Why is No One Fighting the New Robber Barons?

[marmar]

from Naked Capitalism:


Why is No One Fighting the New Robber Barons?
Posted on December 22, 2014 by Yves Smith


Last week, Bill Moyers interviewed historian Steve Fraser on what he calls our Second Gilded Age. Despite the anodyne title of the segment, The New Robber Barons, it was really about why the American public has been so quiescent in the face of rapidly rising income inequality, while during the first Gilded Age, a wide range of groups rebelled against the wealth extraction operation. I encourage you to watch the segment in full or read the transcript.

http://vimeo.com/114956900

The constraints of the show meant that Fraser could only sketch out some of his ideas. Here are some that stood out:

STEVE FRASER: I think we underestimate the degree to which the politics of fear operates in our society and in our economy. If you’re living– look at us now. The dominant form of employment, or what is becoming the dominant form of employment in our economy today is contingent, casual, precarious labor, without any protections. No security at the job. No fringe benefits. You’re at the mercy of your employer and an economy that’s in chronic flux. Pensions have been stripped away. The social safety net has been shredded to a very significant degree. When you’re faced with that kind of situation naturally you have to think twice about whether you’re going to fight back.

BILL MOYERS: What about this notion of, you know, I’m an individual. I’m standing against the wave of history. I can, I may have hard luck, I may be oppressed, but I can reinvent myself. And that fable of American life is very powerful.

STEVE FRASER: It’s very powerful.

BILL MOYERS: The business press in particular. Infatuated with these people.

STEVE FRASER: Yeah, and every man was going to be a speculator and make it rich. And do it on his own. Do it on his own is the key thing. How are you going to get collective resistance if everybody dreams instead of their own individual ascent into the imperium, you know, realm of wealth and power? And so that it’s kind of like a fable of democratic capitalism. That is capitalism as a democracy of the audacious who will make it on their own, while in fact most of the people are headed in the opposite direction.

And it allows people whose real life is tied to this highly impermanent, unstable economy think of that as a good thing. As a form of freedom. I’m going to reinvent myself. Okay, I can’t count on my employer to hire me on any permanent basis. I can’t count on that kind of envelope of fringe benefits that’s going to protect me and my family. Good. I’m going to reinvent myself as a kind of freelancing, free agent, you know, mini Jamie Dimon. And this became persuasive to a certain segment of our population. And so it’s also part of the fables of freedom that I think have conduced to acquiescence.

BILL MOYERS: Fables?

STEVE FRASER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Of freedom?

STEVE FRASER: Yes. One of them is this notion of the free agent. That he’s out there and he’s going to reinvent himself. Another fable of freedom is an old one but it’s taken on new and very telling life in our time. And that is the fable that you can escape and be free privately through consumer culture. That that is the pathway to liberation. And that has always offered itself up all through the 20th century as a way of escape.

I don’t mean to minimize the importance of material wellbeing for people and the need to live a civilized life. To have what you need to live a civilized life. The material things you need. But we have advanced way beyond that. And we deal in fantasy to an extreme degree. And it’s very hard to resist this because the media in all of its various forms presents an image of the country which we’re all supposed to respect, admire and strive for which is at variance with the underlying social and economic reality that millions upon millions of people live.

Yves here. I suspect the idea that Americans are addled by fear will resonate with a lot of readers. I don’t see it simply as a function of how precarious jobs and businesses have become, but more as an established feature of American culture that is becoming more and more evident as social stresses rise. For an advanced economy (as in one with a lot of specialized work roles and internal mobility), this country has a deep seated conformist streak. One is expected to be upbeat, pleasant, and uncontroversial. Strong personalities and eccentricities are not well tolerated unless you are in an alpha position. The US does not have much of a working class intellectual culture and bohemianism is similarly frowned upon (if you doubt that idea, think of how many of your peers would be happy if their kids’ career plans consisted of, say, working in a bike repair shop so they could make rent money while they toiled away on their paintings or great novel). In other words, for large swathes of the public, even before American society became openly Hobbesian, status competition was important. That creates pressure to adhere to adhere to models that are advantageous, or at least don’t work to your detriment.

The second is his discussion of how the free agent model is celebrated. I contend that the real issue is atomization. People no longer have much involvement in their communities due to increasing workplace demands and two-earner families. And with job tenures short, the workplace isn’t much of a community either. When citizens have little or no connection with a community, and even less with community organizations, they are less likely to think about or know how to create new organizations to redress social wrongs. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/no-one-fighting-new-robber-barons.html

[abelenkpe]

1. K&R

[progressoid]

2. Rec!

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

3. Too powerful

There was a time when it didn't cost multiples of millions of dollars to run for Congress. Now, Democrat and Republican candidates' loyalty are purchased before they are even elected, so the 99%ers have virtually no chance, imo.

Until we find a way to take corporate money out of elections, we are doomed.

Real healthcare, new infrastructure, education, housing for the poor...I just don't see it.

[lunasun]

4. I need to read this complete piece later but right now K & R

[WillyT]

5. K & R !!!

[progressoid]

6. Rec!

[JDPriestly]

7. Even without having read the full piece, I have to say this is brilliant.

Would have written it myself if I could write that well. Excellent. Kudos.

[xchrom]

8. du rec.

[phantom power]

9. Because the Democrats are not yet ready to welcome their hatred

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.
-- FDR

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

[Agony]

10. Steve Fraser speaks with extreme clarity

it is scary, how history repeats itself. I'm along for the ride it seems…

Haven't heard of Steve Fraser or his work before, where the hell have I been?

[Octafish]

11. And when they show up, they can bring their Reform-minded friends, too.

Double Time!

[Nye Bevan]

12. Hint: 8 out of the top 10 richest members of congress are Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth

Many (probably most) members of congress expect to be employed by Wall Street, or to work as lobbyists, with huge compensation packages, after they leave congress.

The Obama family can reasonably be expected to be worth well over $100 million 10-15 years after his presidency ends.

So who, exactly, would anyone expect to fight for a wealth tax or significantly higher income tax rates?

[appalachiablue]

13. This makes a lot of sense & explains things, unfortunately. Thanks.

[Ramses]

14. good piece

Nothing to add