EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is correspondence received in anticipation of a lunch meeting today among Barry Lynn, author of “Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction” and a half dozen professors, attorneys and the Watchdog:
…My hope is that we look to the future — how do we create an economy that works better for more people? Two comments (—) made really resonated with me:
“. . . diverting attention from the fundamental need to organize people to resist and hopefully someday recapture some degree of democratic control of the state.”
Two points in that are consistent with my thinking: (1) The major task is organizing people to resist. The good news is I see that type of organizing beginning and I also the seeds of a culture of resistance developing. (2) Recapturing some degree of democratic control of the state. I’ve seen our democracy as a fixed game, more of a mirage than a real democracy for a long time. Americans essentially get to pick from two corporate approved candidates and are denied any other choices. Both arms of the corporate duopoly are dominated by the power of concentrated wealth making democracy a false choice. Many think they are voting for change when they really are voting for a representative of status quo interests.
And, it is not only democratic control of the state being needed, it is democratizing the economy. As I said to Robert in response to a recent article he wrote, democratizing the economy means people having more control over their own economic lives through single payer health care that gives them more freedom to get the health care of their choice without the barriers of health insurance, worker owned businesses, consumer owned businesses (co-ops and credit unions), turning corporate welfare into taxpayer investment so tax payers profit and have a say in corporations that take tax dollars, reforming the tax system so it is more progressive and reforming the Federal Reserve so it not only reflects the banks but the broader economy and includes some elected representatives. I really see this framing of the issue as one people can understand, one that is consistent with American political ideology and one that is achievable in a step-by-step basis.
“I believe that that is what we confront today: the choice between a democratic state, that for all its flaws, might betray ‘liberalism’ (i.e., the free market) and actually be pushed to serve ordinary citizens; and a state that would serve business and the free market and ‘permanent interests’ and not allow itself to be abused into doing something for the ‘common citizens.'”
This comment from (— ) describes the central conflict, and it is a class conflict, between most Americans — the “common citizens” or “ordinary citizens” — as — describes them; and the business and permanent interests that profit and thrive from keeping things from any significant change. Free market rhetoric is used to not create a free market but to put in place policies that aid concentrated corporate interests whether it is deregulation or corporate welfare. Both occur under the false rhetoric of free market and neither helps the common citizen. Finally, (— ) is right that the state needs to be “pushed to serve ordinary citizens” — this is not going to happen without people being educated, organized and mobilized. Information is the part of the task, but not all of it.
Thanks —for getting our discussion off to an aggressive start.
