The Protesters Are Not Anti-Capitalism … We Are Simply For “1 Person 1 Vote” and Equal Application of the Rule of Law

The Protesters Are Not Anti-Capitalism

The protesters are not anti-capitalism.

We don’t even have capitalism in the U.S. anymore. Instead, the U.S. has become a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, a banana republic, a socialist or fascist state … which acts without the consent of the governed.

As I’ve previously noted:

When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:

I think it would be a good idea.

I feel the same way about free market capitalism.

It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.

If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.

***

People pointing to the Western economies and saying that capitalism doesn’t work is as incorrect as pointing to Stalin’s murder of millions of innocent people and blaming it on socialism. Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks, Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets, government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation, corruption of government officials, creation of a system of government-sponsored rating agencies which had at its core a model of bribery, and other government-induced distortions of the free market, things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.

As Justice Louis Brandeis said:

In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipotent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.

[Confirmed here.]

If there has been lawlessness and corruption among Wall Street players, it was partially simply modeling the lawlessness and corruption of the Executive Branch and Congress members. I’ve written elsewhere about how the government lied by saying Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was behind 9/11 (when he didn’t and wasn’t), that we don’t torture (when we did), that we don’t spy on Americans (when we did), etc. Just like kids model what their parents do as well as what they say, Wall Street modeled the unlawful and corrupt actions of our government employees.

Being against capitalism because of the mess we’ve gotten in would be like Gandhi saying that he is against Western civilization because of the way the British behaved towards India.

The protesters aren’t against capitalism.  We are against the  malignant symbiotic relationship between the governmental leaders and giant financial, defense and other powerful companies, which makes a handful rich at the public trough.

1 Person 1 Vote

The big banks have gotten so powerful that they have corrupted the entire political process. Politicians are wholly bought and paid for.

Instead of 1 person 1 vote, our system has become One Billion Dollars, One Vote.

The people are sick of this.

One of the Primary Reasons for the American Revolution and the Current Anger

We also have “a dual justice system … one for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power”.

The legal system has devolved into a way for the 1% to enforce laws against the 99% … without having to follow any laws themselves. See this, this, this, this, this and this.

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

While the Founders accepted outcome inequality, they emphasized — over and over — that its legitimacy hinged on subjecting everyone to the law’s mandates on an equal basis. Jefferson wrote that the essence of America would be that “the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar.” Benjamin Franklin warned that creating a privileged legal class would produce “total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections” between rulers and those they ruled. Tom Paine repeatedly railed against “counterfeit nobles,” those whose superior status was grounded not in merit but in unearned legal privilege.

After all, one of their principal grievances against the British King was his power to exempt his cronies from legal obligations. Almost every Founder repeatedly warned that a failure to apply the law equally to the politically powerful and the rich would ensure a warped and unjust society. In many ways, that was their definition of tyranny.

***

That catches the mood of America in 2011. It may not explain the Occupy Wall Street movement, but it helps explain why it has spread like wildfire and why so many Americans seem instantly to accept and support it. As was not true in recent decades, the American relationship with wealth inequality is in a state of rapid transformation.

It is now clearly understood that, rather than apply the law equally to all, Wall Street tycoons have engaged in egregious criminality — acts which destroyed the economic security of millions of people around the world — without experiencing the slightest legal repercussions. Giant financial institutions were caught red-handed engaging in massive, systematic fraud to foreclose on people’s homes and the reaction of the political class, led by the Obama administration, was to shield them from meaningful consequences. Rather than submit on an equal basis to the rules, through an oligarchical, democracy-subverting control of the political process, they now control the process of writing those rules and how they are applied.

Today, it is glaringly obvious to a wide range of Americans that the wealth of the top 1% is the byproduct not of risk-taking entrepreneurship, but of corrupted control of our legal and political systems. Thanks to this control, they can write laws that have no purpose than to abolish the few limits that still constrain them, as happened during the Wall Street deregulation orgy of the 1990s. They can retroactively immunize themselves for crimes they deliberately committed for profit, as happened when the 2008 Congress shielded the nation’s telecom giants for their role in Bush’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping program.

It is equally obvious that they are using that power not to lift the boats of ordinary Americans but to sink them. In short, Americans are now well aware of what the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Illinois’s Dick Durbin, blurted out in 2009 about the body in which he serves: the banks “frankly own the place.”

If you were to assess the state of the union in 2011, you might sum it up this way: rather than being subjected to the rule of law, the nation’s most powerful oligarchs control the law and are so exempt from it; and increasing numbers of Americans understand that and are outraged. At exactly the same time that the nation’s elites enjoy legal immunity even for egregious crimes, ordinary Americans are being subjected to the world’s largest and one of its harshest penal states, under which they are unable to secure competent legal counsel and are harshly punished with lengthy prison terms for even trivial infractions.

In lieu of the rule of law — the equal application of rules to everyone — what we have now is a two-tiered justice system in which the powerful are immunized while the powerless are punished with increasing mercilessness. As a guarantor of outcomes, the law has, by now, been so completely perverted that it is an incomparably potent weapon for entrenching inequality further, controlling the powerless, and ensuring corrupted outcomes.

The tide that was supposed to lift all ships has, in fact, left startling numbers of Americans underwater. In the process, we lost any sense that a common set of rules applies to everyone, and so there is no longer a legitimizing anchor for the vast income and wealth inequalities that plague the nation.

That is what has changed, and a growing recognition of what it means is fueling rising citizen anger and protest. The inequality under which so many suffer is not only vast, but illegitimate, rooted as it is in lawlessness and corruption. Obscuring that fact has long been the linchpin for inducing Americans to accept vast and growing inequalities. That fact is now too glaring to obscure any longer.

That is what the protesters are upset about.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Karl-Erik Paasonen

    What a curious post. I’ve really appreciated the way Washingtonsblog has put up links to ongoing Occupy events; and has commented about attempts on the part of Democrat-aligned organisations to co-opt. But isn’t this paean to the ‘free market’ just doing the same thing? Trying to co-opt in the name of an ideology? To say “The protesters aren’t against capitalism. We are against the malignant symbiotic relationship between the governmental leaders and giant financial, defense and other powerful companies, which makes a handful rich at the public trough” is to make a claim about what one category of people, ‘the protesters’, believe or don’t believe, and then to conjure up a ‘we’ that includes them. But does it in fact? I’ve no doubt the majority of participants ARE against what this ‘we’ are against. But to say that the ‘protesters’ are not against capitalism seems to me to be stretching it, at least on my reading of their websites. Some, maybe many, may not be against capitalism as a whole at this point, but that may change. What they are for, is what remains undefined. Certainly not traditional state socialism. But do you really think all these people would be putting in all this effort and facing all this danger just to have Glass-Steagall reinstated, or to see a few cosmetic changes made to electoral funding laws? I would very much doubt they are doing it for any notional ‘free market’ either. The amount of people power needed to break up the TBTFs and break the cronyism built into the electoral system, should that critical mass be reached, is hardly likely to be satisfied with something as theoretical as a ‘free market’, when they’ve just experienced what freeing up one part of the market, the financial sector, does to them. It’s more likely to be more and deeper regulation … for a start. But that said, I do wish to reiterate how much I have appreciated the posts I find at this blog. I post them on almost daily (with full attribution, of course). My very best Karl-Erik, Canberra, Australia.

 

 

Twitter