Wealth Redistribution is Class Peacefare not Warfare

By Glen Wallace

Government assistance as it has been practiced in this country is clearly not a case of wealth redistribution as has been alleged.  If it were intended to be so, then those in charge of distributing the wealth have been doing a rather crummy job since it has been apparent that even as the prevalence of food stamps has greatly increased in this country the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has correspondingly only also increased.  So if anything the opposite has been occurring whereby wealth ultraconcentration has been going on for decades in the US regardless of the POTUS and his political party affiliation.  And while the the wealth has been concentrating in fewer in fewer hands, the remaining masses left over have been left with less and less of the available material wealth.  It's not so much a merely a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer it's a case of everybody else besides the already rich getting a smaller piece of the pie.  What appears to be going on is that the government assistance is a case of the powers borrowing from the play book of the ancient Romans, and using food stamps and the like as the bread in the 'bread and circuses' plan to keep the masses somewhat content and less likely to rebel.  For the circuses analog, fortunately for the ruling elite there is more than ample entertainment distractions both passive and active ranging from video games to movies and TV to sports to keep the plebs distracted 24 hours a day.  It is rather clever of the rich elite to try to turn the tables and allege that government assistance is a form of wealth redistribution when in reality it is a method to prevent the masses from rising up and demanding a fair share from the wealthy in a true form of wealth redistribution.

A similar tactic is employed when allegations are made by some that demanding higher taxes on the wealthy is a form of class warfare.  I believe this 'warfare' baiting is being deliberately employed to both apply a unflattering label to the progressives and to try to get the progressives to think less of themselves engaging in activism since most progressives do not want to think of themselves as engaging in warfare of any kind.  But when looked at closely, the demands of the progressives or 99 percenters are nothing like warfare.  The requests instead, have been along the lines of demanding fairness by way of the peaceful changing of the civil laws.  There need not be any warfare.

All that is needed is to have laws enacted that allow for the transfer of funds from one account to another or the changing of names on titles from one name to another.  New taxes could be enacted that completely bypass the accounts of the IRS but instead revenue funds could go directly from, for instance, the cash accounts of large corporations to the accounts of a number of food shelves. In the process no blood was shed and no heads rolled as was the case with the French Revolution, which was a true case of class warfare -- I might add that I think that what the French Revolutionists did was an immoral, inhumane, brutal act when they coldly gathered all the members of the upper class and systematically ended their lives by means of the guillotine, all without even due process or assessment of character.  I'm supporting a true wealth redistribution by a peaceful, civil and legal means not just because it is the right thing to do but also to prevent a true class warfare situation as was seen with the French Revolution.

  I believe there is a certain amount of unavoidable scarcity on this planet and there is a point that is reached with any individual or organization where they necessarily end up taking out for themselves more than they every can be credited with contributing to the material wealth of a society through the increased productivity they may have activated.  I believe there is certain principle I like to call 'sandbox values', where when we were growing up we learned that while playing in a sandbox there is a limited number of toys to play with and we should learn to share those toys and not hog all of them for ourselves while all the other little boys and girls just sit there in the sand with nothing to play with while one brat sits there with a grin on his face with all the toys piled up behind him in the corner of the sandbox.  

We don't need a revolt, just an awakening.  People need to realize that gov assistance is not wealth redistribution but rather the old ancient Roman trick of using bread and circuses as succor to quell the rabble. The goal then of the ruling elite is just the opposite of what is being accused; government assistance is designed to prevent the people from demanding real wealth redistribution.  The democrats just coyly sit there allowing themselves to be accused of something that they have tried to prevent but should be a compliment - spreading the wealth around, while in reality both parties are together in the plot to further consolidate wealth.  That is the one constant that has existed for many decades now -- regardless of what party is dominating, wealth consolidation has continued unabated. 

 I propose a civil, peaceful legal system of wealth redistribution whereby a system of taxation is instituted that completely bypasses the IRS and instead mandates direct bank transfers from the super rich to the working poor.  Both individual and institutional accounts would be subject to these transfers such that corporations with large cash balances would also see significant outflows to individuals and organizations such as food shelves that actually need the money.  There would be no class warfare because there would be no warfare.  Instead these measures would be taken civilly as the result of laws enacted by a populace demanding such laws.  Most of the actual redistribution would amount to nothing more than a few electrons moving around and changing the digits on hard drives and computer screens.  The rich whose digits become smaller on their balance sheets likely would never miss them to any practical manner but oh what a difference it would make to those that have been struggling and now see a higher balance on their accounts.  

I think my proposal would be rather inviting to most, but you will likely never hear of it from a mainstream politician from either party or even a so-called liberal mainstream political commentator on the radio or TV.  You wont hear about such an idea because they are all part of the effort to help consolidate the wealth until nearly everyone becomes an indentured urban serf slave to a few bourgeoisie elite.

Categories of Capitalism

By Glen Wallace

In the movie Wall Street the character Gordon Gekko makes a famous speech before shareholders where he states "greed, for a lack of a better word, is good." I would counter that 'greed' is neither necessarily good nor bad. Greed, rather, is simply a motivational tool that can, if allowed, motivate people to make money by taking advantage of workers and the environment. But greed can also motivate someone who has lost their job to start a new small business that provides a needed good or service, along with perhaps some jobs to provide or manufacture the goods, to the community. Therefore the correct approach to greed and capitalism is a pragmatic one. Greed and capitalism should be seen as a powerful team of horses that needs to be directed to aid society, but if not guided would run wild trampling people everywhere. Herein lies the fundamental flaw of the free market capitalists: they seem to be in some kind of fantasy land where they only imagine how capitalism can be beneficial to society and assume that it then is always beneficial if allowed to roam freely unfettered by regulation or laws imposed by the government. First they don't recognize the fact that where the capitalistic business has benefited society, that business has been carefully directed to so by intelligent people with benevolent intent. Therefore, it is not capitalism itself that is acting like some intelligent machine or robot looking for ways to help humanity, it is people that are directing the machine properly. But if the robot of business is being run without regard to humanity by its operators, anyone in the way of that robot better scramble away or hope for luck that the robot randomly veers away from your direction. The only way that we can insure that the robot of business is directed in a manner benefiting the community is to have a powerful government oversight imposing regulations that mandate that the business robot or the team of greed horses are directed in a manner that will benefit the community and not trample it. How else can we insure that the human designers and operators of the capitalistic business are driving their machine with benevolent intent? The free market capitalists, however, never bother looking at the manifold examples that refute the belief that unfettered capitalism is so great for the whole world. The free marketeers would rather live in their lala land where every business is this nice mom and pop operation that pays all their employees great wages, never dumps any toxic sludge out the back door, provides a product or service that the community greatly needs and would be facing hardship if the business never existed in their community. This brings me to my theory of the three basic forms of capitalism: 1) Crony 2) Parasitic 3) Symbiotic. The free marketeers in the fantasy land of their own minds prefer to imagine that if it were only allowed to roam free, then all businesses would be operating under the third form of capitalism, symbiotic. The symbiotic form is one that exists much like the mom and pop business example I described above where there exists a mutual benefit between the owner of the business and community where that business exists. The parasitic form of capitalism is where someone finds a way to drain money off of the flow of currency without putting anything back from where the money was drained. The best example of the parasitic capitalist brings us back to the start of this essay: Gordon Gekko. In the movie he gives the example of a painting he bought for X amount of dollars and could turn around and sell it for a much greater Y amount of dollars today. He didn't do anything to the painting -- he didn't improve it in any way. That is the goal in parasitic capitalism -- to take out from the flow of currency more than you put in. Any example of 'flipping' is an excellent example of parasitic capitalism. The term flipping is often used in the sale of houses where someone buys a house and immediately turns around and sells it for a profit without doing any improvements to the house. If that is the definition, buying something and without improving it in any way, sells it for more than what was payed for it, then most all forms of stock market trading would be considered flipping. The only possible exception would be if someone in buying shares used that opportunity to use their stake in the corporation to influence the board of directors as to how the company is run. It is a little ironic that we come back to him since he's the one that said that greed is good. But in parasitic capitalism the only sense of 'good' exists for the parasite himself. Now it sounds like I'm painting a rather bad picture of parasitic capitalism, but I think just as with capitalism as a whole we should treat this subset of capitalism pragmatically as well. While due to its nature, it's hard to see how parasitism could be beneficial to the community at large, I do think there can be, like in the biological world of parasites, where the negative effect for the host is either insignificant or nonexistent. Perhaps, to a degree, I'm trying to defend myself since I have in the past and am currently trying to 'play the markets.' In so doing I'm trying to come up with some way to realize some capital gains, but I'll have to admit I don't see how what I'm doing in playing the markets, in itself, will benefit humanity. However, if I succeed, that will leave me with more time to write essays like this one with intent to benefit mankind and without regard to the commercial success it might have with whatever I write. Additionally, especially considering the very small amounts I have to play with, I'm lead to believe that I'm engaging in the neutral form of parasitic capitalism where there is little or no negative impact on the host of commerce. But like in nature where there can be parasites that are very harmful to the host, the same problem exists in the world of commerce. An example of malevolent parasitic capitalism exists in the movie Wall Street (and I suppose I should issue a **spoiler alert** for what follows for those who haven't seen the movie) where Gekko tries, after buying it, to break up and sell off in parts the fictional Blue Star Airlines. Along with the break up, all the jobs would be lost along with the all benefits of the airline to the community where it was based. Gekko was planning to sell the airline, in parts, simply because he thought he could suck off more capital gains that way than by running it as a symbiotic business. Of course there is very often a great deal of overlap in all the categories of capitalism when looking at real world examples of how businesses are run. A business may alternately by parasitic at times and symbiotic at others or some parts or divisions of the same business may each be engaging in the different categories. However, its hard to imagine that one particular business act could be simultaneously parasitic or symbiotic. It would seem that the two terms are mutually exclusive if were using them as the business equivalents of the same two categories in the biological field. That is, if the relationship between two or more entities is mutually beneficial then I don't think that in biology that it would be correct to call the relationship parasitical. Rather the relationship if mutually beneficial would necessarily be called symbiotic. While the free marketeers seem to be completely oblivious to the reality of capitalism often devolving into malevolent parasitism, they do, to their credit, recognize the harm to society of capitalism engaging in its third basic form: Cronyism.

Why People Love to Work for No Money

If we are to abandon paying for work the question arises of what will motivate anyone to get anything done. Unfortunately, many subscribe to the jackass fallacy whereby people wont do anything unless they have a carrot in front to walk towards. Motivation is a complex subject that deserves careful study. But instead of examining the subject carefully, the entire modern western society is largely based on one simpletonic, poorly examined, poorly thought through belief that humans are required to have a paycheck to chase after in order to get anyone off their duff and do anything. It doesn't take too much examination to refute the 'humans are jackasses' premise. One only need look at the practice of engaging in hobbies to see that people engage in work and get things done, not only without being paid but usually the hobbiest ends up spending a great deal of money to make the work possible. Similar to the activity of hobbies is the activity of fitness and athletics. I'm a competitive distance runner and let me tell you it is a lot of work and I have never won any money and while it's conceivable that I could win a cash prize from a race, I'm certain I could never 'make a living' from competitive running. So why do I do it? What is the motive? Well this brings me to my theory that there are three basic primary motivators for any given activity and competitive running satisfies two of them; those being status and creative motives. The status motive pays heed to our very social nature and our tendency to frame ourselves in comparison with others. In any competitive activity whether it be athletic, business or academic the status motive clearly plays an important motivator role. But there is also the non-status social role of the camaraderie that one enjoys when sharing a hobby or athletic event or any other activity with others. Typically this social role of camaraderie becomes an strong motivator in the conventional work experience where co-workers become like a family and a worker looks forward to going to work just to be with that family. I believe camaraderie is an especially strong motivator in the military where every soldier in a unit feels a need to look out for their fellow soldier with the same zeal that they look out for themselves. I strongly suspect the military organization fully takes advantage of the social camaraderie motive to drive soldiers to work to lengths that they would never go to without that motive.

While the creative motive may seem to be an odd motivator for a competitive athletic activity, I'm using the term in a rather broad sense of involving any activity whereby work is mixed with the physical realm to create something that did not exist before the work was done. And I believe a 'something' that is created can include completion of a run. Additionally the planning of workouts and race strategy also involve creativity. Often times, creativity is the primary motive for hobbiests. Whether that hobby is gardening, painting, or wood working the spark of creativity is perhaps the strongest driver of the activity so that people will spend great amounts of money so they can experience the process of creating something. Therefore, in theory, an economic system could be set up whereby instead of paying people to do something that needs to get done, the only incentive necessary to attract employees would be to offer the tools and supplies for a worker to get the job done. And anyone with an interest in practicing that activity would flock to the job in order to experience the same creative rush that motivates hobbiests to engage in their activity. But status often also plays a role in motivating hobbiests as they compare each others projects. The third primary motivator is altruism - the desire to help others. Now one might say that those engaging in altruistic acts are doing it for selfish reasons - to make them self feel better or give them self a good feeling inside. That may be true, but that is true for the other two motivators that ultimately the fundamental motivator is coming from the felt state resulting from engaging in the given activity.

I think the role of parenthood employs all three motivators. I've even worked on jobs where co-worker moms have said that they consider coming to work a break from the job of motherhood. That just shows to what lengths people will go to do a difficult job that doesn't pay but instead costs a lot, such as motherhood, when the basic human motivators exist for a job -- and none of those motivators involves getting paid money to do the job.