WHO'S GONNA SAVE CAPITALISM THIS TIME?

Maybe my friend Evan can do it. Someone's gonna have to-- and soon, I think. And Evan's great-grandpa did it last time. As tempted as I am to blame it on "Bush"-- and I'm more than willing to blame everything bad in the universe on him (and with a straight face)-- the impending breakdown in capitalism is bigger than Bush. True, Bush's policies and the activities of his regime and of his supporters are hastening the inevitable. But... inevitable is...inevitable. Last time it was during the horrible terms of 3 really crappy presidents in a row: Harding, Coolidge and Hoover (1921-1933; then Evan's great-grandpa rode in on a white horse and saved the day). The reactionary policies of these three Republican corporatists-- especially the first two of the trio-- allowed, even encouraged, unfettered avarice to run amuck in the "business community." Harding, Coolidge and Hoover didn't understand the role of government in ameliorating the selfishness of corporate capitalism for their constituents. The idea of government as a society's buffer against unscrupulous forces wasn't something Harding, Coolidge and Hoover grokked. Harding was almost as brainless as Bush. And almost as lazy. All during his pathetic career he let the Republican Party bosses call all the shots while he stumbled from one job to another. A deadlocked GOP convention in 1920 needed a compromise candidate who wouldn't offend anyone. What they got was a bumbling imbecile who couldn't wait to serve the interests The Rich in general and of corporatism in particular. His disasterous regime slashed taxes as soon as it could and he did whatever he could to make sure "Business" (meaning BIG business, not entrepreneurs) could-- unfettered by the public interest-- do whatever they could get away with. He also presided over the singularly most corrupt regime in the history of 20th Century America, with an astounding number of his cronies and appointees using their official positions for their personal enrichment. When he died in 1923, the country might have been saved from the inevitable-- is that even possible?-- but his vice president, Calvin Cooliddge, was an even more aggressively horrible leader. No one summed up this dufus better than Walter Lippman in 1926 by pointing out that his one talent, effectively to do NOTHING about the darkly threatening problems starting to beset America, "suits all the business interests which want to be let alone.... And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy. . ." To be let alone to... well, let's just say that "let the buyer beware" has never been more important to keepin mind for the average American until Bush stole Florida (and thereby the presidency) in 2000. Coolidge was all about getting his photo taken with visiting dignitaries and wearing Indian headdresses while Big Business was encouraged to rape and pillage. And they did. Within months of Hoover taking over, the stock market crashed and even Republicans realized the country was in deep shit. Hoover didn't cause it but his tepid policies didn't help.

It all comes down to a philosophy about what the role of government is. The Left vs The Right. Progressives vs Conservatives. The Right (conservatives) believes the best government is the least government. For all the ballyhoo about their recent alliance with fundamental religionists, they are very Darwinian. They really do believe in the Law of the Jungle-- the strongest will survive. To the Right, self-interest in general-- and self-interest in business in particular-- will lead to advances in society and to a furthering of the general welfare (and some nice trickle-down for everyone). The Left believes that government must act on behalf of society in general-- and particularly on behalf of those who cannot stand up to organized, motivated business-- to watch out for the general welfare.

Legally, corporations are not people. Corporate organization, in fact, is a great way for "investors" to evade responsibility and liabilities for what businesses do. For example, if Clyde starts a copper-smelting company and dumps a bunch of chemicals into the river and Floyd's and Daisy's baby Melvin is born with 3 ears and has feet where his hands are supposed to be and hands growing out of his butt, Floyd and Daisy can sue Clyde and if they win a judgment against him they can put a lien against his personal assets. But if Clyde does this by starting a corporation, Floyd and Daisy can go after the corporation but can't go after Clyde's personal assets outside that corporation.

People talk about-- and think about-- corporations as though they are people. Human attributes, like emotions for example, are assigned to corporate entities. "Warner Bros Records likes rock music but Arista is more a fan of pop music" or "United Airlines cares less about passenger comfort and safety than British Air" may have rings of Truth to them but there is a fallacy behind them. Corporations don't "like" or "care" and are not "fans." Corporations exist to maximize profits (at one time for the shareholders, more recently for the managers). It's a mistake to assign them any kind of humanity. We're the humans; they're... inanimate entities with very specific financial purposes.

Now I used to work for a "great" corporation, one that was very successful in presenting a human face. The founder was an entrepreneurial spirit, not a "corporate hack." In other words, he had a vision and he built the business and he hired people who shared his spirit and vision and ethics. Entrepreneurs want to build great businesses that are profitable AND that foster good relations with clients, suppliers, employees, neighbors, Society, etc. Why? Well, that's a good business model for THE LONG TERM. Aside from possibly being idealistic, entrepreneurs are likely to want to have something that lives on after them (at least something of great value for the heirs). But if you're
horizon is the quarter or even just a year or two and your mind is on a bonus, the long term health of the business is not what you care about. That tends to be the state of affairs inside corporations these days. Eventually the entrepreneur died and he was replaced by hacks whose only real skills were in-company knife fighting and ass-kissing and this led to my corporation getting swallowed up by a big giant dotcom corporation with no "feelings." The dotcom managerial hierarchy was all about grotesque and predatory greed and avarice. The feelings of self-entitlement and unbounded greed knew no boundaries (literally) and the managers, very consciously, set out to screw the suppliers, screw the employees (really badly), screw the owners (shareholders) and screw Society. They seem to have lined their pockets with BILLIONS of dollars and have brought the company to the precipice of bankruptcy, selling off pieces in ways that benefited only themselves and not any of the shareholders or stakeholders. They are staunch right-wing Republicans. (The founder and his managerial hierarchy were staunch progressive Democrats, by the way.)

Is there a role for our elected representatives-- and their appointees-- in all this type of stuff? Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Bush don't think so. Progressives do. Does Society-- all of us collectively-- need to determine that we want to live in a "decent" and "fair" world and act on that?
Again, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Bush don't think so. Roosevelt did. The fall out from unlimited, unfettered capitalism of the corporatist type led directly to the Great Depression. There were 3 approaches-- The Left: Communism (stringing up the greedy capitalist pigs and abolishing private property and administering everything from the point of view of a totalitarian state), The Right: Fascism (melding the interests of a nationalistic, totalitarian and aggressive state with the interests of the corporations), and The Middle: Democracy (reining in the excesses of unfettered capitalism in the interests of the whole society). Roosevelt saved capitalism by offering the state as a buffer against its excesses. Who will save us from the surging forces of resurrected unbounded corporate greed wedded to the interests of backward religionist rubes? I want to do some thinking about that and I'll get back with you. (My friend Evan is too young for that right at the moment.)