Saturday, August 20, 2016

Airborne Nation - "Wall Street Doesn't Help Main Street"


"Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled, and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is Socialism, nothing short of that." - Daniel De Leon, "The Daily People" - January 23, 1906

"Wall Street Doesn't Help Main Street"

Chad P. Morrison, Friday, September 25, 2009

Michael Moore's new documentary film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," is a direct assault on the modern way of economic life, since the Industrial Revolution. But, is he justified? He says that our system does not give the people any power over the economy. Well, my fellow citizens, Michael Moore is very right. The thing is that we need to begin to assume a controlling interest of all business in America. Many people believe that socialism is the government taking control of industry, commerce, and everything else. Well, along that same line of reasoning, the government just passed the single largest socialist piece of legislation in our history with these bailouts. The problem is they bailed out wall street rather than main street. What we need to do is to retake control of our economy. What should have happened when the banks failed? First, we should have allowed the stock market to collapse. Rather then rebooting a system that is doomed to fail us again, we should have taken some simple steps toward a better economic methodology. Then, we should have given controlling interest of every company in the United States to the people that work for those companies. This has been successful with many fledgling companies in the past. Once the companies were in the hands of real Americans you can bet that manufacturing would return to the United States. Then, we would enact legislation that would place a nation-wide income cap on the percentage of profit that could be paid to company leaders versus the every day worker. This would allow for some upward mobility, and it would also prevent trusts, monopolies, and the gathering of massive individual wealth. Of course in fields like medicine the pay scale would start much higher than other businesses. Doctors, for example, would start in the $80,000 a year range and make up to $500,000 annually, as is the case in much of the E.U. We would set a minimum annual salary of $20,000 a year for all jobs in the United States. We would enact a four day 35 hour per work week, as is the case in France. We would have mandatory one month vacations per annum, as well. Also we could have higher taxes on the profit surplus that would occur above the income gap ratio. This would allow for the creation of free universities, free healthcare, free housing, and free food programs for those who cannot work or who are out of work. Most people would choose not to milk the system because it would not allow for upward mobility for those on welfare. For example, we would not reward irresponsible individuals for having more children as we do now. You would never bring in more than $15,000 per year, for example, on welfare. This would be less than the federal minimum wage. You could survive and get more food for additional children, but it would not be an easy life. We would place incentives for eating healthy, working, joining a gym, enhancing education, and the like. This could have been our nation. We are never to big to fail. Let's get our government, and our country, working for us again.

"Supplemental" Kent Allen Halliburton, Saturday, August 20, 2016

Chad is very correct that too much wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of the wealthy in this country. He is also correct that this has created a system of inequality in which workers are required to settle for less than what is fair for their labor. He also made a remark about allowing bad banks to collapse, rather than propping them up, which was even more correct, as this collapse could have led to public ownership of the means of production. This is also a very correct statement. However, as it relates to Socialism, after his suggestion that the working class retake control of the means of production, he returns to a neo-liberal understanding of economics when he begins enumerating salaries for various job types and discussing how to properly address the conditions of welfare recipients. In a truly Socialist worker's state, this is not how things would go. First, the most effective socialist state would function on a resource based economy fueled by sources of power that are renewable, rather than finite. It would abandon coal, oil, and gas power, in exchange for wind, solar, and geothermal power. This would thus eliminate the concept of scarcity, and with it, the need to use money to obtain the basic necessities of life, all of which, would be readily available to all citizens by right. This would include food, lodging, clothing, healthcare, education, and much more. Work would no longer be a competition for survival, bur rather, a race for self and collective improvement. Things like poverty would not exist. There would be no one bleeding the system, because their would be no unnecessary competition. The accumulation of wealth would be irrelevant. The human species would, rather, function on cooperation.

The original version of this article was published at http://airbornenation.yolasite.com/blogs/wall-street-doesn-t-help-main-street.

No comments:

Post a Comment