The League of Ugly Gentlemen.

The Time for Populism.

The very suggestion that there is a ruling-class might be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". It would no doubt be met with rage from some who would unroll the accusation that this is just a backward attempt to take us back to the politics of class. Because apparently we have moved beyond class and into an age where all the old battles have been won. Nothing will ever change for the reason that all the necessary changes have already been accomplished. Even as the British elite hold around £4 trillion in the form of antiques, paintings and pensions, to speak of 'class' is to resurrect flat-earth politics. This huge concentration of wealth in a few hands is not unique to our little island. The total liquid wealth of the global rich (around 10 million people) came to $40 trillion in 2009 and it has been increasing in spite of the crisis. In the advanced capitalism of today, we are led to believe, the class structure has been obliterated and the individual now rises in accordance with their own merit, specifically talents and work ethic.

There was an interesting study covered in the New Scientist on the matter of a global ruling-class. In an analysis of the relations between 43,000 multinational corporations it has become evident that a relatively small group of companies that hold onto a disproportionate amount of power in the global economy. The work revealed a core of 1,318 companies with interlocking ownerships. On average each of these companies had connected to around 20 other companies. These 1,318 companies represented 20% of global operating revenues and it appears that the 1,318 own through shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing corporations - representing a further 60% of global revenues. The team went further to untangle the network and found that just less than 150 companies control 40% of the wealth in the entire network. The dominant companies include Barclay's Bank, JP Morgan Chase & Co and Goldman Sachs. In light of all of this can we really maintain that the idea of a ruling-class is so outlandish? 

The British elites still carry some of the remnants of the privileged position that they held in the old feudal power-structure. Consequently, the political class has not yet gotten used to ratifications, not even at the symbolic level which the Americans "enjoy" so much. This is the reason that the Americans have a much stronger Freedom of Information act than Britain. Of course, the US has a sophisticated network of mass-media and public relations which muddies the water to keep a great deal of Americans in the dark. There is a similar network in Britain, except we lack the same formidable free access to information. The consequence is that the insights into the political and ruling-class are much more difficult to come by. Occasionally the information seeps out of the liberal end of the mass-media press, to the chagrin of the reactionary gutter-press who would rather announce the triumph of socialism than acknowledge the bitter truth of class and deplore the horrors of capitalism. The discourse is casually limited by the influences and interests that ensnare the media.

So we know that the Conservative Party received £7.3 million in the campaign for 2010, while Labour received around £5.3 million. Since David Cameron became party leader we know that the Party has received £42 million from financial institutions, over half of the total donations that the Party received altogether. This is chicken feed compared to the US elections where the outcome is always pre-bought, Obama received around $750 million which is $400 million more than his opponent. In 2012 it seems we will see campaign contributions surpass $2 billion thanks to a decision by the US Supreme Court. We should view the corporate circus run-amok in the American government with wary eyes in Britain. The tales of the links between Tories and the private sector should not surprise anyone, nor should the proximity of lobbyists to power even at the highest level in this country. Out of the convergence of interests invested in the state we find policy emerges, there is a potential for political stagnation as well as radical change. Right now the situation is one of stagnancy.

The Labour Party has often been thought incompatible with the Conservative Party for the reason that the former is embedded in the labour movement, whereas the latter has long been the party of business. It has to be noted that the decline of trade unions in this country as a political force has made it possible for Big Business to share the Labour Party with them. As long as the unions are powerless then it is possible for Big Business to dominate the Party, the clashes of interests can be easily managed. It has to be noted that the industries unscathed by union-influence at all are impervious to the decisions of militants and moderates alike in the labour movement. This is the reason that it is perfectly possible for financial institutions to hold out for the Labour Party. The financial colossus cannot be broken by the labour movement and it cannot be stopped from leaping from Labour to Conservative whenever it has to. The commentariat don't like to say that the Con-Dem Coalition could have easily been the Lab-Con Coalition.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, the overall effect of the Treasury's new plans will be to reduce the incomes of those in the bottom 30% of earners and to benefit those in the top 60%. The top 60% would include the 10% of the population who own £4 trillion in wealth already and this is the primary constituency of the Coalition. It is not that the government is incapable of serving the people, it is that the government has a dual constituency torn between the interests of working-class people and the elites. So any appeal to one has to be made to the other at the same time, often on the terms of the constituents with greater clout and influence. This is the reason that David Cameron will talk of "muscular liberalism" and the "failure" of multiculturalism as an appeal to working-class people riled up by the press about Muslims and immigration. It is perfectly compatible with the austerity measures which are set to destroy what was accomplished in the immediate aftermath of World War II. To put it crudely the economic policies appeal to a particular base while the social policies and political rhetoric appeal to the masses.

A Love Story: Rupert Murdoch and the Establishment.

 The Yuppie Mephistopheles.

Over the last five decades Rupert Murdoch has constructed an international media empire, it began with News Ltd which he inherited in 1953 from his father and he soon sought to expanded the family business horizontally. Politicians fear his wrath as a campaign of vilification backed by Rupert Murdoch is practically unstoppable. David Cameron had a private meeting with Murdoch before being elected Prime Minister, with the full support of Murdoch's media interests in Britain. Even Barack Obama met with Murdoch before taking office and has been the subject of a destructive smear campaign run out of Fox News - accusing Obama of being a socialist - and has openly come out in support of the Republicans for 2012. The current scandal over phone hacking at The News of the World (which began back in 2006) is interesting in this context. When Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and the scandal had just erupted, Murdoch had called for New Labour to back off and then sided against Brown in 2009.

As of last year Rupert Murdoch has contributed $1 million to the Republican Party and given the Tea Party enormous support through his media interests. Just like the way James Goldsmith funded the anti-Communist campaign against unions in Britain back in the 70s. The same framework of a fight of the common man against the liberal elite and the political class is applied by Fox News against the White House to further a right-wing agenda. In the last years of New Labour the right-wing press, led by Murdoch, attacked Brown on numerous incidents. Take "Bigotgate" in which Gordon Brown was caught on tape calling Gillian Duffy a "bigot" because of comments she made about immigration. The 40% of British media owned and influenced by Murdoch led the way in the attack on Brown as an out-of-touch elitist. In a similar manner The News of the World strived to uncover the lies and sordid secrets of the Establishment. The sex life of John Prescott is the business of the public according to The News of the World and any call for his right to privacy is just elitism.

Take the case of Russell Harty, who as he lay dying in a hospital bed from hepatitus found himself hounded by The News of the World. There was an intense undercurrent of homophobia to the media frenzy, which culminated in The Sun blaming Harty for his death just after the funeral in 1988. It was in reaction to the recent attack on the Murdoch empire by the liberal elite, it came in the form of Alan Bennett who pointed the finger at the press and said "The gutter press finished him." Even though reporters had been pursuing Harty in the hospital, posing as doctors demanding to see medical notes and photographers who rented a flat opposite Harty's hotel room, it was decided Bennett had made an outrageous statement. The Sun responded "Stress did not kill Russell Harty. The truth is that he died from a sexually transmitted disease. The press didn't give it to him. He caught it from his own choice. And by paying young rent boys he broke the law. Some - like ageing bachelor Mr Bennett - can see no harm in that. He has no family. But what if it had been YOUR son Harty had bedded?"

Every US President since Truman has met Rupert Murdoch and he has helped elect a few along the way through his media empire. It was Fox News which first declared George W Bush the President-elect and the rival news outlets soon fell in line. The Bush tax-cuts that were supposedly drawn-up to benefit the middle-classes and effectively handed over $1.6 trillion to around 1% of the American population. The surplus nurtured in the Clinton years of austere cut-backs was destroyed by this approach and a huge deficit was soon accumulated. The deficit is used to call for even more cuts to welfare, social security and health-care (notice defence is always excluded) in order for another set of tax-cuts. By 2003 out of the 247 editors, who work under Murdoch as part of his media empire, none came out to oppose the Iraq war and these are supposedly "independent" editors. Even Rupert Murdoch himself has admitted that the corporation actively supported the war until it became impossible to do so - given the level of opposition among the public.   

Buccaneer of the Press.

It wasn't until 1968 that Rupert Murdoch took over The News of the World and plucked it from the arms of an old establishment family. Sir William Carr chose Murdoch over Bob Maxwell, whom Carr hated because he was a Czech, as Murdoch had promised that even after the purchase Carr would continue to have a say in the running of the paper. This appealed to the attitudes of the Establishment at the time. Maxwell warned Sir William Carr that if Rupert Murdoch is allowed to takeover the paper "You will be out before your feet touch the ground" and he replied "Bob, Rupert is a gentleman." But as soon as Murdoch had cornered the shareholders in 1969 Carr was forced out. The Establishment decided that Rupert Murdoch was not a gentleman at all, he was a sleazy and destructive buccaneer capitalist. That same year Murdoch bought The Sun, it would be transformed from a replacement to The Daily Herald to the most widely sold newspaper in Britain.

Then Rupert Murdoch announced he was going to publish the memoirs of Christine Keeler in The News of the World. Keeler had an affair with John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War, in 1963 which scandalised high society and wrecked MacMillan's government. Profumo had since been rehabilitated after he worked for a charity in the East End. The British establishment had forgiven him and the way Murdoch had exumed the Profumo affair was a blatantly cynical decision motivated only by profit. The destruction of one of their own, who had made a "mistake" but had been reformed", was intolerable. The commentariat came to the rescue and the BBC made a more probing look at Rupert Murdoch with David Dimbleby as it's tool for doing so. It was after this rejection Murdoch moved to the US where he would continue his media expansion. From where he would contine to rail against old liberal elites, like the Kennedy family. To obscure a new array of elite interests Murdoch crafted a reflexive populism capable of slinging mud at any opponent.


At the time Rupert Murdoch had been mingling with the Mayfair Set, which included James Goldsmith, Jim Slater, Tiny Rowland, David Stirling (the man who founded the SAS), John Aspinall and Lord Lucan. The role the Set played in the shaping of the political trajectory of the late 20th Century has been well documented by Adam Curtis. Just as Murdoch was rejected by the Establishment so was the Mayfair Set. In the economic turmoil caused by the oil crisis, Slater Walker went bust in 1975 and Jim Slater was bankcrupted. Tiny Rowland was condemned by Ted Heath as the "unacceptable face of capitalism" and moved back to Africa. Lord Lucan disappeared without a trace after killing his nanny. James Goldsmith was left to pick up the pieces, but  followed Murdoch after a petty legal dispute with Private Eye. All of these men were disaffected right-wingers, who believed that the Labour Party and the media had been infiltrated by communists determined to undermine and destroy Great Britain.

Ironically these disaffected right-wingers who would undermine Britain as a nation and as a society in "liberating" the forces of the market and globalisation. Stirling had only succeeded in bringing a great deal of oil money to Britain through arms deals. Slater and Goldsmith smashed the family-ran public companies in order to make a short-term profit. The way Rupert Murdoch pursued his right-wing agenda reduced political discourse to a series of cynical exaggerations, moralising rants and politicised fear. The forces of liberal capitalism lead to a socio-economic, as well as a metaphysical, wasteland in which moral relativism (the very idea Murdoch rails against as "elitist") is nurtured. The market rationality is secular and relativistic, not to mention pragmatic, which has a subversive effect on the moral, religious and political order. This contradiction between the economic and the metaphysical is inherent to capitalism, it is inescapable. Murdoch offers a way of managing this tension, he has the power to reassert morality and nationhood that has been wrecked by the market.

At War with Elites.

The way Murdoch narrativised it, he rejected the Establishment out of a deep-seated understanding of the common man and would never "sell out" to become a "bloody press lord". To get revenge Rupert Murdoch returned to Britain in 1981 and bought The Times, to the outrage of the liberal elite and old 'One Nation' Tories. But the Thatcherites gave the take-over the go-ahead without reference to the Monopolies Commission, which was compulsory under the law. Thatcher made an exception for Murdoch on the grounds that neither The Times nor The Sunday Times made any money and he repaid her with dutiful support. In reaction the BBC, that oh so adversial pack of Oxbridge liberals, decided to shine a light on the business and personal life of Rupert Murdoch in a documentary entitled "Who's Afraid of Rupert Murdoch?" on Panorama. It was a much more hard-hitting look at the man behind the media and was followed by another interview conducted by David Dimbleby. As it turns out, the liberal commentariat hates Murdoch as much as the British establishment.


In 1986 Murdoch had moved all of his operations out of Fleet Street to Wapping. The print unions fell into the trap and went on strike, he sacked them and claimed that the unions were part of the decadent elites. The market system had to serve the people, all obstacles to market forces had to be swept away in the name of this cause. Actually the move increased the value of British papers by over 300%. The lay-offs in Britain were used to cross-subsidise the birth of Fox TV. In 1989 he helped write an editorial to celebrate the 20th anniversary of The Sun in which he wrote "The Establishment does not like the Sun. Never has. There is a growing band of people in positions of influence and privilege who want our newspaper to suti their private convenience." By 1991 Murdoch had solidified his position as a global media oligarch and he had the last laugh at Maxwell's expense, who fell off a yacht and drowned. This came after Maxwell had become one of the greatest criminals in the history of business.


As made evident in "Who's Afraid of Rupert Murdoch?" he has been consistently engaged in the take-over of intelligent newspapers only to transform them into cynical right-wing trash. These papers effectively become a propaganda wing for any political party which Murdoch latches onto out of ruthless self-interest. The opposition is immediately subjected to a destructive smear campaign, which abides no rules or moral code. In Britain this helped elect Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron. He was also instrumental in the downfalls of Gordon Brown and John Major (among others). The cunning manner in which Murdoch handles politicians, to benefit his own interests, led to him receiving a massive loan from the US government just after he had endorsed Jimmy Carter. Out of a hatred of what he considered to be elitism Murdoch helped conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic undermine old institutions, which were dominated by old money elites, in order to stamp out the network of opposition to him.

Rupert Murdoch supported the Conservatives in 2010 out of the same ruthless self-interest which caused him to attack Labour in 1992 and secure a Tory victory. Kinnock announced that if Labour won the election there would new ownership stipulations introduced to the market. This could have led to the breakdown of News Corporation which would amount to Murdoch's castration. The Oxbridge liberals at the BBC, who have "fought" Murdoch so valiantly for over 40 years, have now offered themselves up on a platter like the pig who wants to be eaten. Perhaps awaiting the Second Coming of Glenn Beck in the form of Richard Littlejohn? All for the sake of free-choice the BBC seems to have caved in to a policy favouring Murdoch's interests. The BBC is the biggest rival in Britain to News Corp, so it must be undermined, weakened and broken down into edible chunks for a smooth digestion. So a freeze of the license fee would be a good start. The only thing Murdoch hates more is Ofcom and that has been highlighted as a quango ready to be cut.

The Tories are still Blue.

 

Some of you, my fellow coach potatoes, will note the debate over the "Big Society" was reignited with a notable appearance from Phillip Blond on 10'Clock Live back in February and it will no doubt come up again in the future. As the proponent of a new kind of a communitarian conservatism Blond has found himself influential in the Conservative Party in recent years. The impact of the 'Red Tory' has been to shift rhetoric from the "compassionate conservative" limbo to a consistently conservative message. 'Red Toryism' has been posited as a viable alternative to the failures of the egalitarian Left and the pro-market Right, socially conservative but sceptical of neoliberalism. Though the commentariat have yet to buy it and many feel it is simply a "cover for cuts". On 10'Clock Live he took part in a discussion with liberal columnist Johann Hari and Conservative Shaun Bailey hosted by David Mitchell. The clashes between Hari and Blond were notably entertaining, though the government has still failed to promote the "Big Society" especially in this time of public spending cuts. 

The progressive credentials of David Cameron can easily be seen. Cameron is the product of affirmative action for rich white-men, he was born the fifth cousin twice removed to the Queen and got his first job with the Tories after he was recommended by an equerry at Buckingham Palace - not to mention the recent revelations about Clegg's internship. Aligned with the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party David Cameron has joined his German and French cousins in his opposition to multiculturalism. Cameron also maintains the Atlantic alliance between the US and the UK, whilst he is also a friend of Rupert Murdoch as well as to homophobes and anti-Semites in Europe. Never mind his advocacy of small government, austerity and Victorian family values on top of all this. These are not the credentials of a progressive, these are the warts of a reactionary which are hidden behind the well crafted veneer of a youthful, soft and modern conservative. This is an inversion of the 'Nixon in China' principle. Only Nixon, the anti-Communist, could sip tea with Mao and only a progressive can slash and burn the welfare state.

The only sense in which the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats could be considered progressive is in the Enlightenment sense of history as Progress. Conveniently this interpretation of history eliminates the need for radicalism of any kind: We will get there in the end, so why make big changes now? This is compatible with the economics of market liberalism, from which we might hold that there is full employment in the long-run so current trends of unemployment are only temporary. Along this road of Progress towards a liberal utopia, reminiscent of North Oxford, there are numerous obstacles that must be removed swiftly. There are the barbarous ideas and the dangerous enablers of such ideas, in the way that Islamism is supposedly empowered by liberal multiculturalism. Not that there is a need for a common project to unite people, as that would presuppose a different take on history, but rather that a "muscular liberalism" should succeed the multicultural order. Similarly, the culture of dependency has to be jettisoned along with all inefficiencies in the public sector.

Then we have the shattering revelations over the very warm relationship between the Conservative Party and the financial hub of the British economy should not be a surprise to any serious commentator. And if we lived in a free society there would be such a degree of transparency that the ordinary citizen would be informed of all the details, by which I mean all the figures of contributions to the parties. Contributions from the City of London to the Tory Party have risen since Cameron became Party leader in 2005. When David Cameron just came to lead the Party, funds from 'Big Finance' accounted for just less than £3 million which would represent around 25% of total donations. 5 years later and the Conservatives had received over £40 million in funds from Canary Wharf. Though it would be interesting to see the details of all three major parties, as in the US every election is won by the candidate who spends the most on the campaign trail. As I suspect the rich dumped New Labour  in favour of the Conservatives in the run-up to the 2010 General Election.

Keep in mind the strong support Cameron received from over 1,000 business leaders and the blessing of Rupert Murdoch, which may well have swung the election in 2010. Notably Blair received similar support from business leaders before his victory in 1997. The Murdoch media empire has been notably influential in elections for a long time and has acted as a base of media support for Thatcher, Major and Blair. From 2006 to 2009 the contributions added up to £16 million and in 2010 the Party raised £11 million from Canary Wharf - this is equal to the amount Labour raised from Unite from 2006-2009. Until recently this is all we knew about the financial ties to the Conservative Party, but now we know that the donations received by the Party are over £40 million since 2005. Under the leadership of David Cameron financial support procured from 'Big Finance' has literally doubled, the wealthy have leaped from 'Blue Labour' to 'Red Tory'. The same old platform has been recycled and refined slightly, it's pursuit of class interests even more brash and vicious than before.

When asked by Dylan Jones as to what his views on the City, and whether a Conservative Prime Minister can be a meaningful critic of the banks, Cameron responded "I think a Conservative Prime Minister can and should be a friend of business, where you praise and reward good business practice and then feel absolutely free to criticise bad business practice." Cameron went on to clarify that he does not believe the answer to every problem is regulation and legislation. Instead he opts for public debate and advocates responsibility in the business community - this is as shallow as it gets. Note Mr Cameron's words as we can now read of the Black and White Party, formerly known as the Winter Ball, where each of the 900 guests paid a minimum of £400 and went on to bid for City internships which could pave the way for their children to become hedge-fund managers and stock-brokers. Five were sold for £14,000 that night. All together the event may have raised £500,000 for the Conservative Party, funds which will be used to tell us all that "We're all in this together."

The "Virtual Parliament" of investors who vote on government policy minute-by-minute and will seek to undermine particular social policies and reforms - that strikes at the interests of the rich - through capital flight, this is the result of the financialisation of the economy over the last 30 years. We're talking about the global ultra-rich now, the people who have accumulated $40 trillion by 2009. The bailouts of 2008 to 2009 were a way of maintaining high rates of profit which could not be gained from the exploitation of labour. The same can be said of the bailouts of Greek, Irish and now Portugese banks. As a man of corporate public-relations David Cameron knows a good slogan when he sees one, which might explain why he ripped off the Obama theme of "Change". But at a time when profits have to be wrested through accumulation by dispossession we are already seeing the re-use of methods of race-baiting and military aggression. The current global situation could lead to movements for independence emerging in developing countries, as seen in the Middle East recently, as well as attempts by organised labour and the radical Left to fight against austerity.

Staring into the Abyss.

Tony Blair has scrapped his planned book signing at Waterstones in Piccadilly, London. The stated reason was "to avoid the inconvenience to the public it would have caused". The inconvenience being the costs entailed by travel, as well as rampant egg and shoe-shopping, to show Mr Blair just what we think of him. After the debacle in Dublin Blair quickly realised that the people, who he described as a "demonic rabble" in his book, who supported him as the "lesser evil" against John Major still hate him for the way he betrayed them. Unlike Narcissus Mr Blair decided not to stare at his own reflection until he wastes away. Instead Blair has retreated to avoid confrontation and save the public from an overstretched police force. In doing so, Blair projects his own image over the situation highlighting his "considerate" decision and not his cowardice at the possibility of the "demonic rabble" spoiling his moment in the spotlight.

The Poodle also called for "understanding" for those who were hoping to attend the event. Even though the only moral reason to attend such an event would be to pelt him with shoes and stale food. The most moral reason to even touch a copy of his emetic propaganda is to abduct it from the biography section and leave it in the crime section for a confused Mafiophile to stumble upon. Blair is leaving signed copies for the people to buy, vandalise and displace however we see fit - gee thanks T. Another "considerate" gesture towards the ungrateful herd and ignorant masses who will trample him out of spite, I suppose. Though much of Blair's behaviour is typical of a narcissistic cynicism. Cynicism is corrosive of political idealism and when combined with Blair's brand of reactionary self-love what you have is a source of rot and not just corrosion.

Instead of just leading to compromise in the Labour Party, as the cynics who preceded him had, Blair has "hollowed out" the Labour Party and deprived the British people of a progressive party that truly represents them. The Blairites are not progressives or socialists they are neoconservatives, the most vile kind of Tory. The self-portrayal of Blair as a "moderate" who is considerate to the "rabble" but strong enough to make the right decisions is a joke and not even Blair believes in this facade. The personally signed copies of his books left for consumers are a lot like the minimum wage and the fox-hunting ban, gestures made to buy the public and continue to get away with it all. But Blair showed his colours in claiming that the BNP might turn up and wreck the day, when it was the anti-war movement that were preparing to rally outside Waterstones. To insinuate that the people who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "fascists" is typical of Blair's character.

We the people don't fit into Blair's world, if he could go back he would undo passing the Freedom of Information act and he would have never banned fox-hunting, at best we are to be placated but not pleased by our leaders. Blair is not unique in his contempt for the working-class, he is part of a long history of elite contempt for the poor. The patronising manner in which Blair delivers his speeches - slowly, with some forced stuttering - is further evidence of his contempt for the populace. The Founding Fathers of the USA saw flaws in democracy and were opposed to dictatorship, they instead aimed to create a "moderate government", in the words of Alexander Hamilton, which is neither totally democratic nor totalitarian. The threat of democracy is that it could enable the poor to seize the property and wealth of the upper-class. The problem of democracy goes way back and there have been many proposed solutions to the problem.

Many of the Founding Fathers, most notably Madison, thought that the US should avoid the extremes of democracy, so that the rich could keep hold of a large amount of property and wealth. Whereas, Aristotle thought that the way to resolve the problem of democracy is to create a more equal society. If there is a more equal distribution of property and wealth there is less of a chance that the poor would seize the property and wealth of the elites. It could be that the enactment of the minimum wage, and other gestures of good will, were the initial way to deal with the problem of democracy. But the Blairites were also for a national DNA database, ID cards, ASBOs, the surveillance state and greater powers to the police. Not to mention the economic policies which were devoted to a lightly regulated financial system and a tax system which benefited the wealthiest of citizens. These aspects of Blairism are closer to the view that democracy should be avoided in its most "extreme form".

This is the context behind the gestures that Blair thinks make him a "progressive", as well as his displays of narcissism. It is a disgrace that such a person became the leader of the Labour Party, a disgrace to the Party's radical heritage which created the National Health Service. All of the candidates for the leadership are also an embarrassment to the likes of Clement Attlee and Aneurin Bevan. There is no radical candidate, only Blairites and cynics like Diane Abbott, and it seems inevitable that Blair will be succeeded by David Miliband. The contest fails to deliver in meeting the minimal standards of our political system, a party led by any of the candidates would not be a credible "lesser evil" to the Con-Dems. It would seem that the consequence of the leadership bout, no matter who wins, will be to strengthen the coalition and further alienate the public. Unless a truly radical or progressive alternative is presented, its positions properly defended and its arguments disseminated, change is unlikely.

Dead Peasants Dream of Pluto.

Classless and Free?

"You think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see." - John Lennon

Those of you unconvinced of the nature of our politico-economic system, as skewed to the needs and wants of the wealthy few, should watch Michael Moore's new documentary Capitalism: a Love Story. In the documentary, many aspects of late capitalism are explored, including the phenomenon of "dead peasant" insurance. This is the kind of insurance corporations put on their employees, so that when a worker dies the corporation can profit from it. To "Corporate America" young women are particularly valuable, when dead. It's difficult to comprehend how this practice could ever be legal in any society. But it is also hard to comprehend why corporations are considered "legal persons" today. Lawyers seem to be responsible for it, the most cunning and ruthless that money can buy. This form of insurance is often referred to as "dead peasant" insurance, which says a lot about how the elites view the workforce. Companies that insure their workers in this way include: Avon Products, Coca-Cola Company, Wal-Mart, Woolworths and Nestle. Though, there are many more that are less well known.


Also featured  in Michael Moore's documentary Capitalism: a Love Story, were two very eye-opening reports, that coined and explained a new concept. The concept of plutonomy, which is a society in which economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few. The reports claim that the US, Canada and the UK are plutonomous states. The reports single out Japan, Scandinavia, France and Germany as belonging to an "egalitarian bloc". Though, the writers predict greater inequality in the current plutonomies while speculating that many other countries may turn to "plutonomics" in the future. These claims are reminiscent of arguments from the Left, that capitalist states like Britain and America are not democratic and many models have been proposed to explain what such states actually are - polyarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy etc. But what is so astonishing about these two reports is that they did not come from the Left at all. These reports were written by Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod and Narendra Singh, who are members of the research team for Citigroup. These reports were written in 2005 and 2006, they were leaked on the internet around 2008, before being featured in Capitalism: a Love Story.


The dissidents who claim that the Western capitalist states are not truly democratic, are often shot down and labelled "conspiracy theorists". John Perkins, a former "economic hit man", argues that the US is a corporatocracy, which is composed of multinational corporations who exercise power through the media and by funding political campaigns. At the tip of the corporatocracy, it's difficult to tell who is working for private companies or the government as they often move from one to the other and then back again. Perkins emphasises that the corporatocracy is not a formal and organised conspiracy, as they all work under the assumption that they must maximise profits regardless of the social and environmental costs. The implication being that the self-interest of corporations and the government converge. However, the theory taken by Robert Dahl, and later Noam Chomsky, that the US is a polyarchy is much more believable. A polyarchy is a system which is dominated by a few political parties, that are almost totally identical as they are dependent on the different sectors of private power for their own power. But all of this still sounds a bit too "conspiratorial" and "paranoid". So let's get back to those Citigroup reports.


There are many interesting lines early on in the reports, take this one for instance: "The earth is being held up by the muscular arms of its entrepreneur-plutocrats, like it, or not." The style in which the reports were written is one of smug effrontery, as the details of massive inequality are disgorged for their readers - probably less than 1% of Americans. Details like 1% of the American population account for 20% of overall US income, 33% of net worth and 40% of financial net worth. While the combined income and financial net worth of over 90% of Americans does not even come close. In the second report, it becomes apparent that the richest 10% of the populace own 57% of the wealth and the richest 20%  have a 68% share of the income. What is made clear in the first report, from October 2005, that in the US the richest 0.1% drives the fortunes of the richest 5% to 10% of Americans. So the "wealthy few", that power economic growth in a plutonomy, refers to the richest of the rich, which is probably 100,000 or less people.  These facts do not worry the research team, nor their readers I suspect, as the concentration of such vast wealth in so few hands, guarantees that rising oil prices will not effect the global economic system. Though, such prices will effect the poor. Instead of worrying, the team declares the uber-rich a "new managerial aristocracy" and goes on to flatter their readers with explanations of their "entrepreneurship" that verge on social darwinism.


The team present a thesis that high dopamine levels are connected to "curiosity" and "entrepreneurship". According to them, there is a high dopamine intensity among the populations of America, Britain, Canada and Australia, this is the reason such states are plutonomous. This explains the Americentrism of the reports and the sheer arrogance of it's authors. The view they have taken is that inequality is a natural result of our evolution. But they also list six drivers of plutonomics: 1. an ongoing revolution in technology. 2. governments favourable to capitalism and certain tax regimes. 3. globalisation, greater mobility among elites and desperate workers. 4. greater financial innovation. 5. the rule of law. 6. patent protections. The team point to the fact that these drivers are all present in America, Britain, Canada and Australia. They list Eastern Europe, China, India and Russia as "embracing many of these attributes". And point to Continental Europe stating that it may too "succumb" and be "seduced" by the drivers of plutonomy. The oligarchs of Russia, Chinese manufacturing tycoons and Indian software moguls are exemplars of this. But this system is not all powerful and is vulnerable to certain actions from a particular section of society.


Plutonomy is based on income inequality and a society which will tolerate or endorse income inequality is more likely to tolerate plutonomy. There are obvious threats to this system, an organised backlash from the lower-classes being the main threat. So long as the working-class are willing to work at longer hours and lower wages, whilst the possibility of redundancy lurks around the corner, a plutonomy can sustain itself. The team point out that the masses have equal voting power to the rich as a source of anxiety and fear. As a well organised mass-movement could easily "kill off" a plutonomy. However, they explain that this could be avoidable as the electorate seem to believe they can become a "Pluto-participant" one day if they just work hard enough. "Why kill it off when you can join it?" the writers explain before declaring this to be the "embodiment of the American dream." A backlash is probable, but it's not going to happen so long as the economy continues to grow and the electorate feel that they too are benefiting from that growth. Their readers that they describe as "managerial aristocrats", "pluto-participants and "plutonomists", are safe for now because the "rabble" have been sated. It would appear that George Carlin was right when he said "It's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Significant Links:  
Citigroup "Plutonomy" Report Part 1 
Citigroup "Plutonomy" Report Part 2
The Political System of the US 
What is America?
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins - Part 1/3