussd at "Unconditional Income – right now!")
The proposed reforms of the financial and tax systems, together with the introduction of citizen dividends, create an economic system that is almost entirely consistent with such incompatible ideas as neoliberalism and communism.
From the point of view of neoliberalism, there is no need for many laws that limit the arbitrariness of employers. Laws regulating the cost of the labor hour, the minimum wage or the length of the work week, and many others can be repealed. Directly that is what neo-liberalism demands - non-intervention of the state in industrial relations. The reduction in bureaucracy will form a compact "Lean government" (loved by all currents of liberalism).
But the abolition of "wage slavery" will not please the supporters of neo-liberalism. Having even a small income, an employee can send his employer to hell… Therefore, workers will have to be “tempted” with favorable working conditions. If now the employer chooses an employee from a set of applicants, then in the new conditions the employee will choose the employer.
On the other hand, in the presence of an unconditional income, the communist principle is almost implemented: from each according to his ability - to each according to his needs. But even the communists will remain dissatisfied. Minimum needs will be limited to citizens' dividends (as well as social services - medicine, education, public infrastructure). The possibility of exploitation and receipt of both labor and non-labor income remains. The means of production will remain the property of the capitalists, although their personal consumption and power will be limited.
So, in a nutshell, the League's ideology suggests:
- state structure - dictatorship of voters
- in foreign policy - militant humanism, expansion of civility, and cool hybrid warfare.
- in economic policy - “straitjacket for capital”
- result: "Next Formation" - a new socio-economic society?
<< END >>
Content:
My Appeal
New ideology
Militant humanism
Straitjacket for Capital
People’s Capitalism?
tomy_potter@protonmail.com