January 26,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- On several occasions I have asked in my columns the
rhetorical question: What became of the left? Today I
answer my question.
The answer is
that the European and American left, which traditionally
stood for the working class and peace (bread and peace)
no longer exists. The cause championed by those who
pretend to be the “left” of today is identity politics.
The “left” no longer champions the working class, which
the “left” dismisses as “Trump deplorables,” consisting
of “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts.”
Instead,the “left” champions alleged victimized and
marginalized groups—blacks, homosexuals, women and the
transgendered. Tranny bathrooms, a cause unlikely to
mobilize many Americans, are more important to the
“left” than the working class
All
white-skinned peoples except leftists, including
apparently victimized women, are racist by definition.
Racism and victimization are the explanations of
everything, all of history, all institutions, even the
US Constitution. This program of the left cuts the left
off from the working class, who have been abandoned by
both political parties, and has terminated the left’s
connection to the people.
The collapse of
the left as an effective and real political force
followed the Soviet collapse. The underclass had
resisted their exploitation before the publication of
Karl Marx’s Das Kapital in 1867. But Marx
raised the exploitation of labor to a fighting cause on
whose side was History. The Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia seemed to validate Marx with its overthrow of the
existing order and proclamation of Soviet Communism.
Soviet
practices deflated left-wing hopes and expectations, but
nevertheless an alternative system which continued to
speak against capitalist exploitation existed. When the
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, neoconservatives and
neoliberals declared that History had chosen capitalism
over the working class, and Marx’s prediction of the
triumph of the working class had been proven wrong.
The Soviet
collapse caused communist China and socialist India to
change their economic policy and to open their economies
to foreign capital. With no rival, capitalism no longer
had to restrain itself and allow widespread access to
the growth of income and wealth. Capitalists began
collecting it all for themselves. Many studies have
concluded that the productivity gains which formerly
went mainly to the work force are now monopolized by the
mega-rich.
One avenue to
the concentration of income and wealth is the
financialization of the economy (emphasized by Michael
Hudson and by Marx in the third volume of Capital).
The financial sector has been able to divert the
discretionary income of the working class into interest
and fees to banks (mortgages, car loans, credit card
debt, student loans).
The other
avenue is the offshoring of American jobs to which
Donald Trump is strongly opposed. Here is what
happened:
Wall Street
told US manufacturers to move their production to China
in order to increase profits from lower labor and
regulatory costs, or Wall Street would finance takeovers
of the companies, and the new owners would raise the
firms’ profitability by moving production offshore.
Large retailers, such as Walmart, ordered suppliers “to
meet the Chinese price.”
When the jobs
were in the US, most of the gains in productivity went
to labor. Therefore, real median family incomes rose
through time, and the consumer purchasing power this
income growth provided drove the US economy to success
for ever more people.
When the jobs
were moved to Asia, the growth in real median US family
incomes stopped and declined. The large excess supplies
of labor and lower cost of living in Asia meant that
Asian workers did not have to be paid in wages the value
of their contribution to output. The difference between
the US wage and Asian wage was large and went into
corporate profits, thus driving up executives’
“performance bonuses” and capital gains (rising stock
prices from higher profits) for shareholders. In my
book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism
published in 2013, I was able to calculate that based on
current information at that time, every 1,000
manufacturing jobs moved to China resulted in a labor
cost saving for the US company of $32,000 per hour.
These hourly savings did not translate into lower
prices for US consumers of the offshored production.
The labor cost savings translated directly into the
incomes of the executives and shareholders.
Thus, jobs
offshoring permitted the productivity gains to be
monopolized by corporate owners and executives.
Instead of
responding to Trump’s support of the working class and
his actions in their behalf during the first week of his
presidency—Trump’s termination of TPP and his demand to
auto manufacturers to bring manufacturing back to
America—the “left” has rallied around a victim
group—illegal immigrants. The “left” even elevates
non-US citizens above the US working class.
Trump was
elected by the working class. If the left is defined
historically as the champion of the working class, then
Donald Trump is their champion and the “left” is their
enemy.
Throughout the
contest for the Republican presidential nomination and
the contest for the presidency, the “left” was allied
with the ruling establishment of mega-rich capitalist
oligarchs and the warmonger military/security complex
against Trump. As Trump’s presidency begins, it is the
“left” that wants Trump impeached and delegitimized,
precisely the goals of the war- mongers and the
mega-rich and their presstitutes.
Even
environmental groups, such as NRDC of which I am a
member, have joined the identity politics against Trump.
Rhea Suh, NRDC’s president, has just sent me an email in
which she declares NRDC, supposedly a champion of
wildlife and the environment, to be standing with women
in the Women’s March on Washington against Trump “in
defense of our most basic rights as women.” “Women
matter,” Rhea declares, and proceeds to blame Trump for
Flint Michigan’s polluted water.
I am convinced
that it is a mistake for Trump to emphasize jobs at the
expense of the environment. Whether or not global
warming is a hoax, environmental destruction is not. It
is real, and the working class, as in Flint, are
suffering from it as well as from the offshoring of
their jobs.
The Democratic
Party died during the Clinton regime when Clinton allied
with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) founded in
1985 by Al From. I have often wondered who funded the
DLC. It could just as well have been the Koch brothers
as the DLC turned the Democratic Party into a second
Republican Party.
The DLC
convinced Democrats that the defeat of the presidential
campaigns of George McGovern and Walter Mondale proved
that economic populism is not politically viable.
Democrats had to turn away from the left and embrace
“mainstream values” and “market-based solutions.” The
DLC was a big supporter of NAFTA. Reportedly, the DLC’s
Will Marshall regarded pacifists and Iraq war protesters
as anti-American and advised Democrats to keep their
distance.
In short, the
message was: compete with the Republicans for the big
corporate and financial sector money. It certainly
worked for the Clintons, but not for the Democratic
Party.
As
“market-based solutions” offshored US manufacturing
jobs, the Democratic Party’s finances declined with
union membership and power. Today Democrats and
Republicans are dependent on the same interest groups
for campaign funds. Thus ended the Democratic Party’s
connection with the working class.
The question
is: Can Trump stand for the working class when both
political parties and the presstitute media, the think
tanks, universities, environmental organizations,
military/security complex, Wall Street, and courts stand
against the working class?
Who is going to
help Trump help the working class?
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)