LUMPENPROLETARIAT Admittedly, we were all stunned by the electoral defeat of neoliberal Hillary Rodham Clinton last night, even those of us who didn’t vote for her. Of course, we must have a complete ballot audit and confirm the ballot counts. And with this, another presidential election in which the loser is the candidate with the most votes from the people, we must ask ourselves: When will we finally do away with the antiquated Electoral College?
In any event, we must open up our political discourse beyond the neoliberal status quo, which is hoisted upon us by the antidemocratic collusion between the Democratic and Republican parties, which preserves the corporate domination of government and the war profiteering military-industrial complex, which has possessed our military. To help us do this, veteran award-winning journalist John Pilger has joined Flashpoints host Dennis Bernstein on free speech radio for a much-needed post mortem on this glorious occasion of the splendid defeat. Listen (and/or download) here. [1]
Messina
***
[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Flashpoints.]
FLASHPOINTS—[9 NOV 2016] “Today on Flashpoints, a special post election edition with legendary award-winning filmmaker, columnist, author John Pilger. Call it a view from Europe. I’m Dennis Bernstein. All this, straight ahead on Flashpoints. Stay tuned. [theme music continues]
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “In Berkeley, I’m Dennis Bernstein. You’re listening to Flashpointson Pacifica Radio.
“Well, Donald J. Trump[laughs]will be the next president of the United States, despite his long history of stiffing workers and project partners, a host of bankruptcies, evidence that he’s a serial abuser of women, and amidst revelations that the alleged billionaire didn’t pay income taxes for some 18 years. Indeed, a whole bunch of liberal and Democratic folks are scratching their heads as to how it could be that Trump beat back the Clinton machine, that out-fundraised Trump by many times.
“Joining us to talk about this on this special edition of Flashpointsis a good friend of this programme, a filmmaker, columnist, writer, government critic, critic of all governments, John Pilger. He was born in Sydney. And he is now based in London. Pilger has reported from all over the world, covering numerous wars, notably Vietnam. When he was in his 20s, he became the youngest journalist to receive Britain’s highest award for journalism; that’s the Journalist of the Year. He got that twice. He’s won an Emmy. He’s done a lot of other work. His most recent book is Hidden Agendas and the New Rules of the World. And he has a piece, that’s going around now: ‘Insidethe Invisible Government: War, Propaganda, Clinton, and Trump’.
“John Pilger, welcome back to Flashpoints.” (c. 2:32)
John Richard Pilger (born 9 October 1939), journalist
JOHN PILGER: “Thank you, Dennis. It’s very good to be back.”
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “Well, it’s good to have you with us. And I’m gonna ask you later on about the new film, which I’m very excited about.”
JOHN PILGER: “M-hm.”
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “But let’s begin with last night’s victory over Clinton by Trump. Were you surprised? What do you think was at the core of the Trump victory?” (c. 2:50)
JOHN PILGER: “Do you know I wasn’t surprised? Brexit, undoubtedly, helped this. I wasn’t surprised. I think I’m quite surprised by how decisive his victory is. But I must say I felt rather angry. And I think we probably expended enough anger on Trump. He’ll, no doubt, provide us with plenty of material coming up.
“But I think it’s time for people, so-called liberal people, to look in the mirror. Who created Trump? Who created this disastrous election, so-called campaign. In my opinion, the enablers of all this was the liberal class in the United States.
“The liberal class has refused to acknowledge, in its arrogance, the huge disaffection and discontent among ordinary people, and painting them in such broad strokes, as being—what did Clinton call them? Deplorables? And irredeemable?”
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “Yes.”
JOHN PILGER: “It’s really disgraceful.”
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “That’s my father.”
JOHN PILGER: “And—
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “That’s my father.”
JOHN PILGER: “—you know, Clinton was an extremely dangerous prospect, dangerous because she represented a war-making, rapacious status quo. The status quo would have, actually, altered slightly under her. It’s my understanding—in fact, I believe—that she might have provoked a very major war over Syria and with Russia.
“We don’t know what Trump will do. We have to, now—putting aside all the parodies and the abuse—we have to, now, be thinking in terms of the practicalities. He’s running the show? What will he do?
“But I think before we do that, again, we have to reflect on all the myths. I heard a Harvard professor on the BBC, on the very night before the count began, talk about the hard left in the Democratic Party and how she would have to embrace the idea of Bernie Sanders and what he stood for. You know, this kind of drivel and misrepresentation has been everywhere. The media, personally—and I’m speaking of journalists—produced, probably, the most unfettered propaganda I can remember at any time. In my career, this has been the worst.
“There was no serious attempt to really analyse and examine either candidate and what they stood for. Trump was dismissed as a demon, with all the salacious stuff around him—undoubtedly, some of it true and all of that. But he was a serious candidate. He was never analysed. And that’s why there’s a great surprise and a great shock. And it’s something, that liberal America has to start coming to terms with itself.
“We had Barack Obama presented seriously as a candidate of hope and real change. He was nothing of the kind. He was, in fact, a warmonger. He’s got four wars going at once. He conducted an international terrorist campaign using drones. He has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any president in American history.
“And, you know, when you think of Trump’s disgraceful remarks about throwing people out of the country and building a wall, who is the deporter-in-chief? The liberal Barack Obama. He has deported more people than any other president.
“So, all of these facts have been lost. And they represent a real crisis for the opposition in the United States, the broad opposition. Barack Obama’s great achievement was that he killed off the anti-war movement [and the Occupy Movement] because people, doe-eyed from the beginning, thought that Barack Obama was some kind of genuine inspirational liberal, instead of the warmonger, that he is.
“I think those—there’s a lot of people, who are going to be listening to your programme. They need to hear this, so that there’s a real opposition to Trump and to what he’s going to do—we don’t know what he’s going to do—but, also, an understanding of his constituency. The majority of Americans eligible to vote voted for him. That’s a fact, that has to be come to terms with, we have to come to terms with.” (c. 8:13)
[snip] (c. 26:50)
JOHN PILGER: “I don’t know. I mean he’s said contradictory things on the Middle East, very contradictory. He’s been bellicose, in one sense. But, in another, he’s been a thread, that has run through Trump’s speeches. And that is that he wants to do a deal with Russia. He doesn’t want to fight them. It’s ironic because, as we speak—and I read only the other day—the hundreds of thousands of NATO troops, American, British, and others, in effect, massing on the borders of Russia. Now, what will happen to them? What will happen to that provocation? That’s a very, very dangerous provocation.
“Now, will Trump defuse it? Will he step back? I don’t know. It’s interesting; he has spoken against NATO. In fact, for the Republican Convention platform, his people were asked to remove one issue. And that was that NATO would receive renewed shipments of weapons. And they were quite specific about removing that. That was pointed out to me by Professor Stephen Cohen, who’s been very interesting on this at New York University and taken a lot of criticism for taking seriously, or at least analysing some of the things, that Trump has said over Russia.
“But, you know, we never know if he meant it. He’s contradicted himself. So, now we’re about to find out.”
DENNIS BERNSTEIN: “[chuckles] You’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio. I’m laughing a little bit because I think I’m a little bit afraid of the potential, in terms of where this could go. I’m not sure if I would be more frightened if Hillary was elected. A lot of people are furious with me for taking this perspective. But I, as you’ve outlined—Iraq, Libya—given the history—you know—Honduras—Hillary Clinton, her hand are full of blood.” (c. 29:32)
[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]
***
“On this glorious occasion of the splendid defeat…”
***
[1] Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving: Flashpoints, this one-hour broadcast hosted by Dennis Bernstein, Wednesday, 9 NOV 2016, 17:00 PST.
***
[Image “John Pilger in August 2011” by SCU Media Students, used via creative commons (CC BY 2.0)]
And Professor Black makes learning about this, sometimes, complex stuff interesting. You can almost hear how baffled sub host Philip Maldari was during this interview. (Your author was, too, like most listeners, perhaps.) [2] Many questions are raised when we, laypersons, begin to explore the world of finance and banking. Sometimes, we must admit when we don’t understand something and ask further questions. Chances are, others need further explanation, too. This discussion helps us do so, to help inform our local communities of important information about the pros and cons of various banks and the services, which they sell. [3] Listen (and/or download) here. [4]
Messina
***
[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Letters and Politcs]
William K. Black (b. 1951)
LETTERS AND POLITICS—[3 OCT 2016] “This is Pacifica Radio‘s Letters and Politics. Philip Maldari sitting in for Mitch Jeserich. On today’s programme, we’re going to talk with William Black, professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, former president of the Fraud Prevention Institute about Wells Fargo Bank and the fraud it perpetrated on its customers. [theme music]
“But first the news.”
[News Headlines (read by Aileen Alfandary) omitted by scribe] (c. 6:12)
PHILIP MALDARI: “I’m Philip Maldari sitting in for Mitch Jeserich, who’s got a two-week vacation. Many thanks to Mitch for his good works. And he deserves a vacation.
“We’re gonna be talking about Wells Fargo today. Wells Fargo is one of the five biggest banks in the United States, possibly the world. I’ll ask my guest about that. And it has gained headlines in the past few weeks, as a result of the disclosure that it had perpetrated a fraud on hundreds of thousands of customers by signing them up for accounts, that they had no interest in and no idea that they were getting.
“To try to understand exactly what this fraud is all about and what the repercussions will be, we’re joined by William Black. William is professor of economics at the University of Missouri. He’s the former president of the Fraud Prevention Institute. William Black, welcome to Letters and Politics.” (c. 7:11)
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Thank you.”
PHILIP MALDARI: “Now, I sort of laid out that they had perpetrated this fraud over several years. The L.A. Times actually disclosed this story going back, all the way, to 2013. And, somehow, it was a sleeper. It only, really, became a huge controversy in the past few months. Would you explain exactly what they were up to?” (c. 7:35)
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “[chuckles] Well, many things. But, so, it falls in two major categories. One, that you’ve discussed and a far larger one. The one, that you’ve discussed, is the ones that are actual felonies. So, these are creating two million accounts, about a million and a half, deposit-type accounts and a half million credit card accounts, where the customer had never signed on, had never agreed to create these accounts. So, these were done secretly.
“What was going on in both of the cases, I’m going to discuss, fraud and non-fraud, was that there were impossible-to-meet sales quotas to cross-sell multiple products. And these were extremely successful in producing record profits for Wells Fargo Bank, which, if you measure it by stock market capitalisation, is the largest bank in the world, by the way.” [5]
PHILIP MALDARI: “Really?”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Um—”
PHILIP MALDARI: “So, let me just ask you again. Why would your stock go up if your cross-selling was successful at giving the appearance that you had many more accounts?” (c. 8:55)
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “It wasn’t the appearance. It was the reality. So, I haven’t described the second part. The cross-selling, in addition to the two million frauds, produced tens of millions of successful sales, that should never have occurred. And, collectively, it produced something like 70—well, actually, more like 420 million, total, types of accounts, which Wells Fargo calls solutions. [chuckles]” (c. 9:28)
PHILIP MALDARI: “Now, wait a second, four hundred and some million accounts, that the customers were unaware of? Were the cus—”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “No, no, no, that they were aware of, but you see you’ve just talked about the fraud. But the far bigger scandal, and the one that emulates the huge scandal in the United Kingdom, is selling people product, that they shouldn’t buy because it’s very bad for them. And that’s where the big profits were. And that’s not measured at two million. That would be measured in the tens of millions. But no one has investigated that.
“That still hasn’t become a scandal the way it has in the United Kingdom. So, you say, correctly, that it’s taken three years to get to the point where the two million sales have become a scandal. We’ll have to wait and see whether a whole business system designed to sell people product, that was bad for them, that they should have never bought, whether that becomes a scandal.” (c. 10:32)
PHILIP MALDARI: “So, how, as a customer, would I experience the bad nature of these accounts? Would I be getting bills in the mail? What would be happening?”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Again, it depends on, which accounts. For the two million accounts, yes, you would often be getting a bill in the mail. But, for many of these, the employee set up the notification, so that it would go to the employee, instead of you. And this means that people, in addition to having to pay fees, in a number of cases, would have had their credit score harmed because you wouldn’t have paid fees, that you didn’t even know existed.
“And, so, that is a particular bad thing about the two million [fraudulent accounts]. You would have known about the other accounts. You just wouldn’t have known that you were being scalped by someone, who was—the entire paramount business model. This is not a little thing. This cross-selling is the defining element of Wells Fargo. They do it more than twice as much as any other major bank in America. They are exceptionally successful and profitable because they push bad product on customers routinely.
“And here’s how it works. This is not a compensation system, in which the little guys get big bonuses for doing bad things [i.e., in which low-level workers are incentivised with bonus pay], the way it was back during the [Global Financial] Crisis for loan brokers and loan officers and such. [6] This is fear of losing your job.”
PHILIP MALDARI: ” [delays, or holds his thought] ”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “In a number of branches, it has come out that four times a day you would be called by your supervisor to explain whether you had met your sales quote for cross-selling in the last two hours of your operation. And, if you didn’t, you would ultimately be fired.
“Now, these are people, who are making, ballpark, $12 dollars an hour, roughly $35,000 dollars a year in entry. We know that people, who make $40,000 dollars a year, two-thirds of them, have savings of $400 dollars or less.
“So, you would, not only be fired, you would be unemployed. You’d be fired for cause. And it would be exceptionally difficult to go back into the banking industry and get a job.
“So, this was a system of terrorising the largest sales staff of bankers in America. They have, ballpark, 200,000 employees.”
PHILIP MALDARI: “And 5,300 of them were fired. Who were the people, that were fired?”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: ” [unintelligible; Dr. Black started speaking just as Maldari asked the following question.]
PHILIP MALDARI: “Who were the people, that were fired?”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Yeah. That’s an excellent question. Now, first, all of these numbers—the two million. This is not the full extent. This is they only look back a few years. And they found this two million. But this incentive system goes back at least 15 years.”
PHILIP MALDARI: “But—”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “And there hasn’t been a real investigation. It’s critical to understand. We haven’t—” (c. 13:56)
PHILIP MALDARI: “Wells Fargo has only admitted going back to ’07. Right? They haven’t agreed to go back 15 years.”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Correct. And, on top of that, they didn’t actually go back. Worse. The regulators didn’t go back. What, instead [happened] is they, the Wells Fargo management was allowed to do the usual, useless thing, which is: You hire an accounting firm. And guess what the accounting firms always find. Yes, there were these terrible problems. But, of course, nobody in senior management is in the least bit responsible for all of this.
“And, so, the deal, which by the way, they paid less than $100-per-felony fine.”
PHILIP MALDARI: ” [delays, or holds his thought] ”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “How many folks would be willing to trade a hundred dollars to get out of a felony prosecution?”
PHILIP MALDARI: “I believe the fine was something like $185 million. [1] And, to most people, that sounds like real money. But, to Wells Fargo, that is just the cost of doing business?” (c. 15:01)
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Well, worse. As I say, it’s $100 per felony. Who wouldn’t pay [laughs] a hundred dollars to escape a felony prosecution. Right? No accountability, no admissions, no real investigation, and the fake investigation didn’t go very far back. And, again, they’ve ignored the larger part, which is the sale of product, typically, to people who can’t afford it, a very, very bad product, that they shouldn’t have. As I—”
PHILIP MALDARI: “Give me an example of a bad product. I mean I’ve got a checking account. And I have a credit card. So, I don’t really have any other accounts than that. So, what other accounts would there be?”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Well, they would sign you up for an additional credit card when you were already maxed out on your first two. Is that a kindness? That’s a catastrophe for the person. They would sign you up for overdraft protection. [7] That may sound nice. But, if you don’t have enough money to pay, it’s simply another fee.
“And they have many other products. They have, you know, well over 15 products, that they try to sell you in these kinds of things.” (c. 16:22)
—
[SNIP]
[SNIP] (c. 56:37)
PHILIP MALDARI: “One last caller, Phil in San Carlos. Phil, you’re on the air.”
MESSINA: “Yes, I am. How are you guys doing today? [confirming I was on the air, and attempting to incorporate a little back and forth, instead of just, like, ‘saying your piece’ or whatever and being treated like an insect by the radio thought police]”
PHILIP MALDARI: “We’re doing fine.”
MESSINA: “Beautiful. [proceeding to express myself, after having confirmed I was on the air] I missed the last 20 minutes or so of the interview. So, I apologise if you guys, uh, got off topic on an important topic [already and my contribution here is redundant]. But I just want to bring attention to the fact that Professor Bill Black is one of the foremost experts on fraud and criminology. So, it’s excellent that you guys have this conversation.
“But, as a graduate of UMKC‘s Department of Economics, I hope that you will bring him on again to discuss modern monetary theory, modern money theory—”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: ” [laughs] ”
MESSINA: “—and the job guarantee programme and, also, the fact that Dr. Kelton, Professor Black’s colleague, was the chief economist, alongside Professor Black, of Bernie Sanders. And, for some reason, Bernie Sanders didn’t tell the American people about the job guarantee programme—”
PHILIP MALDARI: “Okay.”
MESSINA: “—about monetary sovereignty. I know this is off topic—”
PHILIP MALDARI: “Sure.”
MESSINA: “—but I think your audience finds it just as compelling as your preceding conversation.”
PHILIP MALDARI: “Okay, Phil. We, we’ve got the message. William, do you wanna comment on that?”
DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK: “Yeah. So, he’s absolutely right. This is absolutely critical to the lives of all of your listeners. And it would be a great future topic. And I did—this is not a plant—but I did live in San Carlos for 20 years. [laughs]”
PHILIP MALDARI: “Well, let me just ask you—one, one question’s just gotta go to Bank of America. [Maldari dodged the issue…] [8]
[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]
***
[1] For background on the current Wells Fargo fraud scandal, see:
“Wells Fargo CEO to Return $41 Million in Compensation Amid Scandal”, Democracy Now!, 28 SEP 2016.
“Sen. Warren Calls for Wells Fargo CEO to Resign & Face Investigation Amid Growing Scandal”, Democracy Now!, 23 SEP 2016.
“Elizabeth Warren to Wells Fargo CEO: You Should Be Criminally Investigate”, Democracy Now!, 21 SEP 2016.
“Wells Fargo Fined $185 Million for Creating Phony Accounts and Credit Cards”, Democracy Now!, 9 SEP 2016.
[2] Your author was, like substitute host Philip Maldari (a SaveKPFA partisan). And Maldari is one of the sharpest intellectuals at KPFA, although I disagree with his SaveKPFA politics. Maldari is usually very sharp on most issues, but this current Wells Fargo fraud requires a little deeper digging, perhaps a series of broadcasts.
The complexity of white collar crime can be daunting, but the more we know about the ins and outs of banks and the pros and cons of the services, which they peddle, the better off families and communities will be, and the more likely they will be to demand better regulation of bankers and financial institutions, while still making sure that individuals and working class families have access to banking and financial resources, which can help them improve their lives.
[3] Speaking of not understanding something, your author has long wondered why our good friends at KPFA, do not understand the monetary system, or the modern money system (MMT). Bonnie Faulkner featured MMT and the job guarantee programme on Guns and Butter back in 2012. But it seems the important information doesn’t cross-pollinate, or cross-inform, the other public affairs broadcasters at KPFA. So, although Guns and Butter knows about MMT and the benefits to the American working class, other shows like Letters and Politics and UpFront and Philip Maldari’s Sunday Show. You would think the revolutionary policy proposals from heterodox economists like Dr. William K. Black and Dr. Stephanie Kelton would have been championed by KPFA. But, instead, we’ve had a virtual whiteout of this crucial understanding of our monetary system.
So, at the very end of this broadcast, your author managed to get on the air to bring up questions around modern money theory, the job guarantee programme, and Bernie Sanders’ occulted chief economists.
Why did Bernie Sanders not allow his experts in law and economics, Dr. William K. Black and Dr. Stephanie Kelton, to tell the American people about key policy proposals, which they have long championed, such as the job guarantee program, which could end involuntary unemployment, as we know it, reduce poverty, crime, and other social ills?
[4] Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving: Letters and Politics, this one-hour broadcast hosted by substitute host Philip Maldari, Monday, 3 OCT 2016, 10:00 PDT.
[5] To become the largest bank in the world (or one of the largest), Wells Fargo has had to diversify its investments, for example, as with profiting from prisons, profiting from imprisoning.
[6] For more on compensation system incentives toward fraud, see:
“Lender’s Lies about Liar’s Loans and ‘Rigorous Underwriting'” by William K. Black, New Economic Perspectives, 2 FEB 2016.
“Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis” [an interview with William K. Black] by Joshua Holland, Bill Moyers, 17 SEP 2013.
“‘Pervasive’ Fraud by Our ‘Most Reputable’ Banks” by William K. Black, Huffington Post, 28 FEB 2013 (updated 30 APR 2013).
Prepared Testimony of William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Before a Hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Entitled “Examining Lending Discrimination Practices and Foreclosure Abuses”, 7 MAR 2012.
“Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans and Bear the Principal Moral Culpability” by William K. Black, New Economic Perspectives, 2 OCT 2011.
“Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans, Part 2” by William K. Black, Huffington Post, 10 NOV 2010 (updated 25 MAY 2011).
“Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans” by Wiliam K. Black, Huffington Post, 8 NOV 2010 (updated 25 MAY 2011).
[7] Anecdotal point of information: Your author was actually a long-time Wells Fargo customer and, being a working class family man trying to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, constantly had to battle with Wells Fargo about overdraft protection charges. One attempts to keep track of one’s transactions. But weekend transactions were posted to one’s account inconsistently, among other inconsistencies, which made it difficult to plan one’s daily cost of living expenditures. At one point, attempts to opt out of overdraft protection was made impossible. It was clear Wells Fargo was playing games with its customers, who they could see struggled to get by from paycheck to paycheck. So, they set up many traps, which gouge Wells Fargo customers. For example, on at least one occasion, thinking all transactions had posted and a certain balance was available, separate weekend purchases of a bottle of water, some gas, and food, resulted in three separate $35 overdraft charges. Ultimately, your author had to quit Wells Fargo.
For an excellent documentary film on these types of abusive practices, and their toll on working class families, see: Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders (2006) directed by James Scurlock. Maxed Out is a must-see film, which features, among other experts, a then-little-known Elizabeth Warren.
[8] Essentially, Philip Maldari, as a SaveKPFA partisan, as a Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club type of Democrat, he avoids certain issues, to the left of the Democratic Party.
Since Dr. Black did agree with your author, Messina, and did admit that the job guarantee programme is critical to the lives of free speech radio listeners, why, do we suppose, Philip Maldari didn’t ask Dr. Black anything about it? Why would Maldari not express even the slightest hint of curiosity in this very important, but under-reported, information? Is it obfuscation? Is it intellectual laziness?
(My audio was cut off at the point when Maldari takes over. But I was still on the line, until the end of the broadcast. Usually, the producer or the host may get on the line to thank people for calling in or to ask further about anything a caller may have commented on. The last time I called in to KPFA, Deana(sp?) Martinez got to me after the UpFront broadcast, and took a message from me to delivery to Car Brooks about MMT, the job guarantee programme, Dr. Kelton, and the Bernie Sanders campaign. But not this time. This time they just hung up.
(It seems they didn’t want to know about MMT or the job guarantee programme or any of the heterodox policy proposals from the University of Missouri-Kansas City or other heterodox institutions. They just want to confine intellectuals to strict parameters, which do not upset the two-party system, or the impulse to corral progressives toward the Democratic Party and away from political alternatives. I have respect for Philip Maldari as a longtime contributor to KPFA. I have learned a lot from his broadcasts, like others on KPFA. But I must question his, and his faction’s, resistance to certain controversial topics, issues, and interview subjects. KPFA seriously needs to support heterodox economists, such as Dr. William K. Black, Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Dr. L.R. Wray, Dr. Michael Hudson, and others from heterodox institutions like the University of Missouri-Kansas City. It is in keeping with the Pacifica Mission Statement.)
LUMPENPROLETARIAT—On today’s edition of Against the Grain, Professor Ted Stolze (Cerritos College) discussed a new article he’s published at Rethinking Marxism, which ranges from the philosophical works of Baruch Spinoza to Dr. Karl Marx. The article is entitled “An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude“. Listen (and/or download) here. [1]
Messina
***
[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Against the Grain.]
Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883)
AGAINST THE GRAIN—[26 SEP 2016] [Station identification by Erica Bridgeman(sp?): 94.1 KPFA and 89.3 KPFB, in Berkeley; 88.1 KFCF, in Fresno; 97.5 K248BR, in Santa Cruz; and online at kpfa.org. The time is twelve, noon. Stay tuned, next, for Against the Grain.][theme music]
“Today, on Against the Grain, what sustains radical politics?What keeps resistance to oppression going over the long run?
“Ted Stolze finds, in the writings of Baruch Spinoza, resources, that can help socialists and other radicals persevere and carry on with their political struggles. I’m C.S. Soong, the philosophy professor and specialist in Spinoza and Marx joins us, after these News Headlines with Aileen Alfandary.” (c. 1:04)
[KPFA News Headlines (read by Aileen Alfandary) omitted by scribe] [2] (c. 6:55)
C.S. SOONG: “From the studios of KPFA in Berkeley, California, this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. My name is C.S. Soong.
“People rise up in anger. They cry out and gather on the streets and organise in their communities in response to some injustice, something, that provokes indignation and outrage. And, sometimes, this upsurge in protest can go on for some time, for weeks and even months. And, then, often, the demos begin to fizzle out. And the anger subsides. And a lot of people go back to their everyday lives.
“So, if a key question hovering over radical politics and activism is how to sustain resistance, how to motivate or inspire people to stick with it, then what, or who, can we turn to for resources, for ideas about how to keep radicals going over the long run?
“Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher, who wrote a lot about the human condition. And my guest, today, has found, in Spinoza’s writings, ideas, that he believes can help radicals persevere as radicals.
“Ted Stolze is a philosophy professor at Cerritos College in Norwalk, California. And he contributed an article entitled ‘An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude’ to the journal Rethinking Marxism. He’s also author of the forthcoming book, Becoming Marxist: Studies In Philosophy, Struggle, and Endurance.
“Now, Spinoza was born in Amsterdam in 1632. His Portugese-Jewish parents had moved there to escape persecution. I asked Ted Stolze what he likes to emphasise about Spinoza’s early life.” (c. 8:37)
DR. TED STOLZE: “He was the son of a fruit merchant. So, he grew up in a, sort of a, business climate. And, in one of his earliest works, called A Treatise On the Improvement of the Understanding—is the customary title—Spinoza reflects that he had sought out various forms of truth and goodness and came to the realisation—this isn’t, necessarily, an autobiographical statement on his part; but this is a universal experience, that I think reflects, in part, his autobiography. He’d realised that wealth and honour and pleasure were fleeting, were inadequate. [3]
“And the limited biographical materials, that have survived—and later biographers have drawn on these—suggest that he was a very sensitive young man. He was not comfortable or satisfied with remaining within the context of his father’s business. [4] His brother did pursue that. But, Spinoza, himself, saw the limitations, the constraints of, even, a successful business.
“And he was widely regarded as a very precocious student. His Latin teacher, Franciscus van den Enden, was a big influence on him. He became very interested in theatre and the arts and may, even, have acted in some plays, that van den Enden produced.
“So, he just seems to have been a very precocious young man, who saw the limitations of the life, that was laid out for him. And he had a kind of—I guess we could call it—an existential crisis or a philosophical conversion. I’m not sure, exactly, what would be the best way of characterising it.
Baruch Spinoza was eventually banned by his Sephardic Jewish community for being an independent-thinking radical in 17th century Amsterdam.
C.S. SOONG: “At age 17, Spinoza cut short his formal studies to help the family’s business. At age 24, he was excommunicated from the Sephardic community of Amsterdam. Tell us about that.” (c. 10:49)
DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, excommunicated is more of a Christian way of explaining. He fell under a ban by the elders of the Jewish synagogue, or community, in Amsterdam. And they were in a somewhat precarious situation. If I were thinking along their lines: Here’s a young, radical, free-thinker, who is endangering the stability and respect and toleration, that was offered to the Jewish community in Amsterdam.
“Throughout Europe, there were very few places, in which Jews could worship openly and not fear persecution, social isolation. So, I think there was a level of discomfort with Spinoza. And it was a mutual parting of the ways, frankly. I think Spinoza was, at that point, not really content to remain within the small circle of friends and family within the Jewish community. He had already met people through his father’s business. He had met other individuals, just, in everyday intellectual pursuits and his studies.
“So, in a way, it sounds harsh to say it was an excommunication or a ban. I would think we could call it a mutual parting of the ways.” (c. 12:08)
C.S. SOONG: “Now, we are talking, this hour, about an article you wrote for the journal Rethinking Marxism. It’s called ‘An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude‘. And what you’re trying to do is draw on resources, that you find within Spinoza, within his thought and writing, resources, that might aid what?, that might help whom? And I assume, of course, and I know, that this relates to the socialist project, the project of people, who have read, and understood, and taken from Karl Marx.”
DR. TED STOLZE: “Yes. Well, I’ve been an activist most of my adult life. Most recently, as a union president, as a faculty union president. Previously, in the anti-apartheid movement, Central America solidarity, anti-Gulf War movement.
“And, over the years, it occurred to me—it’s very difficult—and I think this is true of other activists as well—it’s pretty difficult to sustain a commitment to radical social change, partly because of the ups and downs of movements, partly because of the stresses, that activism plays upon each individual, emotionally, and their friendships and family relationships.
“Now, Spinoza wouldn’t be the only person one could turn to. But, I think, Spinoza’s discussion of emotions, the affects, to use his technical term, is, potentially, fruitful for radical activists to think through. On the one hand, what causes people to become motivated to participate within radical political projects, but also what can sustain their commitments, especially in the context of the ups and downs of struggles and that many of the movements, that we participate within, will not fully achieve what we hope that they will achieve [within our lifetimes].
“So, it’s that unevenness, I think, of the rise and fall of social movements and how activists and organisers can regularly rethink and adjust themselves to that ebb and flow of movements. A very specific, recent, example, I think, is, like many people, I was supportive of the Bernie Sanders campaign. And even that slogan, to feel the Bern, was very contingent on the success of the campaign and forces, that we don’t always have much control over. [7]
“So, how do you sustain a commitment, even past the defeat of Bernie Sanders, or whatever comes after Bernie Sanders?” (c. 15:07)
Well, I clearly see emotional appeals by musicians, by artists. For many of my generation, music played a very important role, whether it was the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan or Marvin Gaye.
I mean the ability of music to animate a desirefor a society to be very different; that’s what I would call a utopian element within the arts or a romantic impulse within much music and art.
C.S. SOONG: “Socialists should, in an effort to persuade others to join in the socialist project—right? I mean part of what socialists want to do is to build the movement. They should, and they do, use facts and arguments; and, they, also, you write, should rely on emotion, by which you mean what?”
DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, I clearly see emotional appeals by musicians, by artists. For many of my generation, music played a very important role, whether it was the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan or Marvin Gaye. I mean the ability of music to animate a desirefor a society to be very different; that’s what I would call a utopian element within the arts or a romantic impulse within much music and art.
“Of course, there’s also music or art, that plays upon anger, indignation, rage, a sense of injustice, that things should not be like this, cannot be allowed to remain like this.
“Also, I think of, in public meetings and in public events, there’s a tendency for, maybe anger and indignation is the common emotional appeal. The danger, of course, and this is why, I think, partly, Spinoza is important. If you rely on, simply, anger or indignation to arouse a crowd, it can’t easily be sustained. I mean, in the short-run, it might be very effective. But my concern is: How do you sustain that kind of emotional appeal. It’s extremely short-lived or episodic. That would also be true of utopian and romantic appeals, that people can only live in that euphoric moment of, say, the Occupy Movement for a certain period of time. You know; weeks, months, perhaps. But that euphoria will tend to die down. And there is a return to the ordinary life, that we live.
“So, it’s this fluctuation of emotions, that is the problem, that I’ve observed and Spinoza in his Ethics, in his great work, especially, focuses on this kind of alternation of emotions, the dynamic of the affects between, for example, hope and fear, love and hatred. And, if all we are presented with is this fluctuation, we’re not really able to build the kind of movement, that is going to reach out and sustain itself through these ups and downs of whatever difficulties present themselves to us.” (c. 18:08)
[SNIP]
[(c. 23:57) Dr. Stolze draws upon an example from his experience with collective bargaining.] (c. 25:26)
C.S. SOONG: “I’m C.S. And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. Ted Stolze joins us. His academic research focuses primarily on Baruch Spinoza, the 17th century Dutch philosopher and Karl Marx and contemporary French and Italian philosophy. And he worked for five years as president of his American Federation of Teachers Local. And we are talking about something he wrote about Spinoza and Spinoza’s notion on fortitude and socialist politics, that appeared in the journal Rethinking Marxism.
“What about outrage toward a political system or a political injustice? And, you know, that outrage might not last very long, for a variety of reasons, you know, for practical reasons. We may just need to get back to work and deal with our jobs and our families and our personal lives.
“But what might the concept of fortitude and the subcategories of courage and generosity, that you laid out, that Spinoza advocated? What might fortitude do to help us work through that outrage and anger toward something more stable, less fluctuating, and more focused, and more enduring?” (c. 26:46)
DR. TED STOLZE: “Right. I think one of the difficulties here is to distinguish what Spinoza might be talking about and its relevance to radical politics. And I guess what has become rather popular is some notion of grit. I’ve seen a number of books, that have come out with this idea of grit. If only we could exert greater willpower or strength of character, that we will be successful in our personal lives or in business or something along those lines. [5]
“Spinoza is not suggesting that, as actuated individuals, we are going to be able to strengthen our emotional life. I don’t take what Spinoza is talking about as some kind of pop psychology for activists. You know; some sort of daily routine or regimen one goes through, not that anything would be, necessarily wrong with that. In this aspect, Spinoza could be seen asin continuity with a kind of Stoic tradition of regular reflection on one’s emotional life. You find this in Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus and Seneca in the ancient world. (c. 27:54)
“But I think for Spinoza, really, what’s needed is tobuild organisations, is to reach out to others, that the strengthening of one’s emotional life can’t fully be done by oneself, even through a very regular, regimented, routine of reflection.
“For example, we have to build sustainable movements, political parties, unions. And, if we think about fortitude in terms of the courage aspect, that’s only one element. The generosity aspect means that we take courage and strengthen our resolve in relation to others. So, there’s that dynamic interplay, that dialectic, we could call it, of courage and generosity. Those who are generous have courage strengthened, and vice versa.
“However, even within, very robust, dynamic organisations, there are periods of crisis. There are divisions. There are splits. So, even at that level there are no guarantees. But what I am trying to suggest is, for Spinoza, it’s not a merely psychological analysis of how we can rein in bad impulses or redirect bad impulses to good impulses. It’s a question of joining forces with others. And, for Spinoza, we increase our power to act in the world to the extent that we identify with, find support and encouragement in organisations with others.” (c. 29:36)
C.S. SOONG: “Another thing you bring up in this article in Rethinking Marxism is Spinoza’s insistence on looking for what’s good in whatever we come across. Can you elaborate on that?”
DR. TED STOLZE: “Yeah. Let me give a contemporary example. If you look at the presidential campaign, I think a lot of the liberals and progressives, that I know, have been unduly terrified by the specter of Donald Trump and those who support him. There is cause to be afraid. There is cause to be concerned. And, yet, the ascendancy of Trump suggests, as with the support, that people had for Bernie Sanders, that things are not going to continue on as they have in the past. There’s something new, that has emerged. And it’s not that I would say there’s something good in Trump. But the Trump phenomenon indicates the discontent, the lack of satisfaction with the way U.S. capitalism is going. And it’s an opportunity. [6]
“So, the tragedy to me is that I think Bernie Sanders would have been able to, and was able to, reach the people, who were responding to Trump, or at least some of them. [7] And, given the nature of the campaign, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is simply not, it would appear, interested in trying to reach those people, but rather simply relying on fear of consigning those who support Trump—simply to exclude them from consideration. [8]
“Now, I have family members, who are sympathetic to Trump. So, it is challenging at a personal level to try to find some good out of what can be very, very frustrating [chuckles] conversations. But this is the nature of politics and political debate and discussion to try to find some good in one’s opponent, not that you’re going over to the side of your opponent. But you’re trying to strengthen your own arguments in the process.
“So, I think what Spinoza is saying is a realisation that there is, neither, pure good, nor bad, in the world. There are relative degrees of good and bad. And, even in a very negative situation, a situation of fear, there are bases of hope, even in a very negative campaign, like the Trump campaign, there are symptoms or indications that there’s something more interesting going on that radicals, leftists, can seek to identify and to redirect, within limits, to their own efforts at a more progressive, egalitarian, social transformation.” (c. 32:32)
C.S. SOONG: “I wanna step back here and talk about Spinoza and his ethics and his ethical project and what it brings to the Marxists, specifically Marxist projects. And you bring this up in your article. Maybe, as a way of getting into this, we could talk about to what degree you think ethics was a part of Marx. To what degree Marx focused on ethics, as opposed to politics and capitalism and economics? What’s your take on that?”
DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, I’ve been in—let me take it in two different directions. I’ve been in socialist organisations. And my first real exposure to an education in socialist ideas was not in an academic setting, but in a socialist organisation, Solidarity, which is a small, national organisation. But it still exists. I remain sympathetic to that perspective of socialism from below, which is a term, that Hal Draper, who was very closely connected to the Berkeley Free Speech movement, as a librarian at UC Berkeley. That’s his term, socialism from below or, in Marxist politics, the idea that socialism requires the self-emancipation of the working class.
“The difficulty, however, among Marxists within many of the organisations, that I’m familiar with and, to a certain extent, within my own experience, that ethics hasn’t played the sort of role, that it really ought to play. I don’t mean that ethics should play the primary role. But so much of the discussion within socialist groups tends to be dealing with a current political issue or a discussion of economics or foreign policy or something along these lines. And there’s not enough attention paid to: So, why is that wrong? And how ought we to react at a level other than just a factual analysis?
“So, part of my concern is that socialist organisations have not paid enough attention to matters of ethics. But in Marx you do see—in Marx’s early writings, in Marx’s political writings, in Capital, itself, you see—a willingness, not just to describe capitalism and the nature of capitalist crises, but to condemn capitalism, to not provide a blueprint of what the alternative might be, what socialism might look like. I don’t think Marx was interested in blueprints. But he was a theorist and consistent critic of the injustices of capitalism, the degradation, the lack of dignity, that working people experience under capitalist social relations.
“So, I think there’s sort of a disconnect between the socialist organisations, that I’ve been involved in, where there isn’t much attention paid to ethics. And, yet, Marx’s writings seem to be filled with moral condemnation of the injustices of capitalism. That doesn’t mean that that’s all there is in Marx. But I am suggesting that that is a resource in Marx’s writings, that contemporary socialists might want to pay attention to.
“Probably, the best example of somebody who tried to do that was an English philosopher named Norman Geras, who wrote eloquently on the need for Marxists to re-engage with ethical reflection, both, and with criticising the injustices of capitalism, but also in trying to identify what would be just means to surpass or supersede or replace capitalism.
“So, there’s a moral deficit, I think, within many organisations of the left, and the socialist organisations, that I’ve been a part of. For all of their good work and intelligent activism, there needs to be that kind of rethinking of those moral resources, that we find within Marx’s writings, and not just Marx. You find it with Rosa Luxemburg. You find it in Antonio Gramsci. You find it in the Frankfurt School. You find it as part of the Marxist tradition. Herbert Marcuse would be another example of a Marxist philosopher, who was deeply concerned with a moral condemnation of capitalism, not simply a characterisation of how capitalism works with capitalist crises, but why capitalism must be challenged and, to the extent that we can, reformed and, we hope, replaced with a much better kind of society or a socialist democracy, if we want to use that term.” (c. 37:44)
C.S. SOONG: ” [SNIP] ”
[(c. 38:12) music break: song about courage and going “against the grain”] (c. 39:30)
C.S. SOONG: And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. My name is C.S. Soong.
“Ted Stolze is a philosophy professor at Cerritos College. And he taught philosophy and religious studies for a dozen years now at, what is now, California State University-East Bay. And we are talking about an article. And, actually, it’s, really, a much broader research and academic investigational project he has into the work of Baruch Spinoza, who was born in 1632 and died in 1677. He was a Dutchphilosopher born of Portuguese–Jewish parents, who had fled to Amsterdam to escape persecution.
“His magnum opus is The Ethics, which was published in 1677. He died in The Hague that year. How political was Baruch Spinoza? I mean we’ve been talking about his analysis of emotions, his understanding of things like fortitude and courage and generosity, and the distinction he made between passive and active affects, or emotions.
“To what degree was he politically engaged? And, to what extent did he use the kinds of ethical resources, he was offering to the world, specifically, in political struggle or political activity?” (c. 41:01)
DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, we wouldn’t want to characterise Spinoza as an activist. He did have a circle of friends, that he met regularly with and discussed philosophy and science, undoubtedly, discussed current affairs.
“When the Dutch Republic was in danger, he certainly supported the leaders of the Republic, the De Witt brothers. But he was not somebody, who you would say was engaged in a modern political sense. That was not really something, that he, perhaps, had any expertise or was not even something, which was possible for him. It is interesting, that, however, that his Latin teacher, Franciscus van den Enden, was a very committed advocate of radical democratic politics and was, in France, accused of being a spy and, in fact, executed on a charge he was participating in a plot to assassinate the King of France. (c. 42:10)
“So, I’m under the assumption that Spinoza’s relationship to his Latin teacher would’ve been one in which he was exposed to very democratic ideas. And, in the 17th century, these were ideas, that were largely suppressed in Europe, with the exception in the mid-17th century of the English Civil War, in which King Charles the First and his army were defeated by a parliamentary army led by Oliver Cromwell, who in 1649 presided over the execution of King Charles and establishment of a Commonwealth, that last for the length of Cromwell’s life.
“But it turned into the kind of democratic republic, that I suspect, that Spinoza had hoped to see, and other, more radical elements within the parliamentary army and within English society had hoped to see. (c. 43:12)
“So, there was a kind of disillusionment, that some have thought occurred, or a waning of Spinoza’s enthusiasm for democratic politics. I’m not sure that that, in fact, is the case. But there is a kind of withdrawal of Spinoza, from direct political engagement. [9] And I think there’s, sometimes, a need for withdrawal to rethink. And The Ethics and the unfinished last work, that Spinoza wrote called A Political Treatise do have strong commitments, I would say, still, to thinking of democracy as one in which participation, rather than representation is the identifying feature.
“There was no freedom of speech in the 17th century. So, it would have been very difficult for Spinoza to have openly advocated democracy. The Dutch Republic was governed by a looking elite. And, when it was overthrown in the early 1670s, Spinoza was appalled by it and publicly sought to protest it. But his landlady, evidently, persuaded him to stay at home and not risk the anger of the mobs, who were celebrating the overthrow of the Republic and the re-establishment of the House of Orange monarchy.
“So, I don’t think you’re gonna find in Spinoza a necessarily good model of an activist, the way we would understand an activist. But Spinoza’s philosophy, I think, and his commitment to democracy in this participatory sense is very useful for contemporary activists.” (c. 45:09)
C.S.SOONG: “We’ve already talked about the pitfalls of acting out of outrage or anger or maybe the problems with anger and outrage as resources with which to fuel a continuing sort of activism or agitation. What about pity? What did Spinoza think of acting out of pity for others?”
DR. TED STOLZE: ” [Spinoza was not sympathetic to pity as it implied a sense of superioty, such as offering a homeless person a handout but not doing anything to identify nor challenge the causes and sources of that poverty. Spinoza had a deeper sense of pity, borne of a deeper egalitarian impulse to recognise the source of the suffering and to do something about it.][SNIP] ”
C.S. SOONG: [SNIP] ” (c. 47:55)
DR. TED STOLZE: ” [SNIP] [TW: On Negri, values, intergenerational struggle, etc.] (c. 50:57)
“So, I think what Spinoza offers, his philosophy has offered, to me at least, the way of thinking, not just how we become radicalised, initially, either, through hope or anger or some combination of the two, but how we can, over the course of our lives, continue to build, continue to hope, continue to think, continue to reach out and join forces with others in new organisations, new parties, new struggles to come. We, again, may not live to see the fruits of our efforts. But we continue in that direction, nonetheless.” (c. 51:38)
[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]
***
[1] Terrestrial radio broadcast, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving: Against the Grain, this one-hour broadcast hosted by co-host C.S. Soong, Monday, 26 SEP 2016, 12:00 PDT.
“Radical political projects suffer when people burn out, get distracted, or otherwise drift away. What can help socialists and other leftists stay on course and even deepen their commitment over the long term? Ted Stolze finds in the writings of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza conceptual resources that he thinks can help radicals persevere.
[2] Topics included: the 2016 two-party presidential debate #1, mass shooting by Dessai(sp?); jury selection in trial of Dylan Routh(sp?) for hate crimes; man pies mayor, mayor punches man in the face, requiring stitches; etc.
[4] On existential angst and feeling unsatisfied with the status quo:
“Unsatisfied” by The Replacements
[5] Indeed, in the great American tradition of stoicism, the legendary John Wayne may come to mind, in the classic film, True Grit (1969), recently remade starring Jeff Bridges (2010). Adapted from the 1968 novel. Or simply consider the concept of grit, as a personality trait, in the American culture.
[6] In recent years, Ralph Nader has spoken and written about a burgeoning potential for a left-right, working class, coalition, emphasising that rank-and-file conservatives and liberals are largely working class people with more in common than they think. See Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (2014).
[7] Actually, the biggest tragedy is that Senator Bernie Sanders quit on his supporters by acquiescing to the two-party machine, or the two-party dictatorship.
Firstly, there was evidence that Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign was illegally aided by the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the Democratic Party, which favored Hillary Clinton and worked behind the scenes to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders. Yet, Sanders did not demand that Clinton’s campaign be disqualified. He didn’t even call for any further investigation. Sanders simply did not fight back. He simply said that he was “not surprised”, but he was “disappointed”. Then, when Obama sat him down in the White House, he came back almost reprogrammed. He was no longer campaigning to win, but to influence Hillary’s campaign. On day one of the 2016 Democratic Primary, despite droves of his supporters still backing him, he immediately conceded to Hillary Clinton claiming that he did not have a mathematical chance of winning. His supporters booed and cried out in anguish. Yet, there had already been indications of electoral fraud, which has been further substantiated by this point. (See Greg Palast’s various election reports, including for Rolling Stone and KPFA/Pacifica Radio’s Flashpoints. Also see Greg Palast’s new documentary film The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy.) Bernie Sanders could have fought back against the illegitimacy of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But he chose not to.
Secondly, Bernie Sanders’ campaign could have unanimously defeated Hillary Clinton’s campaign had Bernie Sanders featured his own chief economist Dr. Stephanie Kelton (University of Missouri-Kansas City), a heterodox economist of the Post-Keynesian variety, who is also currently one of Politico‘s Top 50 most influential people (#44 to Bernie’s #1 position). Instead, Sanders basically squandered Dr. Kelton’s expertise and her technically sound, yet revolutionary, economic policy proposals, which Bernie supporters would have loved. Had Bernie Sanders led with Dr. Kelton, someone with the passion, intellect, and charisma comparable to an Elizabeth Warren, the Sanders campaign could have included in its political platform the heterodox economics policy proposal of the job guarantee program, which can end involuntary unemployment, as we know it. Dr. Kelton could have explained to the American people, via Bernie’s campaign, how modern money theory (or MMT, modern monetary theory), monetary sovereignty, having a sovereign currency, and how our current economic system works, which means the government can afford to spend for public purpose without fiscal constraints. With all the talk about the need for jobs from all sides, including Trump and Hillary, it’s truly tragic that Bernie Sanders chose not to allow Dr. Kelton (and other heterodox economists) to explain how a job guarantee is possible, feasible, and necessary for the economic well-being of the nation.
Senator Bernie Sanders could have challenged the cheating and collusion on the part of the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic Primary election. He could’ve denounced the Democratic Party for being anti-democratic against him and his campaign. He could’ve denounced the collusion between the Democratic and Republican parties to block other political parties from their nationally broadcast presidential debates. He could’ve ran as an independent. He could’ve joined forces with the Green Party. He could’ve stood courageously, instead of caving in, allowing himself to be reprogrammed, and immediately backing neoliberal Hillary Clinton without qualification. Instead Bernie Sanders sold out in the worst way.
[8] Actually, it’s more than just “given the nature of the campaign”. Actually, more precisely, it’s given the nature of the two-party system, the two-party dictatorship. The limitations Dr. Stolze refers to extend beyond this particular election to the entire American political superstructure, which is anti-democratic in its suppression of political alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties.
[9] If Spinoza really lost his revolutionary or democratic spirit toward the end of his life, if his writing and later philosophy reflect a certain resignation from civic engagement, could Spinoza be the prototype for the sell-out, bourgeois, or petty bourgeois mentality among politically stagnant or moribund liberals in the United States? Does Robert Putnam need to rewrite Bowling Alone with a reconsideration of Spinoza?
LUMPENPROLETARIAT Admittedly, we were all stunned by the electoral defeat of neoliberal Hillary Rodham Clinton last night, even those of us who didn’t vote for her. Of course, we must have a complete ballot audit and confirm the ballot counts. And with this, another presidential election in which the loser is the candidate with the most votes from the people, we must ask ourselves: When will we finally do away with the antiquated Electoral College?
FLASHPOINTS—[9 NOV 2016] “Today on Flashpoints, a special post election edition with legendary award-winning filmmaker, columnist, author John Pilger. Call it a view from Europe. I’m Dennis Bernstein. All this, straight ahead on Flashpoints. Stay tuned. [theme music continues]
