Monday, July 25, 2022

Household Economics: Where’s My $200K?


 
 JULY 22, 2022
Facebook

Image by CHUTTERSNAP.

At some point, you coalesce sensation into a concept of identity. You are something and you are not other things. You are what you can control and you cannot control anything outside yourself. You cannot even control most of what happens inside what you consider to be you. You are servant to your respiration, your heartbeat, your bowels, and you have little control over them. Yet you consider your skin and everything it contains to be “you.” Everything outside that perimeter is “not you.”

As a creature, you have come to accept the requirement to absorb that which is not you in order to continue living. You must take in air rich in oxygen and expel air rich in carbon dioxide. If you fail to take in air or expel air for even a few minutes, your body will fail and consciousness will cease. The same is true if you fail to take in liquid for as little as a week, or fail to take in food for as little as a month, or fail to take shelter for as little as three hours.

None of the things you need in order to survive are yours. You must take that which is not you, convert it to you, and discharge the byproduct. You are essentially conditioned to this ritual from birth. By the time you achieve consciousness, you have become resigned to the rituals of eating, drinking, sleeping, shitting and peeing. It takes much longer to realize that your food, water and shelter is not yours, belongs to someone else, and you are expected to pay for it with your labor.

There is no household where children are not expected to contribute effort in exchange for support. Even Helen Keller had chores, as something is expected from everyone in return for the provision of the basics required to live. Most of a household’s efforts go into providing the food, water, and shelter required to sustain life and everyone in a household is expected to contribute what they can.

***

As the fifth child of nine, I was born into a large household with established rules of behavior, seniority, rank, privileges, expectations, responsibilities, and punishments. Pain is a way to become aware of you. After you experience hunger or abandonment, you become painfully aware your body has needs. Before I even became conscious of my identity, I became aware of the pain of being spanked, pinched, scratched, bitten, and hit. This is how the infant me formed a concept of my body.

I had chores before I knew what chores were. Of course I eagerly wanted to participate in whatever activity my siblings were doing; I never considered it work. If you could hold things you could be useful, and you often got to share in chores like getting stuff out and putting stuff away. I was taught how to change diapers at the age of three.

It takes years to understand that you are being subsidized by your parents and you’re expected to “do your part.” I was likely getting an allowance at the age of four. Once money enters into a child’s consciousness, everything changes. A monetary value could be calculated for all the food and beverages you consume; all of it cost money, none of it was free. This guilt, this stone, was laid upon me as a child: that I consumed more than I contributed and I would unlikely ever be able to pay back what I took.

My Mother did not demand a certain amount of effort so much as a certain attitude. When she asked you to do something, you did it, you did not ask why. Obedience was required and enforced by my Father who would inflict corporal punishment at the slightest sign of disrespect for my Mother. Fortunately, before I hit puberty, my Mother staged a coup and took over all authority for corporal punishment from my Father. After that, I didn’t fear my Father so much as I feared my Mother unleashing my Father, which she sometimes did.

Because there were so many of us, property seemed somewhat communal growing up. Most of my clothes were hand-me-downs from my older two brothers on their way to my younger two brothers. Shoes, boots, galoshes, cleats, jackets, coats, ice skates and bumbershoots were all somewhat communal. At first, your room isn’t your room, your bed is not your bed, none of the furnishings are yours. You have a drawer; what’s in the drawer is yours.

***

The funny thing about family economics is they never have been. It’s always rigged and there is little transparency into the sources and uses of funds. It’s individual economics stacked up and a myth that the biological family extends to the financial family. Has there ever been an estate equally shared? Only if it is nothing.

An equal sharing of the property of the planet would have resulted in every family having their own house, one car per outside worker, and all the food, clothing, schooling and medical care their children are likely to need while growing up. Don’t believe me? Let’s do the math. The wealth of the world today divided by the population yields $198,000 per person. No kidding. That’s enough.

If the land had been shared fairly and each child was given an equal piece and their children were given equal pieces, today we would all have a big enough piece to live on comfortably and to give to our children. The problem is that I must re-buy the land my parents bought and my children must buy their own. What happened to the wealth?

The wealth became infrastructure for the wealthy. My family’s wealth was invested and crashed in the 1970s and disappeared. It was absorbed by the machine. At one time, my parents had enough in the stock market to pay for all of us nine kids to go to college. Then it crashed to 10% of its value before they could sell. About the time I went to college, the wealth was gone. I took out loans.

The stone I started in consciousness with — that I consumed more than I contributed — just kept getting bigger instead of smaller. Even bigger when I worked full time. Even bigger after bankruptcy. Still with me today. It will consume most of my estate when I die. My children will likely inherit only photographs and letters.

***

My grandfathers both had family businesses and neither their spouses nor their children shared equally the family wealth. There were favorites among equals and everyone’s share was conditional and the conditions were never clear. The brothers that entered the family business and those that didn’t regarded each other with suspicion. Neither of my grandmothers knew exactly how much money came in from what source and it seemed to me they preferred not to know.

When my grandparents died, the transfer of wealth was opaque to me, a mysterious and lengthy process that made siblings adversaries, resulting in a frenzied and unseemly division of physical property such as clothing, jewelry, furniture, cars, while awaiting a “final settlement” of stocks, bonds and cash. The biggest change for me is that for the first time in my life I saw my Mother with her own money that did not come through my Father. She went on a cruise my Dad had no interest in, and ever since she called her own shots. Independent money can do that. We should all have independent money.

I’m married to an artist named Deborah O’Keeffe, was previously married to a florist named Storme O’Keefe, and I was never transparent with either of them about my money and they have never been transparent with me. Storme and I tried every which way to manage the household finances but no matter how we worked it, we both ended up broke. We tried separate bank accounts and one joint bank account and only using cash and ended up with one household account, two separate personal accounts, and two separate business accounts.

That’s the same system I started with when I married Deborah O’Keeffe: five bank accounts, 2.5 accounts each. It has since swelled to as many as 10 accounts straddling several banks. We try to roughly split the bills and to not live too richly when the other has no independent funds. Both households seemed to achieve financial balance but lacked transparency. It’s easiest to keep track when it adds up to nothing, the ins and outs somehow matching, the debt slowly getting paid down.

***

There was no obvious pooling of funds in my Father’s family or my Mother’s family, as near as I could tell. Siblings refused to tell other siblings how much they were being paid. The children all moved into their own housing and out of the family house as soon as they got married. As far as I know, none of my six uncles ever sent money back home, and my grandparents managed with their own ample resources.

It was only in times of crisis when resources were pooled and those who were obviously doing well were expected to chip in disproportionately to those with less. But other than an emergency, there was no effort to balance the lifestyle of those who did very well and those who didn’t. One of my uncles was a lawyer, and his brother was considered intellectually challenged. His brother was given a job and a paycheck, but he lived long years with his mother before he married and established an independent household. There is no way he was ever given an equal share of the wealth or had his income topped up by his wealthy brothers. Inequality, even within the family unit, is rife.

My parents were wealthy once, but nine kids took it out of them. They were both children of wealthy families in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. My Italian grandfather was in the produce business. My Irish grandfather was in insurance by way of being a beer wholesaler and distributor. My father and his two younger brothers worked loading and unloading beer trucks as teenagers. Both grandfathers owned businesses and the wealth was stuck in the equity of an ongoing operation. The only way to extract it is to get out.

There is a joke, a variation of which is, if you want to make a million in publishing you need to start with two million. The only way independent book publishers make money is by selling the company and getting out. Both my grandfathers sold their businesses and their kids found jobs elsewhere. No pooled resources. No sharing the wealth. No sharing even of the information about how much wealth there was and where it was located.

I have seen life practiced pretty much this same way wherever I have gone. We are all family. We come to each others’ aid in times of crisis. In those times, the ones with the most usually contribute the most because they can. But the rest of the time the inequality is allowed to continue unabated. One brother might buy seven houses while another struggles to make rent. In the absence of pressing need, the accumulation of unpressing needs to dangerous levels continues unchecked.

***

What is fair in the distribution of income and wealth? In a very real sense, we each are entitled to our fair share of all assets in existence. If you could not prove ownership or title to anything — and all titles are built on theft from the commons — “our share” would be the wealth of the world divided by the population. In 2020 that was 1,540 trillion dollars divided by 7.753 billion people = $198,632.79 per person. Where’s my $200K?

$200K per person is the equivalent of nearly $500,000 per household. This is our wealth, held by corporations and states. If the state simply paid a low 2% rate of interest on the wealth of ours which it holds, households would receive $10,000 a year as their rightful compensation for the use of their wealth. Another fairer distribution would be to give the people half the profit made in a year, and let the corporations keep the other half. It’s the least corporations can do in exchange for using our wealth, our courts, our legal system, our transportation system, our land, our water, our air, our bandwidth.

You could consider the “owners” of all this wealth as merely custodians, responsible for safeguarding our wealth, investing our wealth, distributing the income, and distributing the wealth. Our custodians should be trying to grow the wealth for all of us, and I’m in favor of rewarding them for doing so. Instead, they’re taking wealth away from all of us and heaping it upon a select group of families who live without limits.

Worse, they are using our wealth to shield themselves from regulation, taxation, and competition, so they can continue to engage in activities they know are harmful to all of us for the short term benefit of a select few. They call this a market system but it is nothing close. Under a market system, the price of coal would include the cost of cleaning the air after burning it. Had that ever been the case, the shift from coal to oil to natural gas to emissions-free, renewable energy would have concluded in the 1920s.

Instead, robber barons old and new have suppressed information about the harmful consequences of using their products. They have built phony supply chains full of mysterious intermediaries to distance the profits they make from the harmful costs of their operations. They select the regulators who pass judgment on their operations. If they ever face a negative judgment, they select presidents and prime ministers to get them off the hook.

In 2022, when U.S. President Joe Biden asked the oil and gas companies to take it easy on the profit-taking as the average retail price of gasoline in America breached $5.00 a gallon, the oil company lobby spit back a list of reasons for the high price of gas besides their outrageous, voracious profit-taking. Any real presidente with any real strength would not take shit from the oil lobby and would find a way to windfall tax their asses to provide free electric cabs for the masses.

***

The world has entered End Stage Capitalism, where the growth keeps concentrating, everyone except the super rich have less until we all live hand-to-mouth, and every day it gets hotter and harder to survive. We will pray for some super genius to invent something that takes back all the carbon in the air, the wealth of all the people burned up for the benefit of a few.

Steve O’Keefe is the author of several books, most recently Set the Page on Fire: Secrets of Successful Writers, from New World Library, based on over 250 interviews. He is the former editorial director for Loompanics Unlimited.

For the Love of Lysander Spooner, Let the

Republic of Texas Secede


 
 JULY 22, 2022
Facebook

Image by Pete Alexopoulos.

Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist. He was also one of the great American anarchists whose legacy remains so toweringly influential that capitalists and socialists alike routinely bitch each other out on message boards over which tribe of wonks lays claim to his allegiance. But above all else, Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist and a militant one at that. Few white men in nineteenth-century America were more committed to annihilating that grotesque institution known as slavery than Mr. Spooner.

He was a brilliant and fearlessly radical lawyer who would have given William Kunstler a run for his money when it came to turning the courtroom into a revolutionary battlefield. He used the arsenal of his legal expertise like an insurgent, publishing pamphlets for escaped slaves on how to break the system with tactics like jury nullification and offering his services directly to fugitives who couldn’t read them free of charge.

Lysander Spooner also put his rifle where his mouth was, backing up his bombastic legal activism with direct action. He was a close friend of the great John Brown and actively conspired with the most notorious abolitionist revolutionary in American history to promote violent insurrection in the Antebellum South. Even after Brown was locked up for leading his brazenly quixotic uprising in Harper’s Ferry, Spooner participated in an aborted plot to liberate his doomed comrade from the gallows.

Lysander Spooner was a fucking abolitionist alright. He was a freedom fighter with fangs who wasn’t afraid to bite. He was also an equally ferocious opponent of the Civil War. This may sound like a contradiction to some but to Spooner the right to secession, even for an institution he committed his life and safety to violently smashing to bits, was a pivotal manifestation of a government-by-consent that originated from the same wellspring of natural rights which also afforded slaves their right to liberty. Neither of these rights could be broken without declaring war on God herself.

Lysander Spooner also understood that these rights and all rights for that matter could never be granted by violent authoritarian institutions like the Union, who sought only to usurp agrarian chattel slavery to replace it with their own superior industrial slavery of wages. Real rights were those that could only be achieved through the direct democracy of popular self-determination. In no document does Spooner make this fact clearer than he does in his incendiary manifesto “Plan for Abolition of Slavery” in which he calls for nothing short of guerrilla warfare against all slaveholders by a stateless front of Black slaves and landless southern rednecks with nothing but aid and solidarity from northern abolitionists. Needless to say, many northern academics didn’t like being cut out of the excitement of playing the white savior to the darker sheep in their flock.

But what Lysander Spooner’s more condescending northern white critics couldn’t seem to grasp was that he only opposed “liberating slaves” because he knew that slaves would never be truly free until they liberated themselves and that their right to secede from any union was a necessary component of this liberation. It was a radically iconoclastic position for any century, and it was one that spoke very deeply to me as a young genderqueer Marxist raised on similar ideas propagated by modern-day revolutionaries like Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara. But it was Lysander Spooner’s school of hands-on abolition that made this libertarian socialist a secessionist and this is why I am not ashamed to support and encourage the right for the self-proclaimed Republic of Texas to secede from these United States of Hysteria.

At the latest biennial convention of the ruling Republican Party of Texas, those unhinged psychopaths approved an equally unhinged and psychopathic platform. A platform that obnoxiously declares Joe Biden to be an illegitimately elected president and homosexuality to be an abnormal lifestyle choice amongst other hysterics. Most of this fascistic little temper tantrum is nothing new. The platform of the Texas GOP has long been a veritable casserole of juvenile shock tactics designed to turn on their notoriously reactionary base by appalling mommy and daddy back in Washington.

It’s fucking theater, people. The Rocky Horror Picture Show for closeted fag-bashers in ten-gallon-hats. And idle threats of secession have long been a part of the act. But this year, all hopped up on Trumptosterone, Dr. Frank-N-Furter decided to kick it up a notch by actually calling for a statewide referendum to be held on Texas Independence in 2023, thus officially making this year’s platform the first time any state’s ruling party has formally endorsed a referendum on secession since 1861. As a post-Marxist Spoonerite, I say we call these whack-jobs on their bluff, and not just because I believe secession to be an inalienable civil right. Much like Lysander, I’ve got other weapons up my sleeve for Texas.

I fully support a 2023 Texit for the same twisted strategic reasons that I fully supported a 2016 Brexit. The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union was similarly led by a ghastly cabal of openly racist brats and many if not most Brits who voted Yes on that referendum voted as an act of blatant xenophobia. But none of those unpleasant facts changes the equally unpleasant fact that the European Union and the United Kingdom are both equally despotic imperial institutions, and no one can deny in the light 2022 that Brexit quite successfully made both of those foul collaborations significantly weaker through the precedent-shattering decentralization of their institutional powers. Afterall, why do think NATO hated the idea so damn much?

Brexit also had the unintended but very predictable side effect of making long illegally occupied Celtic territories like Scotland, Wales and Ireland stronger. Speaking as an unbowed bastard daughter of James Connolly and the Saint Patrick Battalion whose ancestors only came to this wicked country to flee Royal genocide, this is precisely what I was hoping for back in 2016. Scotland’s pro-independence majority in parliament is now calling for their own referendum in 2023 with considerably more popular support than they had for the last one in 2014 and the long-overlooked Welsh independence campaign, Yes Cymru, has seen their membership explode from 2,000 to 17,000 between 2020 and 2021 alone.

But perhaps most gloriously of all, on the same year as the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, the former Provos in Sinn Fein won a majority in Northern Ireland’s parliament on a campaign devoted almost entirely to the reunification of my divided ancestral homeland. Meanwhile, the party’s popularity only continues to swell south of the border as well. Nigel Farage may be a snaggle-toothed Islamophobic twat, but I gleefully tip my bonnet to that son of three bastards for achieving in just eight short years what the IRA failed to do for over a century. To quote my fellow Queer Mick, Morrissey, London is dead, London is dead, London is dead, now I’m too much in love, I’m too much in love…

And what is Texas but gringo for Aztlan. In many ways Texas is America’s Ulster, a white supremacist colony founded by slave owners, for slave owners. A land ruthlessly mugged from good hardworking Catholic peasants considered subhuman by their Protestant abusers. Texas only declared independence when Mexico abolished slavery, triggering the Mexican American War in which Irish renegades like Juan Riley killed racist cowards like Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett like the neutered dogs they were. I’ll join Ozzy Osbourne in pissing on the Alamo any day of the fucking week, but Texas didn’t remain independent for a reason. Those gringos couldn’t hold their own against the people they colonized, so they called in Uncle Sam for backup.

Let’s see those bastards fight off the Jungian Reconquista without the taxpayer charity of federal gestapo like ICE and the Border Patrol. Let’s see them try to enforce their borderland apartheid state in a country whose economic growth is completely dependent on a Hispanic population that is now virtually equal to that of the colonists and growing at a speed of eleven brown people for every additional Frisco hipster. And as a student of Lysander Spooner, what kind of abolitionist would I be if I didn’t offer my ancestor’s comrades an Armalite or two? Not that I’ll need to in the gun show capitol of the known universe.

But this doesn’t have to be a bloodbath. Like I said, secession is a civil right and civil rights are for assholes too. If Texans truly support this right like I do, then it is my solemn hope that they won’t just respect the right for Texas to secede from America but the right for Chicano city states to secede from Texas and the right for hillbilly gayborhoods to secede from Chicano city states. This is the panarchist dream, what Karl Hess once poetically described as “a world of neighborhoods in which all social organizations are voluntary.”

When secession is truly recognized for the natural right that it is, borders will evaporate, the state will crumble, and nations will become as fluid and decentralized as the indigenous tribes who once roamed the rolling hills of Texas. But even if all else fails, I will still support Texas Independence with all the same fire with which I support the Chicano Movement and for all the same damn reason too, because Lysander Spooner was a fucking abolitionist and so am I.

Si, se puede, dearest motherfuckers. See you on the other side of that shrinking border. I’ll be the weird Irish bitch in platform boots with a five o’clock shadow and a daisy in my AR-18.

Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for Lysander Spooner 

Creating the Capitalocene: Endless Accumulation

  
JULY 25, 2022
Facebook

Photograph Source: Ende Gelände – CC BY-SA 2.0

The world system we know today was born in a time roughly from the mid-14th to mid-17th centuries. We understand them as a time when the world came out of the “Dark Ages” into the Renaissance, when the light was breaking through. In truth, writes Fabian Scheidler, it was a time of unprecedented violence in Europe, of wars across the landscape culminating in the genocide of the indigenous of the Americas.

“ . . . why does the early modern period come across as the new era of progress and humanism (?) . . . The reason for cultivating this myth is obvious: it is crucial to the West’s narrative of being the bearer of progress throughout the history of mankind. But what if our present system was actually built on a nightmare, born of naked violence and sheer despair? . . . What if civilization did not make progress, but systematized barbarism instead?”

It is that system which threatens to plunge the world into final nightmares as we confront the consequences, of warfare and ecological destruction.  “  . . . we must thoroughly question the foundations of our economy, our state and much more,” Scheidler writes in his recent work, The End of the Megamachine: A Brief History of a Failing Civilization.

The central drive to accumulate capital

The system, or the Megamachine as Scheidler calls it, consolidated with the restoration of coin taxation, which under Rome and empires preceding it allowed the formation of standing armies. Mercenaries would provide kings the power to put down peasant revolts. Funded by Italian bankers, mercenary armies roamed Europe, consolidating it as a war economy during the Hundred Years War, which actually lasted from 1337-1453.

The invention of the cannon around 1450 drove the economic requirements of warfare much higher. States were driven to accumulate capital to compete. That flipped the emphasis from earlier empires such as Rome and China, the central goal of which was to consolidate state power. In Europe, instead the system became driven by the rationale of endless capital accumulation. The need for capital to build war machines drove wars to re-pay debt in an endless circle. In fact, the brutal colonization of the Americas and enslavement of populations to mine precious metals was driven by the need to pay bankers.

The infrastructure of capital accumulation was created in those centuries. The invention of double entry bookkeeping in 14th century Italy, with its sharp quantification of profit and loss, focused unlimited accumulation as a goal in itself. The authoritarian state was consolidated through draconian poor laws forcing people to work, the Inquisition and religious persecution, which actually intensified compared to the “Dark Ages.” Witch trials proliferated, notably in areas where greatest economic stress was causing peasant revolts.

Then in 1602, the first modern corporation was created, the Dutch East India Company, through which the state provided two vital guarantees. One was practical immortality. No longer would accumulation cease with the death of the individual, but be perpetuated institutionally over generations. The second was limited liability. Shareholders would only be liable for their own holdings in the corporation. The remainder of their wealth would be protected. These were revolutionary developments at the time.

Replacing the organic with the mechanical

Through these centuries, the intellectual infrastructure of the Megamachine was also created in philosophies of absolute control. The rise of machines such as clocks caused thinkers to interpret the world as a machine. Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes became philosophers of the mechanism. “They claimed that even living beings were nothing more than automatons, a radical break from earlier worldviews that perceived nature as a living organism.”

To Descartes, the body was a machine controlled by thought. To Hobbes, society was a machine,  a “war of all against all” to be controlled by superior power, a “Leviathan.” Their claim that “the principles of mechanical laws also applied to the realm of living things . . . amounted to one of the most momentous epistemological errors in human history.” That nature could contain the non-determinable and spontaneous was rejected. With that, by implication, came the denial of self-organization in favor of hierarchical control.

In that context, what could be measured and quantified took precedence over other forms of knowledge, including the actual perceptions of individuals. Humans would fade into invisibility before abstract structures. Mapping would simplify the complex landscape of the peasantry to allow control and standardization. Forests would be replaced with standardized plantings that would suffer dieback because they did not replicate the biological systems needed to support them. Land registries and urban planning would allow kings to gain power over cities. Work was shaped noy by the spontaneous interplay of activities in community, but by the clock.  Schools were shaped, not by curiosity, but by rote learning to condition people to accept control.

The pattern in all of this was a replacement of the organic with the mechanical. “The complex structure of meaning in the relationships upon which community life is based was replaced by machine-like chains of command and obedience. The vanishing point of this development is s society striving exclusively for an infinite increase in the production of goods, and in the process, wiping out everything that does not serve this purpose.”

The Capitalocene emerges

Thus, even before the dawn of the industrial revolution in the 1700s, the fundamental elements of the Megamachine had been put in place. “Long before the Industrial Revolution, the military, educators, manufacturers and scientists dreamed of such a thoroughly machine-organized society,” Scheidler writes. “But they lacked one thing to make this dream a reality – fuel.”

That is where the story of the coming of the modern megamachine merges with our own world.  Coal had long been known to be an energy source, and the principles of the steam engine had been known since antiquity. But it took until the 1700s for these two key drivers of the Industrial Revolution to be deployed on a mass basis. Scheidler ascribes this to the growth of the money economy, the need for capital to seek ever expanding investment opportunities. For this reason, though our time is often called the Anthropocene, Scheidler describes it as the Capitalosene, because the fundamental driver is not people or technology, “but rather the dynamics of endless capital accumulation.”

By the 1700s, a capitalist culture had been created. The Protestant Reformation, notably through John Calvin and his followers, had twisted the original message of the Christian gospels with their preference for the poor to the opposite. The sign of salvation was wealth and prosperity. The universal mission to convert the world inherited from Roman Christianity became a gospel of wealth. States played a key role with their drive to maintain military superiority through capital accumulation.

But energy was a limiting factor. Wood, water, wind and muscle power, human and animal, were largely played out in Europe by the 1700s. A new, theoretically unlimited source of energy would be needed to foster unlimited capital accumulation. It was coal. A technological cycle developed. Though coal had been mined in England for heat, it was mostly from shallow seams. Mining deeper seams required pumping out water, and for that the steam engine was developed. To transport coal from the limited locations it was found, rail transport exploded from the mine itself to spread across the countryside.

That created another self-reinforcing cycle. It required capital accumulation to invest in mines, railways and factories. At the same time, “it was only fossil energy that could enable the exponential expansion of production necessary for permanently profitable investments and the continued accumulation of capital. The solar energy that had been stored up in coal for millions of years allowed the economic system to surge past the natural limits it had reached – at least for the time being.”

This first appeared on The Raven.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

‘US democracy will not survive for long’: how January 6 hearings plot a roadmap to autocracy

Trump’s efforts to subvert the elections laid bare the system’s weaknesses, exposing it to greater exploitation



















Ed Pilkington
@edpilkington
Sun 24 Jul 2022

They promised the January 6 hearings would “blow the roof off the house”, presenting America with the truth about Donald Trump’s attack on democracy culminating in the US Capitol insurrection. In the end, the roof of the House, where the summer season of hearings reached their finale on Thursday night, remained intact, though mightily shaken.

January 6 panel: shining a light on American democracy’s nose dive

It will take time for historians to assess whether the eight public sessions were comparable to the 1973 Watergate hearings, as Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the January 6 committee, predicted. Yet it’s already clear that after 19 hours and 11 minutes of testimony, filmed depositions, documentary evidence and raw footage of the Capitol attack the hearings have generated a mountain of words and images that will linger long in the collective memory.

We know now that on the day that the United States suffered the worst assault on the Capitol since the British ravaged it in 1814, Trump tried to grab the steering wheel from a secret service agent to turn his presidential SUV in the direction of the violent mob so he could join them. We know that when he exhorted his followers to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” he was aware that many of them were armed with guns and wearing body armor.

We know from Thursday night that when his close aides pleaded with him to call off the attack, he refused, spending 187 minutes watching events unfold on TV in the White House dining room while swatting away increasingly desperate pleas for him to act until it was clear that his hopes of violently overthrowing the election had faded.
The picture that the hearings depict is of a coup leader.Steven Levitsky

To those who track anti-democratic movements there is a chilling familiarity to this rich evocation of a president descending into an abyss of fantasy, fury and possible illegality. “The picture that the hearings depict is of a coup leader,” said the Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky. “This is a guy who was unwilling to accept defeat and was prepared to use virtually any means to try to stay illegally in power.”

Levitsky is co-author of the influential book How Democracies Die which traces the collapse of once-proud democratic nations – in some cases through wrenching upheavals, but more often in modern times through a tip-toeing into authoritarianism. Levitsky is also an authority on Latin America, a region from which he draws a compelling parallel.

Levitsky told the Guardian that the Trump who emerges from the hearings was a coup leader, “but not a very sophisticated one. Not a very experienced one. A petty autocrat. A type of leader more familiar to someone like me, a student of Latin American politics.”

If Trump’s Latin American-style authoritarianism rang out from the hearings for scholars like Levitsky, a more vexed question is whether it similarly pierced the consciences of the wider American people. It is in their hands that the fate of the January 6 committee’s prime objective now rests: ensuring that a head-on assault on US democracy never happens again.

Members of the January 6 House select committee at the fifth public hearing. Photograph: Jim Bourg/Reuters

The committee, led by its Democratic chair Bennie Thompson and rebel Republican vice-chair Liz Cheney, went to great lengths to make the hearings as digestible as possible for the TV, streaming and social media era. They employed the British journalist and former president of ABC News, James Goldston, to produce the events as tightly as a Netflix cliffhanger, which seems broadly, like a success.

The opening primetime hearing on 9 June attracted at least 20m viewers, equivalent to the TV audience for a large sporting event. The following daytime sessions dipped to around 10m people, though ratings shot back up to almost 14m on 28 June when the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson gave explosive testimony.

It is one thing to preach to the millions of Americans who are already horrified by Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy, but what about those who went along with it and internalized his lies about the stolen election?

Here the evidence is less comforting. When you enter the right-wing media bubble, the vision of a South American coup leader suddenly vanishes.

Over on Fox News, the opening hearing was passed over in favor of the channel’s controversial star Tucker Carlson who used his show to ridicule the proceedings as “deranged propaganda” and to shrink the insurrection into “a forgettably minor outbreak”. On Thursday night, Carlson again supplanted live coverage of the closing hearing, going on a rant instead about Biden and Covid.

Donald Trump speaks on the election night at an event at the White House in November 2020. Photograph: Chris Kleponis/EPA

The further into the right-wing media jungle you venture, the more the narrative becomes distorted. NewsGuard, a non-partisan firm that monitors misinformation, reviewed output during the period of the hearings from Newsmax, the hard-right TV channel that is still carried by most major cable and satellite providers.

The monitors found Newsmax aired at least 40 false and misleading claims about the 2020 election and 6 January. Several of the falsehoods were pumped out even as the live hearings were proceeding.

“If you were watching only Newsmax to get information about the January 6 hearings, you would likely be living in an entirely alternate universe,” said Jack Brewster, NewsGuard’s senior analyst.

The media bubble is not the only barrier standing between the January 6 committee and a major repair of the country’s damaged democratic infrastructure. While the hearings focused heavily on the figure of Trump, Levitsky argues that an arguably even greater threat is now posed by the Republican party which enabled him.

“In a two-party system, if one political party is not committed to democratic rules of the game, democracy is not likely to survive for very long,” Levitsky said. “The party has revealed itself, from top to bottom, to be a majority anti-democratic party.”

Levitsky cites an analysis by the Republican Accountability Project, a group of anti-Trump conservatives, of the public statements made by all 261 Republicans in the US House and Senate in the wake of the 2020 election. It found that 224 of them – a staggering 86% of all Republicans in Congress – cast doubt on the legitimacy of Biden’s win in what amounted to a mass “attack on a cornerstone of our democracy”.
In a two-party system, if one political party is not committed to democratic rules of the game, democracy is not likely to survive for very longSteven Levitsky

Levitsky warns that the hearings have illuminated two great dangers for America, both relating to Republicans. The first is that the party’s strategists have acquired through Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, a roadmap to the vulnerabilities of the electoral system.

“They discovered that there is a plethora of opportunities for subverting an election, from blocking certification to sending alternate slates of electors to Congress. Armed with that knowledge, they may well do it much better next time.”

The second lesson for Levitsky relates to accountability, or the lack of it. The Republicans who played with fire, openly backing the anti-democratic movement, found that they were largely immune to the consequences.

“They learned that if you try to overturn the election you will not be punished by Republican voters, activists or donors. For the most part, you’ll be rewarded for it. And to me, that is terrifying.”

Even now, at national level, the Republican leadership continues to stoke the flames. The minority leader of the House, Kevin McCarthy, and his top team have relentlessly striven to hinder and belittle the January 6 committee.
They discovered that there is a plethora of opportunities for subverting an election ... armed with that knowledge, they may well do it much better next time.

But it is at state and local levels that the rot is most advanced. The watchdog States United Democracy Center calculates that at least 33 states are considering 229 bills that would give state legislatures the power to politicize, criminalize or otherwise tamper with elections. The group also notes that disciples of Trump’s stolen election lie are bidding for secretary of state positions in November in 17 states, which would give them, were they to win, control over election administration in a large swathe of the country.

Several have already prevailed in Republican primaries, putting them one step away from being able to wreak havoc over the machinery of democracy. They include Jim Marchant in Nevada and Mark Finchem in Arizona, while in Pennsylvania a Stop the Steal peddler, Doug Mastriano, is vying to become governor which would similarly put him in the electoral driving seat.

Then there is Kristina Karamo from the battleground state of Michigan who won the Republican nomination for secretary of state in April. Karamo has flirted with the baseless conspiracy theory QAnon and has accused singers Ariana Grande and Billie Eilish of putting children “under a satanic delusion”. She continues to be a fervent critic of Biden as an illegitimate president.

Michigan’s current Democratic secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, who nursed the state through the traumatic contested count in 2020, is up for re-election and will go head-to-head with Karamo in the mid-terms. Benson told the Guardian that she sees the race as a test of the future for America, “between those who want to protect and defend democracy and those openly willing to deny it”.

Supporters of Donald Trump mob the Capitol building in January 2021. 
Photograph: Leah Millis/Reuters

Benson’s plea is all the more urgent given signs that the willingness to embrace violence displayed on January 6 is also worming its way into the political fabric. A mega poll from UC Davis this week found that one in five adults in the US – which extrapolates to about 50 million people – believe that it can be justified to achieve your political aims through violence.

Extremist groups have also stepped up their activities since the insurrection. Last month, the national chairman of the far-right Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, and several other top leaders were charged with seditious conspiracy. Yet the indictments do not appear to have discouraged the group from audaciously moving to infiltrate the Republicans – more than 10 current or former Proud Boys, for instance, now sit on the Republican party’s executive committee in Miami-Dade, Florida.

So what does accountability look like in the wake of the hearings? How do you shore up democracy when even prosecutions appear to wield little power of persuasion?

There was a lot of talk about accountability on Thursday night at the final hearing of this summer season. In his opening remarks Bennie Thompson, speaking by video link from Covid quarantine, said there had to be “stiff consequences for those responsible”.
If you were ever going to indict a former president, it’s hard to imagine a more compelling fact pattern.

It required scant translation to see that as a direct invitation to Merrick Garland, the country’s top law enforcement official, to prosecute Trump. To pile pressure on the Department of Justice, Thompson announced that the committee was still receiving new intelligence and that there will be further public hearings in September.

“There’s no doubt that the justice department has followed the hearings really closely,” said Daniel Zelenko, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former federal prosecutor. “There’s going to be a lot of scrutiny and debate about a prosecution. But if you were ever going to indict a former president, it’s hard to imagine a more compelling fact pattern.”

There is also the accountability of the ballot box. Cheney picked up that theme.

“Donald Trump made a purposeful choice to violate his oath of office,” she said in her closing remarks on Thursday. “Every American must consider this: can a president who is willing to make the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of January 6 ever be trusted with any position of authority in our great nation again?”
PROFITING FROM DEATH
Private UK care homes’ profit margins soared in pandemic, research finds

Amid staffing crisis and warnings that system is ‘deeply flawed’ companies caring for elderly and disabled enjoyed financial success


Runwood Homes saw its underlying profit margin widen by 37% in 2020.
 Photograph: Timothy Smith/Alamy

Shanti Das
THE GUARDIAN/OBSERVER
Sun 24 Jul 2022 

The UK’s biggest care home chains saw their profit margins jump by 18% on average during the pandemic, new research shows, while the highest paid director’s salary surged to £2.3m.

Amid a social care staffing crisis, and warnings from medical leaders that the system is “deeply flawed” and in need of urgent reform, analysis seen by the Observer lays bare the financial successes of major providers caring for elderly and disabled people.

The research – by the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity at Surrey University and Trinava Consulting with the trade union Unison – found that six of the 10 biggest adult social care providers for whom data was available saw their underlying profit margins widen between 2019 and 2020, the first year of the pandemic.

The biggest rise was at Runwood Homes, where the underlying profit margin widened by 37% in 2020, and which reported a profit before tax of £25.4m, up from £15m the year before, according to the research. A quarter of its homes are rated as requiring improvement by the Care Quality Commission.

The highest margin – 41.7% – was at Avery Healthcare, up from 39.8% in 2019 and 32.5% in 2015. The company, which runs 56 care homes in the UK, was recently acquired by the Reuben Brothers, named as Britain’s second richest family with an estimated fortune of £21.5bn, in the company’s first investment in the senior care sector. A press release in March said the deal – a joint venture with US real estate investment trust Welltower Inc – was expected to “generate significant future growth opportunities”.

The​ findings will fuel concerns about profiteering by private providers despite the pressures of Covid, and come amid reports of cost-cutting at some chains, and continued low pay for many staff.

Vivek Kotecha, public policy consultant and director of Trinava, which carried out the analysis, said: “During the pandemic there was a sense of national solidarity and sacrifice that was needed. I think people will be surprised to see that some companies actually appear to have done really well out of the pandemic.”

He added: “What it shows is that these businesses have high expectations for maintaining profitability, and workers and residents are feeling the brunt of this pressure.”

As well as widening profit margins, some providers also increased pay for their top executives during the pandemic, despite Covid pressures and the staffing crisis in social care, according to the research.

Runwood’s multimillionaire owner Gordon Sanders received an extra £2m in dividends in 2020, taking £3m that year compared with £1m in 2019. The company accepted £2m in taxpayer-funded furlough pay and Covid grants over the same period, according to Companies House records.

The highest-paid director across the providers, at Barchester Healthcare, was paid £2.27m in 2020 – up from £2.02m in 2019 and £699,000 in 2015. Posts for care workers at Barchester, which is owned by Jersey-based Grove Limited, were last week being advertised for £9.90 an hour, just above minimum wage.

The findings come amid warnings that the social care sector is in crisis. The British Medical Association warned in June of a “ticking timebomb” and said years of chronic underfunding, severe staffing shortages and a growing elderly population meant that many in the future, particularly the most deprived, would not get the care they need. “This situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic, and government proposals to shape the future of social care have fallen significantly short of what is needed,” it said.

Last month, a report by Unison highlighted the growing role of private equity in the sector, finding that more than one in nine (12%) care beds in the UK were now in the hands of investment firms. It also revealed cost-cutting at several unnamed firms, including allegations of food and cleaning products being replaced with cheaper substitutes and residents’ meals being reduced from three to two a day.


Private children’s home bosses in England criticised over huge profits

Christina McAnea, the Unison general secretary, said: “The sector is on its knees, staff are leaving in their droves and those who rely on care are getting a raw deal. Yet many care home owners continue to see their financial fortunes soar amid this crisis. Root-and-branch reform is needed now with profiteering removed from social care.”


Labour to aim to launch national care service inspired by creation of NHS


Avery Healthcare and Runwood Homes declined to comment.

Barchester Healthcare said that it was investing in care homes and that staff received regular pay rises and loyalty bonuses. “In the six years from 2015 to 2020 inclusive, we invested a total of some £56m in capital expenditure on property and improvements of our services, to ensure that residents are living and staff are working in the best possible conditions,” it said. It added that the £2.3m figure given in company accounts for the highest paid director included a “non-recurring payment related to a long-term incentive plan”, and not just salary.