American Elites And Debt Crisis

James Constant

[email protected]

              Historean Zinn (1920-2010) sets forth the unending struggles between American corporations and workers and claims that government is in the hands of ruling elites not government of and for the people.[1] Zinn was most interested in social movements and how they effect social change. He spent his life finding out and explaining how American presidents have failed the people in the past, and how the people have organized movements to overcome those failings. Certainly, America was built by capitalists and workers but the bottom line is that, while workers through social movements have secured social security and civil rights, capitalists have wound up with enormous wealth and global dominence. It is social movements that grab the attention of politicians and affect policy, and social change has always come with struggle. Zinn says presidents should be pushed. In the present work, I claim government and workers operate, along with corporations, as parts of a living biological cell. Social movements are people's responses to conditions set by government of and for elites. Using the same historical facts Zinn talks about I claim that government can never be in the hands of and for the people. I differ with Zinn in his hope that his guards will someday join with prisoners to eliminate injustice. I say that elites will never join with people except in their biological roles as rulers (good or bad) and ruled. Injustice, to some degree or another, is the hallmark of every society. My citations to Zinn's facts are too numerous to include. To the reader, I say look up Zinn's book and elsewhere for historical details.

Elites Wealth And Capitalism

ELITES domestic, global, trilateral commission

            First, lets talk about elites. Who are they? In general, elites exist in all types of societies, primitive and advanced. In modern capitalist, socialist, communist, authoritarian and totalitarian societies, there are several versions with similar interests. The power elite, count the military as part of the top elite, along with politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers and corporations. The courtroom is one instance of the fact that while our society may be liberal and democratic in some large and vague sense, its moving parts, its smaller chambers--its classrooms, its workplaces, its corporate boardrooms, its jails, its military barracks--are flagrantly undemocratic, dominated by one commanding person or a tiny elite of power. Next, the wealthy elite are the chief financial beneficiaries of government acts, laws and regulations. They are also the chief beneficiaries of spending and wars waged by government. In today's environment, people refer to elites as the 1% and to themselves as the 99%. Academics refer to rulers and ruled.

            Elites rule in every country. The elite's weapons are money, control of military power, government and press. Children, minorities and poor people have been used throughout history-as poorly paid mercenaries fighting to keep or put an elite group in power. No laws are enacted that do not benefit elites in some way and concessions are made to people only when necessary to mitigate unrest. Elites cooperate on a global basis by exchanging ideas privately. They view government as securing all benefits to them and shifting all risks to the public. When forced and able, they will yield minimum benefits to mitigate public unrest.

            The Constitution illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The modestly and greatly prosperous "middle class" people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Latinos, the Indians, and the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law--all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity. Capitalist elites love American democracy because it can be easily manipulated to split the vote enabling divide and conquor.

            When people distrust the elite, they are open to solutions from any direction, right or left. Nevertheless, people's movements, although they show an infinite capacity for recurrence, have so far been either defeated or absorbed or perverted by new or old elites. "Socialist" and "Communist" revolutionists with their elites have betrayed socialism and communism, and "nationalist" revolutions and house coups have led to new dictatorships. In South Africa's apartheid movement, the change from white to black elites has made no change in the lives of ordinary people. The new black elites are as brutal as their white apartheid elites were. Successful revolutions just change rulers and managers.

            Elites, corporations, government and people form the State which resembles a biological cell. Elites want power and wealth, corporations want profits, government wants stability and people want jobs and welfare. All want external and internal security. These wants are beyond needs, are not freely secured and must be obtained by struggle. No corporation, government and people can call themselves free who do not own and control their own affairs. Notwithstanding the pronouncements of constitutions, history and practice affirm that elites, corporations and government, the 1% more free, control people, the 99% less free.

            In 1954, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, an international conference was held at which western elites discussed political, economic, and defense issues. The Bilderberg conference, is now an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence. About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public. Historically, attendee lists have been weighted towards bankers, politicians, and directors of large businesses. The Bilderberg conference is a meeting ground for top executives from the world’s leading multinational corporations and top national political figures to consider jointly the immediate and long-term problems facing the West. The idea is that when Bilderberg participants reach a form of consensus about what is to be done they have at their disposal powerful national and international connections for bringing about their wants, namely, power and wealth. That their consensus design has always been achieved, is demonstrated by the West's power and wealth.

            In the 1970's, having organized America and the American system as a world capitalist state with many players, global capitalist elites formed an elite fraternity to exchange ideas. A group of capitalist intellectuals and political leaders from Japan, the United States, and Western Europe, organized into The Trilateral Commission, which issued a report entitled "The Governability of Democracies". The reason for the Trilateral Commission was the need for greater unity among capitalist Japan, Western Europe, and the United States in the face of much more complicated threats to global capitalism than a monolithic Communism, namely, revolutionary movements in the Third World and emerging third world powers like Brazil, India and Russia. These movements had directions of their own. The Trilateral Commission apparently saw itself as helping to create the necessary international links for the new multinational economy. Its members came from the highest circles of elite politics, business, and the media in Western Europe, Japan, and the United States.

            However, the strength of competing resisting forces outside the capitalist ruling classes within each Western government pose new issues for the Bilderburg conference and Trilateral Commission to consider. At play, now, is the decline of the West due to debt crisis induced by globalization and Islam's jihadi threat. Wealth and power is now leaving the West and heading to the emerging economies in Asia and Latin Amertica, and permanent wars against muslim fanatics are draining America's treasury.

WEALTH top 1%, bottom 40%

            The next pie chart shows that the top 1% owns 38.1% of wealth, the next 4% owns 21.3% etc. The bottom 40% of Americans own 0.2% of wealth. America's total financial (stocks and bonds) and tangible (houses and cars) wealth is estimated by various researchers between about $50-$180 trillion dollars.[2]

            Ironically, the $16 trillion dollar public debt can be easily paid off by wealthy elites leaving them with the largest part of their assets. However, mindfull of not offending their wealth elite paymasters, neither political party talks about using wealth to pay off the national debt. Democrats talk about increasing taxes on high earners and Republicans talk about reducing welfare spending.

        Wealth now separates America into three separate classes, super-rich 1%, semi-rich 59% and poor 40%. The term "middle class" is mythology whose only purpose is to perpetuate public ignorance of the distribution of wealth. If one considers that the term semi-rich 59% includes modest and great wealth owners, one can say that the semi-rich 59% class can be seen as having subclasses of modestly-rich (say 50%) and greatly-rich (say 9%).

CAPITALISM democracy, Constitution

        Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. It requires cheap materials, labor and money and pays no allegiance to the type of government it works in. In America, pretending that the government is democratic and stands for everyone, and people accepting this myth as fact, the capitalist system has been relatively stable for several hundred years while capitalism consolidated itself in industry and government. Under ideal conditions found in a new undeveloped continent, capitalism built America because land, labor and money were cheap. When working people wanted radical change, seeing the root of their misery in the capitalist system, reforms were made that left capitalism intact.

         Capitalism and democracy are not mentioned in the Constitution but are widely perceived as being the founding principles of America. Nor is socialism mentioned in the Constitution but about 59% of Federal Mandatory Spending in the federal budget is welfare for the people. However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It calls for a strong federal government and establishes a representative, not a democratic paid for by business government. The first three Articles of the Constitution establish the rules and separate powers of the three branches of the federal government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a federal judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. The last four Articles frame the principle of federalism. The constitutional amendments, the Bill of Rights demanded by people, were added to bring people's rights into the law and were made to pass the document. The Tenth Amendment confirms its federal characteristics. The Constitution's vision of government by and for people is no longer evident. More evident is capitalism's vision of government by and for elites.

            The government's vision has always been the capitalistic encouragement of enormous fortunes alongside desperate poverty, a nationalistic acceptance of war and preparations for war. The 1980s were the triumph of upper America, the political ascendancy of the rich, and a glorification of capitalism, free markets, and finance. To secure resources and profits, the policy is socialist peace at home and capitalist war abroad without the troublesome interference of Congress. As required by the Constitution, wars must be declared by Congress. The Vietnam, Cambodian, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybian wars were made without declarations of war by Congress. At home, Congress has enacted laws without the procedural rights provided in the Constitution. Even with properly enacted laws, the wide discretion of judges allows them to make decisions depriving citizens of their procedural rights provided in the Constitution. Laws cancel constitutional protections. Patent and eminent domain cases take property from citizens and for dimes on the dollar give that property to corporations. Conflicts exist between the Constitution and laws concerning the rights of citizens to privacy and protection from arbitrary searches and seizures. Petitions to higher courts are denied without opinion and refused publication as precedents. Is capitalism constitutionally protected? Because property rights are protected, America's judges say yes. Indeed, Constitutional protections are liberally extended to corporations now declared legal persons under the laws. Because of costs and the wide discretion of judges, no citizen with a valid claim can beat a corporation in court, and courtrooms are reserved for disputes between corporations. For all practical purposes, the Bill of Rights no longer exists in America's courtrooms for individuals who are at the mercy of government vetted judges and lawyers paid at corporate rates. In effect, Constitutional protections of capitalism have deprived Constitutional protections of individuals. The bottom line is that government organized by capitalist elites has led to a separation of classes and who gets protected by the law. Conflicts also exist between international law and American law, especially in areas of human rights.

Taxes Banks and Deregulation

TAXES payers, deficit, national debt

            The next bar graph from the conservative Heritage Foundation shows that 49% pay no federal income tax and the 51% that do pay unequally. The top 1% pays 38% and the bottom 50% pays only 3%. Lower taxes mean more income retained by 51% of taxpayers. However, the issue is not who pays the most taxes but whether taxes paid are enough to cover federal spending.

            The next bar graph from the Congressional Budget Office shows that 83% of taxes are paid by individuals and social security, 7.9% by corporations and 9.1% by duties, excise and estate taxes.

            Since spending in 2011 was $3.64 trillion and tax revenues were $2.3 trillion, the shortfall is $1.34 trillion which can be covered in one or combination of five ways (1) debt (2) tax 51% of taxpayers (3) confiscate the wealth of 51% of taxpayers (4) cut social programs (5) cut military spending. Since the total national debt is $16 trillion, adding debt (1), taxing 51% of taxpayers (2) and cutting social programs (4) are the most, and confiscating the wealth of 51% of taxpayers (3) and cutting military spending (5) are the least, desirable ways of obtaining voter approvals, stabilizing the system and leaving capitalism in place. To maintain profit and protect wealth Democrats are endorsing increasing debt (1) and taxes (2) while Republicans call for cutting social programs (4). Neither party endorses cutting military spending (5) and no one talks about confiscating wealth (3). How skillful to tax the modestly-rich and greatly-rich "middle class" (59%) to pay for the relief of the poor (40%), while the wealth of the super-rich (1%) remain untouched and the wealth of the nation is drained for wars.

BANKS gold standard, Glass-Steagall Act, bank casinos

            From the mid 1870s until shortly after WWI, the international currency systems ran off the principles of the gold exchange model. The gold standard put an end to the practice of monarchs and dictators of indiscriminately degrading money to pay off loans and debt, which was and still is a major trigger of inflation. However, the gold standard had many problems as the industrial revolution advanced. The primary problem was the peaks and valleys that many countries experienced due, in large part, to the economic instability caused by a lack of gold reserves and a devaluation of other commodities. This environment of different exchange rates brought in speculators who, because of their high level of speculation and guesswork, ultimately brought about the the Great Depression.

            Having learned the lesson of depressions, panics and bank failures, Congress enacted the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation. The Act limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. After WWII, business wanted freedom from the Act. Congress obliged and the Act was repealed in 1999 and the bank casinos were open for business.

            Basically, there are four lines of a bank's business, each with its own added risks: (1) lending and deposit business, (2) asset management, (3) foreign exchange trading and (4) securities issuing. Most people are familiar with (1). While bank loans are often the only source of outside financing for many small and medium-sized banks, a substantial proportion of the capital raised by larger banks comes from (2) – (4). Asset management (2) is a trust function between the asset owner and bank which depends on the depositor's trust in the bank's integrity. Foreign exchange trading (3) and securities issueing (4) are volatile sources of income and constitute the casino components of a bank's business. Foreign exchange trading (3) depends on the bank's ability to exploit even the slightest differences between exchange rates (arbitrage) using its own, not customer's deposit (1) and asset management (2), money. Securities issueing (4) depends on correctly valueing issues and matching issuers and buyers of securities. It was largely foreign exchange trading (3) and securities issueing (4), with and without customer money (1) and (2), that brought down the big banks and stock market and collapsed the economy during the 2010's.

DEREGULATIONS banks, bank income, housing collapse

             To increase profits, wealth sought deregulations of their operations. The deregulation of the savings and loan banks began in the Carter (1977-81) administration and continued for all banks under Reagan (1981-89), leading to risky investments which drained the assets of the banks, leaving them owing billions of dollars to depositors, which the government had insured. Affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, who publicly declared, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant." Banks now engaged in an expanding list and volume of securities activities. The repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis as it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositor's money that was held in affiliated commercial banks. The next bar chart shows how bank income 

swiftly increased after the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 and then dramatically dropped in years 2008-2009 for having made bad debts and bringing the economy to its knees. Some 20 of the largest banks failed and were bailed out by the government, no one was prosecuted, and bank income rebounded smartly in 2010 and 2011. Having made bad loans to uncreditworthy people and having caused caused huge drops in home values, the bailed banks showed public gratitude by squeezing homeowners to pay back their loans on homes whose values had declined below bank issued mortgages.

Federal Spending Welfare And War

FEDERAL SPENDING mandatory, discretionary

            As shown in the next pie chart 66% of federal spending is mandatory and 34% is discretionary. Mandatory spending includes welfare (social security 20%, medicare 13%, medicade 8%, safety net 10%, food stamps 3.2% and other 4.8%), and debt (7%). Discretionary

spending includes military spending 20% and government agencies 14%. About 40% of spending is financed by foreign debt. As evidenced by Federal Discretionary Spending for the wars in Irak and Afghanistan has added about $172 billion to the national debt. All Federal spending, rules and regulations, are the greatest sources of profits for the capitalist elites.

WAR causes, effects, Pax Americana

            War is the obvious external threat to a society. Heraclitus (535?-475? B.C.) said that war is the father of all, and war has indeed been the rule of history. The causes of war are the same as the causes of competition among individuals: acquisitiveness, pugnacity, and pride; the desire for food, land, materials, fuels, mastery. Like individuals, groups and nations compete for food and resources. War is the ultimate form of competition. Society and government change when external war and defeat occur or when internally many people are offended and bring about change, peacefully or violently. In the meantime, ordinary people must suffer any offenses inherent to their type of society. Moral laxity of European and American cities after two world wars was almost a picture of Athens and Rome after they reached their peaks. The great civilizations were torn apart by wars.

            Today, the U.S. has 900 overseas military bases in 130 countries which serve as global police forces and support the ongoing wars, as guarantors of Pax Americana. The beneficiaries of the war policy are the military industries. They employ about 3.54 million workers and generate about $325 billion in sales. U. S. arms sales abroad account for about 75% of the global market. The Chief Executive Officers of the top 5 Pentagon contractors make average salaries of $4.5 million in annual compensation. There is a revolving door between industry, military and Pentagon executives. The next table lists hot and cold wars conducted by presidents since WWII in1945.

            The various administrations, did not appear at all offended by authoritarian regimes governing in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and in Latin America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile) if they were "friendly" to the United States, but became very upset when a tyranny, or even a democratically elected government, was or became hostile (Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chili, Guatemala, El Salvador).

WELFARE programs, corporation profits, politicians

            Today, welfare includes Social Security, the crowning social program of the 1930's, and the social programs of the 1960's- Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, which consume about 59% of the $3.64 trillion dollar federal spending. The remaining spending pays debt 7% and supports America's global military system 20% and domestic agencies 12%. Clearly, the policy is socialist peace at home and capitalist war abroad.

            The social programs do just enough for blacks, women, and working people to keep their support, while trying to win over white conservative voters with a program of toughness on crime and a strong military. Such a coalition was created by liberal democratic presidents whose welfare programs at home (Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Truman's "Fair Deal") are attractive to liberals and whose aggressive policy abroad are supported by conservatives. The federal spending pie chart clearly shows how wealth is being transferred to elites. Mandatory spending puts money indirectly in the hands of corporations since welfare receivers spend it on corporate products and services. Discretionary spending puts money directly in the hands of corporations in the form of government contracts. Corporate profits, supported by regulations and law, create wealth. From the pie chart, if one excludes about 3% debt spending to foreigners, one can conclude that the entire federal spending goes to corporations and that some percentage is profit. If one assumes profit is 10% then $365 billion federal spending winds up as annual corporate profit. Moreover, foreign spending, commercial and military, must be added to corporate profits.

            Democrats often join Republicans in denouncing welfare programs. Presumably, this is done to gain political support from a semi-rich "middle-class" public that believes it pays taxes to support teenage mothers and people they think are too lazy to work. Much of the public did not know, and were not informed by either political leaders or the media, that when government policy enriched the already rich, it was not called welfare and that welfare for the poor was necessary for both humane (to mitigate suffering) and political purposes (to mitigate unrest). Most Americans have fundamental generosity and government has practical reasons for helping their poorest neighbors. It seems that the constant attacks on welfare by politicians, reported endlessly in the press and on television, are intended to protect the greatest beneficiaries of government, the wealthy. Thus, during the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush the greatest beneficiaries were the super-rich.

Corporations Government And People

CORPORATIONS reforms, regulations, big government

          Corporations whose motive is profits need cheap materials, labor and money. Their power commands the government and people of the United States. Over the last two hundred years, the American government has served the interests of the wealthy and powerful, offering millions of acres of free land to the railroads, setting high tariffs to protect manufacturers, giving tax breaks to oil corporations, and using its armed forces to suppress strikes and rebellions and securing resources overseas. Government has and now operates as chair of a board that represents corporations.

            As people moved to better their miserable work conditions, a new approach was needed to control them. The new approach was concerned with the long-range stability of the system, even at the cost, sometimes, of short-term profits. It represented a growing maturity and sophistication on the part of many large corporation leaders who had come to understand that social reform was needed to preserve their power and, thus, was truly conservative. It was to stabilize the system in the face of labor unrest that the Wagner Act of 1935, setting up a National Labor Relations Board, had been passed. The wave of strikes in 1936, 1937, 1938, made the need even more pressing. The Wagner Act mandated that the government could regulate interstate commerce, and that strikes hurt interstate commerce. From the trade union's point of view, the new law was an aid to union organizing. From the government's point of view it was an aid to the stability of commerce. With fewer strikes, jobs were created and secured. However, it was WWII that put almost everyone to work, and the war did something else: it brought on patriotism, the push for unity of all classes against enemies overseas, and made it harder to mobilize anger against the corporations and government.

          After WWII, business worries about taxes and regulation seemed to override the safety of the public but this was not as important as "the economy"-that is, the needs of corporations. Indeed, the preservation of a huge military establishment and the retention of profit levels of corporations were twin objectives of the post WWII administrations. Big government now gives huge contracts to military contractors and generous subsidies and tax breaks to corporations at exorbitant levels. When big banks and financial institutions make bad debts and fail, big government bails them out. It was only in the twentieth century, especially in the 1930's and 1960's, when the government, besieged by protests and fearful of the stability of the system, passed social legislation for the poor that political leaders and business executives, fearfull of escalating costs and taxes, complained about "big government." Instead of giving out contracts for jet bombers and nuclear submarines, people felt contracts could be offered to hire people to build homes, construct public transport systems, clean up the rivers and lakes, turn our cities into decent places to live. Americans wanting real change are still waiting. Legal robbery of the treasury by the corporations was accompanied by the illegal crimes of the poor.

GOVERNMENT business, people, wars

            By its actions and inactions, government seeks to protect business, and preserve internal and external stability. Doing so, it must navigate a fine line between elites, corporations and people. Since bankers and corporate interests dominate all government executive, legislative and judicial branches, it has opportunities to control the wants of all. When one looks at the statements of rights and laws enacted by Congress, it is corporations and government that need laws and rights to insulate them from people's rights and the physical reality and directness of the people.

            The alliance between big business and the government went back to the very first proposals of Alexander Hamilton to Congress after the Revolutionary War. Madison feared a "majority faction" and hoped the new Constitution would control it. He and his colleagues began the Preamble to the Constitution with the words "We the people ...," pretending that the new government stood for everyone, and hoping that this myth, accepted as fact, would ensure "domestic tranquility". However, the Bill of Rights, the people's part of the Constitution, was a concession added so the Constitution would pass. In time, the system of capitalism consolidated itself in industry and government. It is very important for the Establishment - that uneasy club of business executives, generals, and politicos - to maintain the historic pretension of national unity, in which the government represents all the people, and the common enemy is overseas, not at home, where disasters of economics or war are unfortunate errors or tragic accidents, to be corrected by the members of the same club that brought on the disasters. For "We the People . . ." it is the Bill of Rights that counts.

            Thus, "Big government" had, in fact, begun with the Founding Fathers, who deliberately set up a strong central government to protect the interests of the bondholders, the slave owners, the land speculators, the manufacturers. It was only in the twentieth century, especially in the 1930's and 1960's, when the government, besieged by protests and fearful of the stability of the system, passed social legislation for the people. Today, both parties are allied with the rich and cover this over with a lot of different kinds of rhetoric. Democrats take a softer approach because they need the votes of the labor unions, women, latinos and black people. Nevertheless, whether you have Republicans or Democrats in power, big business is the most powerful voice in the halls of Congress and in the ears of the president of the United States. Government works for people with money. Governmental power has swung from Republicans to Democrats and back again, but neither party showed itself capable of going beyond that vision.

            By World War II the partnership between business and government had developed and intensified but just as disturbing to both, was the upsurge all over the world of colonial peoples demanding independence. Since WWII, the whole aim of practical politics has been to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of threats. Thus, criminals, immigrants, people on "welfare," and certain governments—currently Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba are threats. By turning attention to them, by inventing or exaggerating their dangers, the failures of the American system could be concealed.

        WWII and the Soviet threat gave the government the opportunity to militarize the economy. It was an atmosphere in which the government could get mass support for a policy of rearmament. The Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative agreement was to prevent or overthrow disliked revolutionary governments whenever possible whether Communist, Socialist, nationalist or authoritarian. The Soviet threat was top most and was countered by a mass missile buildup and global deployments. This threat ended when the Soviet system collapsed from its internal corruption, inefficient organization by its elites, and inability to compete with America's armaments buildup. The Chinese threat was next and ended in the Korean war stalemate in which Korea was split into the Chinese allied north and U.S. Allied south. Ironically, unlike the Soviets, the Chinese have organized an efficient economic and political system and are now our creditors. The U.S. then tried hard to preclude the Vietnamese to choose their own government and public support started eroding. As early as 1970, according to the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, "trust in government" was low in every section of the population. The government's own secret memoranda all through the Vietnam war testify to its sensitivity at each stage about "public opinion". Public support no longer supported wars in the sense it had during WWII.

            A coup in 1973 replaced Chile's president by a military dictatorship led by general Pinochet supported by the U.S. which acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup. It was also learned from an investigation that the CIA—with the collusion of a secret Committee of Forty headed by Henry Kissinger— had worked to "destabilize" the Chilean government headed by Salvadore Allende, a Marxist who had been elected president in one of the rare free elections in Chile.

            In Iran, the Shah had been restored to power in a 1953 coup organized by the CIA at the American Embassy against a democratically-elected nationalist Iranian government, and more recently he had been allowed into the United States for medical treatment. During the Iranian revolution against the Shah, a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. President Carter called the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy", adding that the "United States will not yield to blackmail". The episode reached a climax when, after failed attempts to negotiate a release, the United States military attempted a rescue operation on April 24, 1980, which resulted in a failed mission, the deaths of eight American servicemen, one Iranian civilian, and the destruction of two aircraft. Afraid of dire consequences from a newly elected president, the hostages were formally released into United States custody the following day, just minutes after the new American hardline president Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

          In the Reagan (1981-89) - G.H.W. Bush (1989-93) years the United States government showed a special aggressiveness in the use of military force abroad. The Iran-contra affair was only one of the many instances in which the government of the United States violated its own laws in pursuit of some desired goal in foreign policy. The greatest beneficiaries of government policy during the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were the super-rich. It was the truly wealthy, more than anyone else, who flourished under Reagan.

         What the Clinton (1993-01) administration steadfastly refused to do was to establish government programs to create jobs, as had been done in the New Deal era, when billions were spent to give employment to several million people, from construction workers and engineers to artists and writers. Clinton and the Republicans, in joining against "big government," were aiming only at social services. The other manifestations of big government were huge contracts to military contractors and generous subsidies to corporations-continued at exorbitant levels. Reduction of the annual deficit in order to achieve a "balanced budget" became an obsession of the Clinton administration. But since Clinton did not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, or to cut funds for the military, the only alternative was to sacrifice the poor, the children, the aged-to spend less for health care, for food stamps, for education, for single mothers. The use of force was still central to U.S. foreign policy. Despite Clinton's 1997 Inaugural Day promise of a "new government," there was no bold program to take care of these needs. Such a program would require huge expenditures of money. There were ways of raising this money, but the Clinton administration, like its predecessors, was not inclined to turn to them, given the powerful influence of corporate wealth.

        The Democratic Party, its fundamental philosophy not too different, became a timid opposition, going along completely with G.W. Bush (2001-09) on his foreign policy, and differing from him only mildly on his domestic policy. On 11 September, 2001, 19 Arabs, mostly Saudi Arabians, commandeered and crashed airliners into the twin tower skyscrapers in Manhattan and the Pentagon. Claiming that terrorist Bin Laden was to blame, Bush grabbed the opportunity to attack the Taliban government of Afghanistan. On 5 October 2001, the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in an Afghan court, so long as the United States provided what it called "solid evidence" of his guilt, but the U.S. would not hand over its evidence to the Taliban. Congress rushed to pass resolutions giving Bush the power to proceed with military action, without the declaration of war that the Constitution required. The American public, ever since the calamity of September 11, in which some 3,000 Americans were killed, was overwhelmingly supportive of Bush's policy of a "war on terrorism." Again, without declaring war and persuading the United Nations to make a resolution, in 2003 Bush attacked Iraq claiming it was developing weapons of mass destruction. This time the public was less supportive of Bush's policy of war on "weapons of mass destruction". After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion. To date, the Afghan and Iraq wars have cost the public several trillion dollars and have seriously eroded American's freedoms and trust in government. Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which gave the Department of Justice the power to detain noncitizens simply on suspicion, without charges, without the procedural rights provided in the Constitution. Congress also created the new Homeland Security Agency to prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S., reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur. Its most visible presence is putting people to work screening airline passengers and searching their baggage. Conflicts exist between the Constitution and laws and procedures implemented as part of "Homeland Security", most importantly concerning the rights of citizens to privacy and protection from arbitrary searches and seizures. Conflicts also exist between international law and law applied under "Homeland Security". Some examples are defining "unlawful combatants" and "undercover agents". It is inherently impossible to gauge the benefits incurred by homeland security except to say it reassures the populace that government protects them at huge expense and loss of their own human and civil rights."Homeland" is the American equivalent to the Nazi use of "Fatherland" and the Soviet use of "Motherland".

            President Obama (2009- ) is a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that's hardly any different from a Republican—as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike. To secure oil rights, he provided military support that crushed dictator Khadafi in Libya. On domestic policy, traditionally Democratic presidents are more reformist, closer to the labor movement, more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people—and that's been true of Obama. But Democratic reforms have also been limited, cautious. Obama's no exception. After the failure of the banks that brought down the entire economy in 2008, he was provided with the greatest opportunity of the last half century, namely, to reign in the predatory banking system. Instead of letting failed banks fall and prosecuting bankers who had made bad debts with people's money, and causing the housing market and the economy to collapse, he bailed the bankers out and required debtors whose house values had fallen to pay back their loans to the bankers leaving the system intact and shifting losses to the public. On healthcare, which was enacted without Republican votes, Democrats cut Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), again leaving the system intact to pursue its foreign policy. In the area of constitutional rights he could be better because he went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But as president, he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. He keeps talking about closing Guantánamo military prison, but he still treats the prisoners of war there as "suspected terrorists”. They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured. People are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, but should understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president—which means, in our time, a dangerous president—unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction, as people pushed Roosevelt to provide jobs and welfare during the 1930's Great Depression.

            Throughout the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, jihadist leader bin Laden was a major target of the “War on Terror”, with a $25 million bounty by the FBI. On May 2, 2011, bin Laden was shot and killed inside a private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by members of the Navy and CIA in a covert operation ordered by president Obama. Bin Laden's death was advertized as having somehow won the “War on Terror” an obviously untrue claim serving only the purpose of satisfying the need for some kind of victory justifying the trillions of dollars spent. The “War on Terror” has now evolved using sophisticated surveillace satellites and drones, made by the war industry, to identify and kill lesser jihadist leasders in the deserts of Yemen. This policy must constitute progress since early bandits in the West were taken out by the cavalry.

PEOPLE capitalism, presidents, defects

            The democratic principle, enunciated in the words of the Declaration of Independence, declared that government was secondary, that the people who established it were primary. Thus, the future of democracy depended on the people, and their growing consciousness of what was the decent way to relate to their fellow human beings all over the world. As observed by Zinn, the greatest danger to democracy is civil obedience, the submission of individual conscience to governmental authority. Such obedience has led to the horrors we saw in totalitarian states, and in liberal states it led to the public's acceptance of war whenever the so-called democratic government decided on it. In America, about 55% of eligible voters vote and about 27.5% of the vote goes to each party. Thus, about 55% of the vote is made by Obedients and 45% by Abstinents. This calls into question whether democracy works in modern society. It also explains why capitalism loves democracy. To prevail, no force is required and it needs only to charm 27.5% of Obedient eligible voters. This can be done easily by maintaining a minimal semi-rich "middle class" and creating a two party system splitting the vote. In practice, democracy is nothing but a charmed 27.5% of Obedient eligible vioters. Since there is a strong correlation between Abstinent voters (45%) and poor people (40%), it is likely that only Obedient people vote. Obedients are those who pay taxes (51%).

            There has always been, and there is now, a profound conflict of interest between the people and the government of the United States. Jobs, welfare and security gained by people have come about by struggle. Democracy is not our government, our constitution, our legal structure. Too often they are enemies of democracy.

            At the turn of the last century, working people wanting radical change, seeing the root of their misery in the capitalist system, and moved toward a new kind of Socialist labor union. They split away from the AFL – American Federation of Labor – and formed the IWW - Industrial Workers of the World. The AFL was a union of skilled white workers closed to minorities and unskilled labor and was close to and easily controlled by government. The IWW took in minorities and unskilled workers and was confrontational to government. Independently, blacks formed the NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1910. The strikes were beaten down by force and the IWW and Socialist unions were destroyed. During the 1920's the economy experienced unprecedented growth and the bank and stock market casinos were gambling full time. Then came the stock market crash of 1929, which marked the beginning of the Great Depression of the United States, caused directly from wild speculation by elites which collapsed the banks and markets and brought the whole economy down with it.

            In the 1930's and 1940's, the meager benefits of Social Security were insignificant in comparison to the building of security for large, established businesses. In 1934 and 1935 the AFL began organizing in the new mass production industries-auto, rubber, packinghouse. A separate union was formed which then broke away and became the CIO-the Congress of Industrial Organizations. But it was rank-and-file strikes and insurgencies that pushed the union leadership, AFL and CIO, into action. The sit-downs were especially dangerous to the system because they were not controlled by the regular union leadership. New laws were passed and, undoubtedly, ordinary people benefited to some extent from these changes. The system was rich, productive, complex; it could give enough of a share of its riches to enough of the working class to create a protective shield between the bottom and the top of the society. It was to stabilize the system in the face of labor unrest that the Wagner Act of 1935 regulating interstate commerce and strikes was passed by Congress. When Roosevelt's New Deal was over, capitalism remained intact.The rich still controlled the nation's wealth, as well as its laws, courts, police, newspapers, churches, colleges. Enough help bad been given to enough people to make Roosevelt a hero to millions, but the same system that had brought depression and crisis-the system of waste, of inequality, of concern for profit over human need- remained.

            In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met off the coast of Newfoundland and released to the world the Atlantic Charter, setting forth noble goals for the postwar world, saying their countries "seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other," and that they respected "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." The Charter was celebrated as declaring the right of nations to self-determination. However, while in the Atlantic Charter and other pronouncements, the U.S. proclaimed support for national self-determination and independence, the age of Pax Americana was just begining. All told, as shown in the foregoing table, a number of hot and cold wars were engaged in by the U.S. and Soviet Union seeking capitalist or communist sympathies not self-determination by people. Thus, while the Atlantic Charter was an exhortation by war time politicians for people of all nations to fight Nazis and Fascists, it was meant they fight for capitalism in their countries.

            When John F. Kennedy (1961-63) took office, he launched the Alliance for Progress, a program of help for Latin America, emphasizing social reform to better the lives of people. But it turned out to be mostly military aid to keep in power right-wing dictatorships and enable them to stave off communist revolutions. The country was on a permanent war economy which had big pockets of poverty, but there were enough people at work, making enough money, to keep things quiet. On this middle ground, all seemed secure.

            The Vietnam war gave clear evidence that at least for that war the political leaders were the last to take steps to end the war-"the people " were far ahead. The president was always far behind. The Supreme Court silently turned away from cases challenging the constitutionality of the war. Congress was years behind public opinion. The administration tried to persuade the American people that the war was ending because of its decision to negotiate a peace-not because it was losing the war, not because of the powerful antiwar movement in the United States. But the government's own secret memoranda all through the war testify to its sensitivity at each stage about "public opinion" in the United States and abroad. The data is in the Pentagon Papers is clear—that president Johnson's (1963-69) decision in the spring of 1968 to turn down general Westmoreland's request, to slow down for the first time the escalation of the war, to diminish the bombing, to go to the conference table, was influenced to a great extent by the actions Americans had taken in demonstrating their opposition to the war. In fact, the United States had lost the war in both Vietnam and public opinion. It was the first clear defeat to the global American empire formed after World War II. It was administered by revolutionary elites and peasants abroad, and by an astonishing movement of protest by people at home.

            The Vietnam war lasted from 1955-1975 through four presidents. By its end public opinion had turned against goverment. The distance between politics and the people was now reflected clearly in the media in which bland male-female reporters related bland political news, in effect, trivia and government handouts. The media largely attended the president's discretionary press conference and editors and reporters vetted their news stories with government sources. Defeats were reported as wins but the bad news, casualties, our own and non combatant civilians, kept on coming on television. In what was supposed to be the best of the media, uncontrolled by corporate interest-that is, in public television, the public was largely invisible. On the leading political forums on public television the public was uninvited, except as viewer of an endless parade of Congressmen, Senators, government bureaucrats, talking heads, academics and experts of various kinds. One had to tune in to foreign newscasts to find out what was going on.

            The presidency of Jimmy Carter, covering the years 1977 to 1980, seemed an attempt by one part of the Establishment, that represented in the Democratic party, to recapture a disillusioned citizenry. But Carter, despite a few gestures toward black people and the poor, despite talk of "human rights" abroad, remained within the historic political boundaries of the American system, protecting corporate wealth and power, maintaining a huge military machine that drained the national wealth, allying the United States with right-wing tyrannies abroad. His strongest appeal was to blacks, whose rebellion in the late 1960's was the most frightening challenge to authority since the labor and unemployed upsurges in the 1930's. His most crucial appointments, however, were in keeping with the Trilateral Commission report entitled "The Governability of Democracies." which identified problems for the governability of democracy in the 1970's and pinpoints the loss of government authority in the U.S. The policies needed would be more crass—cutting benefits to poor people, lowering taxes for the wealthy, increasing the military budget, filling the federal court system with conservative judges, actively working to destroy revolutionary movements in the Caribbean.

            In the Reagan (1981-89) years less and less wealth was going to people who produced something and disproportionate rewards went to society's economic and legal manipulators-from lawyers to bankers and financial advisers. America was morphing from a production to a consumption society. Today the U.S., always a class society, has 1% of the population owning 38.1% of the wealth, with an underclass of 120 million people (40%) living in poverty or near poverty. Officially, the poverty rate is 15%. The social programs of the 1960's- Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, etc.-did not do much more than maintain the historic American maldistribution of resources. Democrats are no help as they move their party closer to the center. This means doing just enough for blacks, women, and working people to keep their support, while trying to win over white conservative voters with a program of toughness on domestic crime and a strong military.

            The new conditions of technology, economics, and war, in the nuclear age, make it less and less possible for the semi-rich "middle class" guards of the system-the intellectuals, the home owners, the taxpayers, the skilled workers, the professionals, the servants of government-to remain immune from the violence (physical and psychic) inflicted on the black, the poor, the criminal, the enemy overseas. There is evidence of growing dissatisfaction among the guards who, after all, are parts of the semi-rich "middle class". Surveys show 70 to 80 percent of Americans distrustful of government, business, the military. This means the distrust goes beyond blacks, the poor, the radicals. It has spread among skilled workers, white-collar workers, professionals; for the first time in the nation's history, perhaps, both the lower classes (40%) and the semi-rich "middle classes" (59%), the prisoners and the guards, were disillusioned with the system. Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the semi-rich "middle classes". The question is can America have substantial change as it did in the 1930's and 1960's.

            The great defects of people were noted in Rome's Colisseum and Byzantium's Hippodrome, where powerful political families sought to entertain, pacify and distract the multitude. The idea was to keep attention riveted on the circus or game and people would not notice their discontent, or the corruption in their polity. During the heyday of Rome, as today, only the very wealthy could run for high office. People do not worry about details of political designs at play which they largely ignore and quickly forget. Such is the attention span of the public that it lacks the ability to focus long on anything. In this environment, the politician's imperative is to say as little of substance as possible and to say it often. For the media, in perpetual competition to fill their airwaves with viewers and corporate advertisers, the mandate is to say as much of nothing as possible, as often as possible. Weekend national sports and Hollywood entertainments are standard fares and fill all media with pictures and detailed commentary about athletes and actors. Having obtained publicity, some actors become politicians. As long as their daily bread and creature comforts are available, the people are distracted, junkies of political magic that robs them of their freedom and gives them just enough welfare that keeps the system stable for the wealthy to conduct their global exploits.

            History and observation show that the inert masses of mankind have weak wills and judgments, if any at all. Those with strong wills and judgments are philosopher Hoffer's (1902-1983 A.D.) men of words (philosophers), fanatics (revolutionaries), and men of practical action (statesmen). The philosophers are the ones capable of moving the inert masses whose primal interests are bread, amusements, and mystical rites. Men of words are individualists who lay the groundwork for ideas and mass movements. The fanatics and men of practical action are collectivists who manage and consolidate societal change. They are the power elites of society, the dominant minority whom the inert majority follows. Individualists and collectivists are opposite characters and the collectivist nature of every society or group goes against the grain of the individualist who must decide whether to conform to the existing order as propagandists or oppose it as critics.

            Like living cells that need nuclei, people need elites to organize society. Throughout history this has been done in every society. Depending upon a number of natural and environmental circumstances and strong men of words, revolutionaries, and practical action, some societies were organized efficiently. The great civilizations of China, Babylon, Egypt, Rome and Europe are examples of civilizations organized efficiently by their elites. In time, all civilizations collapse by internal corruption and endless wars. As a civilization matures wars consume wealth and corruption accumulates in the hands of elites who then press hard on their people to keep their systems going. The tension between elites and people manifests as people struggle to free themselves from their elite suppressors. Movements, protests, rebellions and revolutions are the various ways people respond to conditions made by their elite governments. In the last 20^th century America has seen four great movements. In the 1910's street movements people gained economic and workplace legislation. Reforms were made setting work condtions and hours of work and unions were tamed. In the 1930's street movements people gained social legislation. Welfare today acconts for 57% of the federal budget. In the 1960's street movements blacks gained civil rights legislation. Black elites now joined white elites and rich blacks formed a separate class from poor blacks whose conditions remain unchanged. Finally, in the 1970's street movements people gained relief from the draft and nothing else. Wars are now made with volunteers recruited mainly from minorities and poor people.

            Philosophers, historians, politicians and other flag wavers who presume to defend the people are either propagandists for or against their elites or naive. The great defects of people guarantee that they need elites to organize their societies, as rulers and ruled.

Enticements Controls Compromises And Concessions

ENTICEMENTS Constitution, votes, petitions, conventions, two party system

CONSTITUTION politicians, law, courts

            The Constitution, ballot box, the polite petition, the officially endorsed gathering and the two party system are cooling mechanisms of control. Indeed, the Constitution is like a piece of gold except it is always in the hands of elites, invoked by corporations and government. It is with politicians, bureaucrats, judges and lawyers that constitutions fail as government must effectuate its will through its laws. Politicians no longer ask Congress for declarations of war and pass laws that moderate unrest and gut the Constitution so that all profits go to elites and all risks are shifted to the public. Presided over by revolving door appointees, bureauacrats issue rules and regulations which courts affirm as law. Judges turn away from cases challenging the constitutionality of government acts. The Supreme Court, supposed to be the watchdog of the Constitution, was asked by a number of petitioners in the course of the Vietnam war to declare the war unconstitutional which it refused to consider. And, both judges and lawyers follow the law written by special interests not law under the Constitution.

            In America no law is enacted that does not benefit wealth or mitigate mass protest. Individual claims under the Constitution are attenuated or dumped by the courts. The individual and his rights, especially money and property, receive little attention and judges wake up only when government and corporate litigants appear. For ordinary people the Constitution is replaced by the law which judges apply arbitrarily and unilaterally favoring business or government. In criminal cases, when non threats to power and wealth exist, elaborate jury trials are held and cases are advertized nationally to prove that the justice system works. In civil cases, when threats to power and wealth exist, jury trials are avoided unless necessary to decide conflicts between corporations or between the government and corporations. Individuals with claims against a corporation or the government (patent, eminent domain, civil, human rights cases, etc) have heavy cost, time and legal burdens and rarely prevail. Jurisdiction, due process and equal treatment are dangerous reefs in court waters. Jury nullification of law is no longer in the hands of the jury but juries are instructed by judges. Common people avoid the long delays, high attorney's fees, at corporate rates, and uncertainties of going to court. Piling on costs, delays and uncertainties, courts of appeal are arbitrary because they deny most cases by individuals against corporations or government without giving reasons, or give fabricated reasons, and order cases not for publication.

VOTES

            The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout the country's history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both Federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in US elections. This has not always been the case since the pool of eligible voters has expanded by the enactment of laws and constitutional amendments. In the absence of such enactments, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction. The next graph shows that in recent years the voter turnout for presidential elections is about 55%. However, a president, once elected, what counts then is his ability to mobilize support from the leaders of key business

and government institutions tied to wealth. Here, roughly half the population, though eligible to vote, does not; and those who do vote are limited severely in their choices to the two parties both tied to corporate wealth that monopolize the money and the media; as a result many votes are cast as best choice; and there is little relationship between voting for a candidate and voting for specific policies.

PETITIONS

            The right to petition government for redress of grievances is enshrined in the first Amendment to the Constitution. It is more important than the right to vote. When one votes he casts a ballot then goes home and watches a political spectacle head count on television, which settles no immediate concerns he might have. When one petitions for redress of a grievance he expects to have a fair answer and decision on his immediate problem. State and federal supreme courts, who are supposed to keep the lower courts honest, fall short because they only take on about 1% of filed cases, mostly cases involving elite groups and system stability. Annually, the Supreme Court receives some 9,000 petitions but only grants several hundred. All courts have wide discretion to chose cases and cases chosen are for protecting corporations and government from people's claims and for assuring stability of the system or, when the public eye is focused, for propaganda. Of almost 750,000 petitions annually made by litigants to state and federal supreme courts only fewer than 1% are decided and many cases are decided wrongly or fabricated depending on how judges view threats to the system by litigants. It is ironic that petitions not granted become law of the land creating a corrupt justice system. Millions of undecided cases have accumulated over the years. Undecided cases, commonly referred as "Certiorari Denied" ("cert. den."), now make law precedents. There are millions of "cert. den." cases on the lawbooks. Nobody knows what the law is, and this keeps about a million lawyers busy. Judges and lawyers can now cherry pick and choose "cert. den." cases without opinion by the supreme courts on any issue to make their own cases. America's law is anarchic law. The Constitution is for charming people and American law is for gutting the Constitution and depriving people of their rights. For all practical purposes, the courts serve corporations and government not people.

CONVENTIONS

            America's political parties hold conventions every four years to select their nominees for president. Initially, their purpose was also to adopt a statement of party principles and goals known as the platform and adopt the rules for the party's activities, including the presidential nominating process for the next election cycle. However, business does not like setting policy in conventions. So, due to changes made in election laws and campaign rules, conventions since the later half of the 20th century have virtually abdicated their original roles, and are today mostly ceremonial affairs. For some three days thousands of attendees will waive their flags and swarms of television crews will transmit spectacular pictures and interviews with politicians, pundits and political operators assuring the nation that the system works for the people. The only thing that comes out of a convention is the selection of a party's nominee for president. If people wish to find out what the party platform is they can try guessing. The best guess is that Democrats are more likely to defend welfare and Republicans will certainly try to limit it. Neither party will seriously question war making policy. Once elected, the president and Congress sit with business lobbyists and set policy, thus preserving the wealth and power of elites. Thus, conventions elect politicians on voter's wide spectrum of particular preferences and expectations. Irrelevant to elite power are issues such as same sex marriage, reproductive choice, abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, diluting real with irrelevant issues and giving elected politicians the freedom to vote for business issues. All the elected politician has to do is gauge whether his vote for businees interests will upset his voters below.

TWO PARTY SYSTEM

            In any system there is a need to write the laws and rules by and for elites in conflict with laws and rules by and for people. Herein lies the central tension between government and popular sovereignty. In a capitalist system, this tension is mitigated by using money to pay the politicians of all parties and influence passing favorable legislation. Money elects and keeps politicians in office, and offers enrichment and employment opportunities. In return, no legislation gets passed unless it preserves power and wealth, benefits business or mitigates unrest. The American two party system identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then apparently limits choice to one party. In fact, both parties offer almost identical choices on issues of defense and welfare within the boundaries of the American system, socialism and armaments at home and war abroad. Discretionary defense spending is not seriously threatened but non-discretionary welfare is the main conflict between the two parties. Democrats seek to keep and expand welfare and Republicans seek to limit it. Multi-parliamentary systems identify popular soverignty with wider choices, socialism and armaments at home. Most democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party parliamentary model. Parliamentary systems are inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American two party system. In China, the one-party system identifies popular sovereignty with fewer choices, socialism and armaments at home. In all systems, elections are often decided on popular issues not affecting wealth. Observations show that money bends politicians in all types of systems to favor elites over people. Elites control the guns and wealth, organize people to do the work, and provide welfare to mitigate unrest. Since the days of the Pharaoes, people have few real choices, they must adapt or struggle under the rules and  regulations set by elites.

CONTROLS unions, bank crisis, wall street occupy

            The traditional way of controlling people are the law and force. The United States government had signed more than four hundred treaties with Indians and violated every single one. The U.S. government then said that it had reexamined the 1868 treaty, found it valid, but that it was superseded by the U.S. power of "eminent domain"-the government's power to take land. Ironically, nowdays smart Indians educated into American laws convert Indian land into profitable casinos for elites and themselves. The 1917 Espionage Act was used to imprison Americans who spoke or wrote against the war. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, or Wagner Act was enacted to tame the unions through collective bargaining. Under NLRA, federal courts have held that wildcat strikes are illegal, and that workers must formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not sufficiently supportive of them before they can legally go on strike. The 1935 Social Security Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were enacted by the government to mitigate widespread unrest movements by the people. The 2001 U.S. Patriot Act allows the government to monitor citizens simply on suspicion, without charges, without the procedural rights provided in the Constitution. More recently, the supreme court told us that eminent domain law can be used by government to take a citizen's house and hand it over to a developer. Using force, domestically and internationally, the government dispersed war veterans in 1932, and passed laws to hamper strikes, picketing, boycotts, abrogating the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live. During the 1930's union strikes, 1960's civil rights riots, and 1970's war protests, both law and force were used before concessions were made by elites to the people. In 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen fired into the crowd of war protesters. If force doesn't work, government applies the law and if the law doesn't work just enough concessions are made to cool unrest.

             The emergence of political State capitalism, as businessmen took firmer control of the political system, began early on because the private economy was not efficient enough to forestall protest from below. But, as the economy grew, so did the protests. During the economic panic of 1893, president Cleveland (1893-1897) brought out the troops in 1894 to break the Pullman Strike, by the greatest and most important labor organization and the entire railroad industry that involved some 250,000 workers in 27 states at its peak. The panics of 1893 and 1907, as well as the growing strength of the Socialists and trade unions, speeded the process of reform. Around 1908 a qualitative shift in outlook occurred among large numbers of elite men of authority. Businessmen beset by protests and work slowdowns no longer opposed new reforms; they now initiated them, pushed them, to stabilize the capitalist system in a time of uncertainty and trouble. The emphasis was now on controls. It continued with president Wilson (1913-21), and many reform-minded citizens indulged the illusion of a progressive fulfillment. While the original impetus for reform came from protesters and radicals, particularly on the federal level, few reforms were enacted without the tacit approval, if not the guidance, of the large corporate interests. These interests assembled liberal reformers and intellectuals to aid them in such matters. Business wanted a more sophisticated approach to trade unions, seeing them as an inevitable reality, therefore wanting to come to agreements with them rather than fight with them: better to deal with a conservative union than face a militant one. After WWI, there seemed to be a need again for the twin tactics of control in the face of revolutionary challenge: reform and repression.

            When the 1920's began, however, the situation seemed under control. The IWW was destroyed, the Socialist party falling apart. The strikes were beaten down by force, and the economy was doing just well enough for just enough people to prevent mass rebellion. In the 1930's, the National Recovery Act (NRA) was designed to take control of the economy through a series of codes agreed on by management, labor, and the government, fixing prices and wages, limiting competition. Also the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) was an attempt to organize agriculture. It favored the larger farmers as the NRA favored big business. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was a government-owned network of dams and hydroelectric plants to control floods and produce electric power in the Tennessee Valley. It gave jobs to the unemployed, helped the consumer with lower electric rates, and in some respect deserved the accusation that it was "socialistic." But the New Deal's organization of the economy was aimed mainly at stabilizing the economy, and secondly at giving enough help to the lower classes to keep them from turning a rebellion into a real revolution.

            Unions were not wanted by employers, but they were more controllable-more stabilizing for the system than the early 20^th century wildcat strikes, the factory occupations of the rank and file. Thus, two sophisticated ways of controlling direct labor action developed in the mid-1930's. First, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would give unions legal status, listen to them, settling certain of their grievances. Thus it could moderate labor rebellion by channeling energy into elections-just as the constitutional system channeled possibly troublesome energy into voting. The NLRB would set limits in economic conflict as voting did in political conflict. And second, the workers' organization itself, the union, even a militant and aggressive union like the CIO, would channel the worker's insurrectionary energy into contracts, negotiations, union meetings, and try to minimize strikes, in order to build large, influential, even respectable organizations. However, the members appointed to the NLRB were less sympathetic to labor, the Supreme Court declared sit-downs to be illegal, and state governments were passing laws to hamper strikes, picketing, boycotts.

            The 1930's and 1940's showed more clearly than before the dilemma of working people in the United States. The system responded to workers' rebellions by finding new forms of control-internal control by their own organizations as well as outside control by law and force. But along with the new controls came new concessions. These concessions didn't solve basic problems; for many people they solved nothing. But they helped enough people to create an atmosphere of progress and improvement, to restore some faith in the system.

            The coming of World War II weakened the old labor militancy of the 1930's because the war economy created millions of new jobs at higher wages. The New Deal had succeeded only in reducing unemployment from 13 million to 9 million. It was the war that put almost everyone to work, and the war did something else: patriotism, the push for unity of all classes against enemies overseas, made it harder to mobilize anger against the corporations. During the war, the CIO and AFL pledged to call no strikes. WWII not only put the United States in a position to dominate much of the world; it created conditions for effective control at home. Everyone had jobs, welfare and the war threatened everyone's security. The capitalist system was running on all cylinders. Materials, labor and money were plentifull and America's vast resources and production capacity were ready to fill the devastated world's orders. The U.S. giving economic aid to certain countries, was creating a network of American corporate control over the globe, and building its political influence over the countries it aided. The trade union movement itself had become more controlled, more conservative. Nothing had to be done to change the economic structure at home. An aggressive foreign policy could continue. The country seemed under control. And then, beginning in the 1960s, came a series of explosive rebellions in every area of American life, blacks, prisoners, women, gays, farmers and anti-war protesters, which showed that all the system's estimates of security and success were wrong.

            The system in the course of two centuries had learned a good deal about the control of people. Beginning in the mid-1960's, the system went to work and people rebellions, so far, have been contained. Moreover, lpopular rebellions were never strong enough to survive. Union membership had peaked to about 30% in 1955 and today (2012) has fallen to about 10% a decline substantially lower than other industrial countries. The civil rights movements were handled by Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Internal and external controls were in place in the 1970's and 1980's aided by a docile public consuming vast amounts of the world's resources. But controls on people were not enough. While the rich became richer, all risks and debts were shifted to the public. Globalization was shifting production and wealth overseas as consumption increased at home. Resources and labor were no longer cheap but printed money was freely available to keep the world economy going. To pay for its consumption, America started running on debt financed for the most part by U.S. and foreign national banks.

            As the United States entered the 1990's, the political system, whether Democrats or Republicans were in power, remained in the firm control of those who had great wealth. The main instruments of information were also dominated by corporate wealth. The country was divided, though no mainstream political leader would speak of it, into classes of extreme wealth and extreme poverty, separated by an insecure and jeopardized semi-rich "middle class". Globalization had transformed America from a production to a consumer society. Seeking cheap material and labor costs, American manufacturing and jobs were transferred overseas and only the war (labelled defense) and banking sectors remained robust at home. America became the world's armaments supplier and deregulated banking casino. Along the way to debt heaven, there were some early warning bumps. America's increasingly heavy dependence on debt has seen three post WWII major crises, namely, the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis in 1980s and 1990s, the dot com crisis in the period 1995-2000 and the financial crisis in 2008-09. All were characterized by consumer money exceeding production money, by easy borrowing, debt, low interest rates and paper money inflation. Consumers, cities and states all had debt fueled budgets. The inflation of the 1970s caused consumers to purchase goods on easy credit. Many bought homes from S&Ls but, as housing prices continued to inflate, the S&L's lost money on their long year loans and had to be bailed out by public funds, more printed money. The total cost for resolving the 747 failed S&L institutions was $87.9 billion. Next, the dot com crisis was a speculative tulip market during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the more recent Internet sector and related fields. The period was marked by the founding and floundering of new Internet-based companies. These companies saw their stock prices shoot up as investors bid up stock priced with their accumulation of paper money. Stocks with no value were being purchased with paper money. A combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, market confidence that the companies would turn future profits, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital created an environment in which many investors were willing to overlook traditional metrics such as P/E ratio in favor of confidence in technological advancements. The stock market crash of 2000–2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002. The mother of all postwar crises arrived in 2008-2009 when the debt laden consumer-economy suffered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As known, it resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market had also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, and a significant decline in economic activity, leading to a severe global economic recession in 2008.

            Beginning in 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement let off steam in the streets but quickly faded after police moved in and evicted people from public property under various city control ordinances. The main issues were social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The OWS slogan, We are the 99%, addresses the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. To achieve their goals, protesters continue to act on consensus-based decision made in general assemblies which emphasize direct action over petitioning authorities for redress. The OWS movement signals that there is trouble in America. The writing is on the wall.

COMPROMISES draft, reforms, repressions

DRAFT

            In WWI, America joined the advanced capitalist countries of Europe who were fighting a businees man's war over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence. A million men were needed and Congress voted overwhelmingly for a draft. The majority's acquiescence to the draft and the war was the visible national mood represented by military bands, flag waving, the mass buying of war bonds. This acquiescence was achieved by shrewd public relations and by intimidation-an effort organized with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it. An even greater acquiescence appeared in WWII, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Having endured the Great Depression, the public became inflamed with patriotic ardor. Young men waited in line to enlist in the armed services and female workers entered the war production industries. WWII was a people's war and the bond between people and government was at its greatest peak. Later, the public's acquiescence has gradually faded as America fought unpopular wars thereafter, started by politicians without popular and constitutional approvals. It was opposition to the Vietnam war (1955-75) that brought abolition of the draft. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, president Carter tried to reinstitute the draft. Antimilitarist feeling expressed itself in resistance to the draft forcing President Nixon to stop the draft. Once he was in office, Ronald Reagan hesitated to renew draft registration, because, as his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, explained, "President Reagan believes that resuming the draft to meet manpower problems would lead to public unrest comparable to that in the 1960's and 1970's." However, by dropping the draft, the American people, content with brief television news of undeclared wars, surrendered their souls to corporate government interests and the gods of war. Without the draft, government was now free to conduct worldwide wars, looting of the public treasury and increasing the power and wealth of elites and, ironically, speeding towards globalization and national bankruptcy.

REFORMS

            Zinn tells us that “The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. There is no system of control with more openings, apertures, leeways, flexibilities, rewards for the chosen, winning tickets in lotteries. There is none that disperses its controls more complexly through the voting system, the work situation, the church, the family, the school, the mass media--none more successful in mollifying opposition with reforms, isolating people from one another, creating patriotic loyalty.” Amen.

            Reforms have always been reluctant, aimed at quieting the popular risings, not making fundamental changes. New laws were passed shifting the struggle from the streets to the courts. Undoubtedly, ordinary people benefited to some extent from these changes. Fighting for constitutional rights in courts appears better than fighting in the streets but judges are no less sympathetic to people's claims than are troops. Courts are for stabilizing the system with laws made by and for elites to preserve their power and wealth. This was done because the system was rich, productive, complex; it could give enough of a share of its riches to enough of the working class to create a protective shield between the bottom and the top of the society.

            There was need for the twin tactics of control in the face of revolutionary challenge: reform and repression. President Roosevelt, in the spring of 1933, began a program of reform legislation which became famous as the "New Deal. The Roosevelt reforms went far beyond previous legislation. They had to meet two pressing needs: to reorganize capitalism in such a way to overcome the crisis and stabilize the system; also, to head off the alarming growth of spontaneous rebellion in the early years of the Roosevelt administration- organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities. That first objective-to stabilize the system for its own protection- was most obvious in the major law of Roosevelt's first months in office, the National Recovery Act (NRA).

            Despite the political consensus of Democrats and Republicans in Washington which set limits on American reform, making sure that capitalism was in place, that national military strength was maintained, that wealth and power remained in the hands of a few, there were millions of Americans, probably tens of millions, who refused, either actively or silently, to go along. Their activities were largely unreported by the media. They constituted this "permanent adversarial culture." The Democratic party was more responsive to these Americans, on whose votes it depended. But its responsiveness was limited by its own captivity to corporate interests, and its domestic reforms were severely limited by the system's dependency on militarism and war.

            What has become clear to people was that they could not count on the national government for genuine reform. It was always reluctant reform, forced on government by street mobilizations, aimed at quieting the popular risings, not making fundamental changes. The great reforms to stabilize the system were made by presidents Roosevelt in the 1930s pushed by the Great Depression protests and strikes and by presidents Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s pushed by the civil rights protests by blacks, and by president Nixon pushed by the anti-war protests. Pushed by people protests against autocratic governments worldwide, business and government also wanted reforms abroad but not revolution that would threaten U.S. corporate interests.

REPRESSIONS

            The early 20^th century wildcat strikes were beaten down by police forces securing stability at home and armed forces were used to suppress strikes and rebellions and securing resources overseas. Then came the protests and strikes of the 1930's and 1960's. In the Great Depression, veterans of the First World War were now without work, their families hungry but they held government bonus certificates which were due years in the future, and demanded that Congress pay off on them now, when the money was desperately needed. And so the march of the Bonus Army to Washington began in the spring and summer of 1932. They began to move to Washington from all over the country, with wives and children or alone. More than twenty thousand came. Most camped across the Potomac River from the Capitol and a bill to pay off on the bonus was defeated by Congress. Some veterans, discouraged, left but most stayed-some encamped in government buildings near the Capitol, the rest on Anacostia Flats. President Hoover ordered the army to evict them. American generals McArthur, Eisenhower and Patton used tear gas to clear veterans out of the old buildings, and set the buildings on fire. Then the army moved across the bridge to Anacostia and dispersed thousands of veterans, wives, children, as the tear gas spread. The soldiers set fire to some of the huts, and soon the whole encampment was ablaze. When it was all over, two veterans had been shot to death, an eleven-week-old baby had died, an eight-year-old boy was partially blinded by gas, two police had fractured skulls, and a thousand veterans were injured by gas.

            Students were heavily involved in the early protests against the Vietnam war. A survey by the Urban Research Corporation, for the first six months of 1969 only, and for only 232 of the nations two thousand institutions of higher education, showed that at least 215,000 students had participated in campus protests, that 3,652 had been arrested, that 956 had been suspended or expelled. Even in the high schools, in the late 1960's, there were five hundred underground newspapers. At the Brown University commencement in 1969, two-thirds of the graduating class turned their backs when Henry Kissinger stood up to address them. The climax of protest came in the spring of 1970 when President Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia. At Kent State University in Ohio, on May 4, when students gathered to demonstrate against the war, National Guardsmen fired into the crowd. Four students were killed. One was paralyzed for life. Students at four hundred colleges and universities went on strike in protest. It was the first general student strike in the history of the United States. During that school year of 1969-1970, the FBI listed 1,785 student demonstrations, including the occupation of 313 buildings.

            The civil rights movement was not a fight between business and workers but a fight for minority rights between blacks and government. Indirectly, business interest was system stability. Sensing that the American people were favorably disposed to civil rights, black elites organized their movement as non violent and passive resistence. They were rewarded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, undoubtedly, many minorities did benefit from this Act. However, the majority of blacks have seen no change in their circumstances. Like in South Africa, the abolition of apartheid and change of Government policy from white to black elites, no change exists for the masses.

CONCESSIONS social security, human rights, civil rights

SOCIAL SECURITY

            The Social Security Act of 1935 gave retirement benefits and unemployment insurance, and matched state funds for mothers and dependent children-but it excluded farmers, domestic workers, and old people, and offered no health insurance. The problem with social security is that politicians have been lying to taxpayers. Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks. The Social Security trust fund is a fiction, it contains nothing because the government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the government draws it from general tax revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling. Government debt to social security is now about 17% of the $16 trillion national debt and this must be added to the 40% owed to foreign creditors. If Congress does not increase the debt limit, and borrow or print money, there can be no social security checks mailed to seniors and others.

HUMAN RIGHTS

            The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has become a cornerstone of public policy, rightness and common moral language of politicians, around the world. Being a secular form of morality agreed by all, it is useful for governments to supress human rights at home and accuse their adversaries abroad of horrible violations. The U.S. speaks of human rights violations by China but says nothing about its own repressions or about Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, there have been cases of prosecutions of fallen heads of states in Western courts for their transgressions. The term "right" is itself controversial and subject to plastic definition. Like law it is what the judge says it is. Like constitutions, people are charmed that their leaders carry moral banners. Human rights violations are prosecuted when in the public eye and authority is willing.

            The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights. The true forerunner of human rights was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment period and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American and French Revolutions. From this foundation, the modern human rights ideas emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Many of the basic ideas developed rapidly in the aftermath of WWII and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Today we have human rights including rights to life and freedoms from torture, slavery, a fair trial, of speech, of thought, of conscience, of religion, of sexual orientation, of gender identity, and of reproductive rights. These and other human rights are have become sources of social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda. They are part of the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Treaties, International Law and Humanitarian Law.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.—                                                                                                       Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

            The emphasis on "human rights" at home and abroad and the pressure on South Africa, Chile, Russia and China to liberalize their policies prided the public that we were a moral superpower. No pressure was put on our authoritarian allies Philipines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a host of others. Indeed, military officers from brutal latin American dictatorships were trained in the U.S. for keeping them in power. These policies were designed to leave intact the power and influence of the American military and American business in the world. Policy remained within the historic political boundaries of the American system, protecting corporate wealth and power, maintaining a huge military machine that drained the national wealth, allying the United States with right-wing tyrannies abroad. When in 1974 the American ambassador to Chile, David Popper, suggested to the Chilean junta (which, with U.S. aid, had overthrown Allende) that they were violating human rights, he was rebuked by Secretary of State Kissinger, who sent word: "Tell Popper to cut out the political science lectures."

            Needless to say, countries parody but do not practice human rights. Indeed human rights issues steer voters away from core issues supporting elite wealth and power. The most frequent violations of human rights observed in capitalist states are deprivations of fair trials, of property, of speech, of due process, of equal treatment, of thought, gay and reproductive rights at home and, of course, war itself is where most human rights violations occur. In the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, hundreds of thousands of non combative civilian casualties were deprived of life or maimed. Ironically, solicitious of the people's distate for war, non combative civilian casualties of war are unspecified and military casualties are flown back home without public notice. There are no human rights in war.

CIVIL RIGHTS

            The civil rights movements were political movements by oppressed minorities, blacks, latinos, American Indians, gay people and some others. The movements were for equality before the law occurring between approximately 1950 and 1980 and continuing to this day. In many situations they took the form of campaigns of civil resistance aimed at achieving change by nonviolent forms of resistance. In other situations they were accompanied, or followed, by civil unrest and armed rebellion. The process was long and tenuous and has lead to improvements in the legal rights of previously oppressed groups of people. Having legal rights means going to courts and suffering costs, time delays and arbitrary decisions.

            Blacks were the main protagonists of the civil rights movements. Under their charismatic leader M.L. King, and their banners of non violence and passive resistence, they focused on America's separate but equal racial policy and captured national and world opinion. Blacks started mobilizing and taking to the streets. A Commission Report itself was a standard device of the system when facing rebellion: set up an investigating committee, issue a report; the words of the report would be strong and intended to have have a soothing effect. But FBI internal memos discussed finding a black leader to replace King. As a Senate report on the FBI said in 1976, the FBI tried "to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King." And when a Poor People's Encampment went on, it was broken up by police action, just as the World War I veterans' Bonus Army of 1932 was dispersed by federal troops. The federal government then tried to control an explosive situation —without making fundamental changes—to channel anger into the traditional cooling mechanism of the ballot box, the polite petition, the officially endorsed quiet gathering. When black civil rights leaders planned a huge march on Washington in the summer of 1963 to protest the failure of the nation to solve the race problem, it was quickly embraced by President Kennedy and other national leaders, and turned into a friendly assemblage. It was discovered later that the government in all the years of the civil rights movement, while making concessions through Congress, was acting through the FBI to harass and break up black militant groups.

            Giving in to the widespread protests, Congress responded to the turmoil by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public. Yet government enforcement of the Act has been weak in practice but strong in politics. Congress continues to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by president Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

            The civil rights bills emphasized voting, but voting was not a fundamental solution to racism or poverty. State and local officials were still violating the civil rights of black people, which was against the law, and were not being prosecuted for it. The courts are now busy telling people what their civil rights are. Will new movements go beyond the limits of the civil rights actions of the 1960's, beyond the spontaneous urban riots of the 1970's, beyond separatism to a coalition of white and black in a historic new alliance? As of 2012, they have not and all is quiet on the civil rights front. Basically, like in South Africa, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created opportunities for a semi-rich "middle class" of blacks but left most blacks without changes.

Observations History and Fascist Light Politics

OBSERVATIONS

            Observations show that all types of governments are controlled by elites who organize their states for extracting power and wealth, some more efficient than others. Since the Pharaos put people to work building their pyramids, people did the work and the elites claimed the wealth. Ironically, history favors talking about the Pharoes not the people who lifted stones. States operate as living human cells with elites being the nuclear organizing force and people being the cytoplasma and endoplasma organelles. It is no question that capitalist elites have most efficiently organized their states, by lifting mankind materially, putting more people to work and sharing just enough wealth with them to keep their systems going. But putting people to work and sharing wealth does not mean that elites and people are free. Elites are free by the sword and their rules and people are free through struggles. The coexistence between elites and people is always a give and take fight, between rulers, employers and people, workers, and is subject to change.

HISTORY

            In 1917, with its small middle class weakened, most people in Russia were abject poor and devastated by the war. Widespread revolutionary protests were captured by Lenin's communists and socialists and Russia's old corrupt regime was overthrown creating the Soviet Union with altogether new power elites. Not only were Russia's Tzar and government overthrown but its old elites were smashed and completely eliminated only to be replaced by new commisars and communist organizing principles. In 1933, with its large middle class devastated by the Great Depression and the democratically elected parties unable to form a government, the old elites persuaded president von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor creating the Third Reich with the old elites in alliance with the new power elites, the Nazis (fascism heavy). The lesson here is communist takeovers change regime elites and fascist takeovers preserve regime elites. Indeed, even after their middle classes were devastated in WWII the U.S., carefully avoided communist takeovers by leaving pre WWII German and Japanese elites in place. European, Japanese and Americam elites are now in alliance, the deal being access to America's markets under America's nuclear umbrella paid for by American taxpayers. Under this deal, much wealth and power has shifted abroad and it remains to be seen how long America can keep up the heavy costs of the nuclear umbrella. The shift in wealth and power has been not only from America to Europe and Asia, but also from states to people. All boats were lifted by capitalism and people in capitalist states became fat, financially and physically. Zinn asked the question "Did the governments conducting this war-England, the United States, the Soviet Union-represent something significantly different?". The answer is fascism heavy was defeated leaving us with fascism light. It is the financial impasse and Islam jihadism that will now determine whether fascism light survives.

FASCIST LIGHT POLITICS

            Today, government policy is socialism at home and war abroad. To quiet unrest and stabilize the system over the years, government ceded social and civil rights benefits to people in the 1930's and 1960's and has secured its own freedom to conduct wars by cancelling the draft. However, globalization has transformed America from a production to a consumption society. Production and jobs have shifted to lower cost Asian countries along with wealth and power. With its large semi-rich "middle class" bourgeoisie in relative comfort and its democratically elected parties increasingly unable to pay for its foreign wars and domestic consumption of imported goods, services and mounting debt, the U.S. government controlled by elites (fascism light) are left with no win options (1) increase the debt (2) increase tax 51% of taxpayers (3) confiscate the wealth of 51% of taxpayers (4) cut social programs (5) cut military spending. Short of fascist heavy takeover conditions, government will continue with its lesser options (1),(2),(4) and make token reductions in (3),(5). When these options are exhausted, fascist heavy takeover becomes possible. Short of communist takeover conditions, government, unless forced, in no case will give up options (3),(5) upon which it survives. When these options are exhausted, communist takeover becomes possible. Currently, the business alliance with government relies on options (1),(2),(4) (fascism light) and the political parties have these options for making change within the limits of preserving elite wealth and power. The direction of fascist light politics is finding ways of consensus among all business and people players how to manipulate options (1),(2),(4) as long as possible absent a production economy and conducting wars on terrorism.

            What would America look like absent capitalism? A more accurate statement is: What would America look like absent a capitalist nucleus? The point is, like a nuclear cell, a state cannot exist without a nucleus organized by elites who write its constitution, laws and rules written by and for its dominent interests. The answer to the question, therefore, is that America would look like a state by and for its elites. Historically and at present, one can observe different types of states which have forms depending on different circumstances, the environment, availability of physical and human resources, technology and the efficiency with which these resources have been organized by elites. That a state can be organized by and for the people is a myth and has never been observed. All states have been organized by and for elites. Change in government means change in elites. As to people, they have no choice but to adapt to the laws and rules set down by elites and struggle in the state they live in, and doing what offers them the best chance for individual and collective survival. Indeed, lets not forget, Americans have no one to blame but themselves – they have always voted for parties they no longer believe in.

[1] Howard Zinn, People's History of The United States, Harper Collins Publiushers, 2009

[2] google "America's total wealth" for total wealth and distribution of wealth estimates.

Copyright © 2012 by James Constant

By the same author http://www.coolissues.com/government/otherrefs.htm

Elites Wealth And Capitalism

ELITES domestic, global, trilateral commission 1

WEALTH top 1%, bottom 40% 3

CAPITALISM democracy, Constitution 3

Taxes Banks And Deregulation, free trade

TAXES payers, deficit, national debt 4

BANKS gold standard, Glass-Steagall Act, bank casinos 6

DEREGULATION banks, bank income, housing collapse 6

Federal Spending WarAnd Welfare

FEDERAL SPENDING mandatory, discretionary 7

WAR causes, effects, Pax Americana 8

WELFARE programs, corporation profits, politicians 10

Corporations Government And People

CORPORATIONS reforms, regulations, big government 10

GOVERNMENT business, people, wars 11

PEOPLE capitalism, presidents, defects 15

Enticements Controls Compromises And Concessions

ENTICEMENTS Constitution, votes, petitions, conventions, two party system 19

CONTROLS unions, bank crisis, occupy wall street 20

COMPROMISES draft, reforms, repressions 25

CONCESSIONS social security, human rights, civil rights 28

Observations History and Fascist Light Politics

OBSERVATIONS 30 HISTORY 30 FASCIST LIGHT POLITICS 31