Let's Talk About Freedom...
It’s been a few weeks since the last post. Short version of the story; life got a bit busy. From here until the end of August, I should be able to resume posting once a week. My plan is to step away from the dystopian series for just a bit, both to write with a bit more optimism, and to address current events, but in my life, and in the wider world. Without a doubt, things have gotten interesting.
 |
| "Hashtag FREEDOM, Jeffers!!!" -Patriots at Bunker Hill. I refuse to cede the imagery of our past to the reactionaries. |
“May you live in interesting times.” is purportedly a Chinese curse, meaning the speaker wishes that the object of their derision should live through an era defined by violence, privation and political upheaval. While there’s a great degree of controversy over whether the curse in question actually originated in China, the sentiment still applies - periods of upheaval are usually most interesting when serving as the backdrop to a rollicking adventure story or steam romance. Or both. Living through such times tends to take a lot of the fun out of it. And yet, here we all are, living through time which future Americans might end up labeling as ‘interesting.’ And how convenient that the current regime just finished building a concentration camp in the Satire State, and the Leader just signed a bill which seeks to ensconce the American oligarchy in a legal framework that would turn Roman patricians and Bourbon aristocrats quite green.
So what should our response be? That answer differs for different people, families and communities. For myself and Dr Ryan Mattson, our response was ‘let’s publish a book that will surely not put us on some enemy of the state list.’ And we have a publication date! Our editor at Upriver Press tells us Inequality by Design: How a Rigged Economy Fractures America and What We Can Do About It, now has a set publication date of August 25th. It’s available for pre-order now. You COULD buy it from a big bookseller, or you can order it through bookstore.org, which donates a portion of purchases to local bookstores. In the spirit of the July 4th holiday, let us take a look at ways Americans might declare their independence from our would-be oligarchs-turned-overlords, as well as a pair of excerpts from the book which focus on what good could come of this interesting moment in which we live. With that in mind, I present you the first excerpt from Inequality by Design.
The Positive Reconstruction Scenario
American novelist Jack London wrote: “A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog.” London grew up poor in late nineteenth-century California. He experienced the cruelties of an oligarchic system. In the quoted short story, the narrator, a hobo and spinner of tall tales, convinces a kindly Reno homemaker to feed him before riding the rails west to California. The narrator suggests that only the poor can be relied on for kindness and charity without need of deception. Those who find themselves in comfortable positions in life must be lied to, told stories they can believe, if one wants a free meal.
 |
| I bet he's daydreaming about pitchforks and torches. |
Unfortunately, Jack London died in 1916, and did not live to see the positive reconstruction which emerged from the wreckage of the Great Depression. When we use the term reconstruction, we mean that the political economy has fallen to pieces and must be put back together. This is the way that historians use the word to describe the period after the US Civil War, which had shattered the dominance of the rural aristocracy and ushered in the age of urban industrialists. The leadership class of the country was new and the terms of the social contract were up in the air.
For those of us outside the circles of economic power and influence, how can we afford to help our fellow citizens when we can barely help ourselves? And how can we change the trajectory of the US economy when we lack power and influence?
We can all hope that a positive reconstruction scenario becomes reality. And what does the term positive reconstruction mena, exactly? In this case, a mass movement emerges that successfully challenges the economic and political power of the oligarchs without resulting in a breakdown of the constitutional order or a breakup of the nation. We do not think that political leaders of either party will bring about change. Rather, change will require a grassroots movement led by people who know the cost and value of true charity.
And how might true, positive reconstruction come about? This change could occur in several ways. For example, a couple of oligarchs might recognize the precarity of our situation, break ranks with their fellow billionaires, and cross the metaphorical picket line. This has happened before in American history. Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt both recognized the needs of common people, and acted against their own class interests to push meaningful reforms. Theodore Roosevelt engaged in trust busting of monopolies and added workplace protections that helped millions of Progressive-Era Americans. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt entered office at a time when it looked like the project of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism had failed. The New Deal offered not just economic, material assistance to US citizens, it represented a viable response to the rising tide of totalitarian movements of fascism and communism. The New Deal gave people some hope by establishing programs like Social Security, rural electrification, and Works Progress Administration. Today, however, hoping for a self-aware billionaire or political leader to save us seems foolish, to put it mildly.
There is another route to real reform. In this case, we would see the emergence of a movement based on class solidarity between the poor, working, and middle classes. Those outside the top income brackets finally recognize that the economy runs only because they show up to work. Perhaps a general strike pushes lawmakers to enact specific reforms, to steer the ship of state away from the metaphorical iceberg. Those reforms open the door for new political leaders who have never made six figures and who are not beholden to billionaires. By 2040, a new consensus takes hold that only those representing the working majority belong in state and national governments.
Yet another possible route to a positive reconstruction scenario occurs when people recognize their collective power as consumers and disinvest themselves from the current economic model. In addition to founding co-ops and mutual aid societies, they refuse to buy products from companies owned by oligarchs. In this scenario, enough working people withhold financial and labor support from massive businesses to cause the breakup or collapse of America’s largest corporations, thereby reducing their political influence. This route would enrich the rest of us and breathe new life into local economies. This third approach to reform is highly appealing because it requires no wrangling with a corrupt political establishment. It only requires that consumers (collectively) defund the oligarchs.
In the positive reconstruction scenario, democracy is not merely a buzzword. Rather, citizens participate in the change, both at work and in the community. It would lead to truly free market. A diverse array of firms would compete at the local and regional levels to efficiently provide the best goods and services, and the surplus wealth generated by those firms would stay with the people who work them, rather than siphoned off by distant financial institutions and shareholders. Ideally, Americans would see their wealth grow in alignment with the nation’s GDP and experience a rebirth of culture and civic spirit.
 |
| Just substitute your name for 'Luanne' |
End Excerpt One, Now, How Do We Make It Happen?
While wild speculation about what COULD happen is fun, it does beg a central question: HOW? What tools do we, the people, actually have, to effect the larger system of political economy designed to extra wealth and value from our labor, then discard us as soon as we a too sick or elderly to show up for work? Well, there are certainly a few options, though this list is by no means exhaustive.
BOYCOTT - This one has a long, effective history of working, as long as the target is narrow and specific. The Montgomery Bus Boycott by black citizens to protest racial segregation on the city’s public bus system took over a year, but it did produce results; in the end, the city of Montgomery abolished segregated seating on its buses. I personally like the option, as one of the few commonalities we Americans have as a culture anymore revolves around buying stuff, thus the ask doesn’t seem too much, “Don’t buy from XYZ companies, they fund the oligarchy.” And we could follow up that statement with, “And here’s smaller companies or local producers.” While it’s a bit of a surface ask, it’s one that’s easy and actionable for most people. With enough participation, we could drive a number of large companies into the red, while bolstering producers and businesses not owned by the 1% and their private equity funds.
DIVESTMENT - This one asks people to move their money (usually savings) out of banks or investment firms, and put it with smaller, local organizations. This one is a bit more of an ask, as the giant banks and investment funds usually offer better returns on investments, as they can leverage larger investment pools and afford greater risk. Of course, that greater risk can backfire, as it did in 2008, but all investments run some amount of risk. In today’s case, a mass-movement of Americans taking their money out of the biggest banks and putting it in smaller financial institutions like local credit unions or small banks would both bolster local economic activity, and if enough people participated, would probably destabilize the wider banking system. Now we’re really getting the oligarch’s attention.
DEBT STRIKE - Withdrawing assets or buying local would cause a real headache for the ultra-wealthy, buy it might not be enough to make them pick up the phones and tell Congress to pass Medicare for All, raise the minimum wage, or, terror of all terrors, raise taxes on the rich. If we really want to get their attention, we need to go after the lifeblood that keeps them uber-rich: their cash flow. Most of us can barely afford rent, car payments, medical bills, student loans or credit card debt. So what if we all just stopped paying? They can’t evict us all. And for those the system comes after? We’ll get to that, but to break the power of the 1%, we will probably have to break out the biggest cudgel.
GENERAL STRIKE - My favorite option, this one is a bit like turning the volume up to 11, and shouldn’t be the first place we go, through it will almost certainly have to be the last. A general strike is exactly what it sounds like: Americans everywhere walk off the job until our demands are met. This differs from a sectoral or localized strike in that it requires all of us to act together. And it would almost certainly involve retaliation be the oligarchy beyond the evictions and repossessions which would follow from a debt strike. A general strike would result in specific legal action against workers in certain sectors: public safety, medicine, and even railroad workers cannot legally strike. BUT, they could get sick in large numbers, and at opportune times. If a general strike really got going in this country, I would expect the regime to use violence, either by the state or non-state actors, against anyone seen as promoting or organizing the strike, and that brings us to the crucial, final ingredient needed: solidarity.
Make all the cheese eating surrender monkey jokes you want,
these people know what to do when the rich and powerful try to boss them around.
But What Do the Books About Old-Timey People Say?
You had to know I couldn’t make it through a post without drawing on historical examples. For the first case, I would direct people to look at our own history. In the years before the shooting began in 1775, the New England colonies set up parallel institutions which, in many places, had already replaced the legally-recognized British courts and legal codes, with local organizations of representation and legal settlements. In Massachusetts in particular, the colonials set up the Massachusetts Provincial Congress to act as a legitimate government, as the official colonial government run by Thomas Gage exercised little authority outside Boston. The provincial congress eventually morphed into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which today we all know and love to mock for its high taxes, red tape, and above-average wages, excellent public schools and healthier population than the rest of the country. The lesson I take away - start a revolution, get positive results.
For another example of setting up parallel systems in the face of repression and state violence, in the years before the 1917 revolution, workers and peasants across the Russian Empire set up soviets. Local organizational bodies which could offer representation, material support and dispute mediation. When the February Revolution forced the abdication of Tsar Nicholas, the soviets became the regional councils, courts and sources of charity to which most peoples of the empire respected. Crucially, these elected bodies were seen as MORE legitimate than the provisional government set up by the liberal reformers and conservative aristocrats in the wake of the tsar’s abdication. Thus, when Lenin returned in the summer of 1917 and called for all power to the soviets, it was not read by the majority of the population as a power grab, but as a reasonable proposition. Of course, the results of the 1917 October Revolution were, shall we say, mixed…
 |
| You knew I couldn't make it through a post without a reference to the good people of St Petersburg. The REAL one, not the Florida knock-off. |
No scenario, even this optimistic one, can run its course free of violence, but I promised today’s post would be positive, not just by the ends, but the means as well. So let’s take a look at a more recent example: Poland in the 1980s. It is important to remember that Poland’s Communist government tried to suppress that nation’s solidarity movement in the 1980s. At least one hundred people died during strikes and protests. About fifteen thousand people were arrested. Many more lost their jobs. As many as seven hundred thousand people left Poland in the years between the declaration of martial law and the end of the Communist government in 1989.
Post-Communist Poland experienced a short-term economic contraction from 1989 to 1992. This was followed by a few years of moderate growth through 1994, and then robust growth through 1999. The World Bank estimates that the Polish economy was 20 percent larger in 1999 than it was in 1989.
It would not be surprising to see similar types of events unfold during and after an American Solidarity movement and a positive reconstruction effort. In the US, the solidarity effort would likely be met with resistance. The oligarchy will find it unthinkable to relinquish power, money, and influence to average people. The US has a much larger population than Poland, so the movement could lead to a higher number of deaths, injuries, and emigrations between the time of the general strike in 2028 and 2033.
However, just as Poland experienced long-term economic growth, we would expect the US economy to also rebound after a temporary contraction. We doubt that the US economy would grow by 20 percent in a decade, as was the case in Poland; nevertheless, the US would grow considerably in a post-reform era. Newly approved economic policies designed to prevent the redistribution of wealth to the top 1 percent would enable average Americans to gain an additional $15 trillion for their hard work. This would occur, in part, by giving ownership of publicly listed companies to the employees, as described earlier. Profit sharing plans in smaller firms would spark wage increases and economic growth, because a huge population of average Americans would have more to spend.
 |
| All jokes aside this is a REALLY GOOD show. Also, the Empire are the bad guys. I can't believe that's even a debate, but here we are... |
I bring up all this old-timey business because, with apologies to the writers of Andor, rebellions cannot be built on hope alone. They also require preparation, planning, and organizations which rely on the loyalty and respect of those they claim to represent. Especially if the people driving them expect to produce a positive reconstruction of the political economy of their county in the aftermath. And what might such a new economic order look like? What sorts of incomes would Americans enjoy if they owned the companies they worked for? What if the tax code did not give massive support to the rich?
Excerpt Two From Inequality by Design
At the beginning of the book, we presented the RAND Corporation’s findings that approximately $50 trillion had trickled up to the wealthiest sectors of the economy during the previous forty years. Using that study as a basis, we can ask what incomes might have looked like if that redistribution of wealth to top income brackets had not occurred. When we do the math, we discover that income goes up for everyone, except for those in the top 1 percent. Even an income earner in the top 5 percent would see a minor bump in income. So, there should be plenty of widespread, diversified support for a positive reconstruction effort.
Figure 10-1: Comparison of incomes in a status quo economy versus a positive reconstruction scenario, 2025 and 2065.
Looking at figure 10-1, we can see that if current policies persist, Americans earning the median income would take home $61,000 less in wages in 2065 than they would if Americans could sustain a positive reconstruction scenario (using the RAND study as a baseline). Such a movement, let us call it American Solidarity, would not be easy, but with widespread unity, it could successfully browbeat both political parties into embracing thorough economic reforms without moving the nation into communism. Again, the goal is to create rules that work equally for all people—not just the top 1 percent—within a healthy free market system.
We say both political parties for a reason. Pushing the oligarch-backed candidates out of both parties would prevent our elections from turning into red versus blue, urban versus rural referendum that divides us as Americans. Additionally, in the American electoral system, third parties operate at a perpetual disadvantage, so their candidates are extremely unlikely to muster enough support to replace one of the two oligarch-controlled parties.
Is such a strategy workable? Could people on both sides of the proverbial aisle work together for a shared goal? Fortunately, history is not only full of negative examples. In the 1960s, environmentalism found considerable support in both parties. A Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Republican President Richard Nixon, of all people, signed those bills into law with the support of environmentalists within his own party. So, despite the obstacles, we think it is possible to convince voters in both political parties to vote out corporate-sponsored legislators at the state and federal levels, and to forge a clear set of demands for economic reform. Collective strength is essential. That could start by organizing ourselves in civic groups that meet at least three criteria: open to political discourse; large enough to reach a critical mass of potential voters; operate outside the direct control of oligarchs. An initial list of organizations that meet these criteria include labor unions and churches. Both groups have, in the past, openly supported movements that sought to charge the US economic order.
To be clear, an American Solidarity movement should not control these organizations because they would quickly become targets for state harassment or even violence. Rather, American Solidarity should use the organizations as venues for people to discuss and implement was to produce systemic change.
Oklahoma, the authors’ home state, provides a great example. In its last years as a territory and in the initial decades of statehood, Oklahoma churches often hosted revivals during which speakers called openly for attendees to vote for candidates who would overturn the economic order. Like churches today, rural parishes tiptoed right up to the line of political speech without stepping over it. In the 1910s and 1920s, Oklahoma’s impoverished sharecroppers saw the Socialist Party as the only one that would hold wealthy landowners to account for stolen wages, evictions, and other abuses. At one point, Oklahoma City elected a socialist mayor. Numerous local offices were held by members of the Socialist Party. It is no coincidence that the first Oklahoma state flag had a solid red background with a large white star in the middle. After the Red Scare of the early 1920s, the state legislature retired the maybe-a-bit-too-left-leaning red flag and created the current flag with its light blue background and Osage war shield.
This anecdote from Oklahoma’s past shows that the people of this country have a long tradition of fighting the established economic order. Look at your local history. Find ideas about how communities previously organized against exploitation and abuse. We suspect that your state has a rich tradition of “sticking it to the man.” Did every effort succeed? No. Oklahoma in 2024 is hardly a hotbed of anti-establishment thinking. Nevertheless, real change is still possible.
Next week, I will present a third excerpt from the book. In it, we will look at che characters from the ‘Keeping it Personal” posts of the past few months. But instead of tormenting with the store-brand mix of Blade Runner and Children of Men we are living through, we will but them in an America that, starting in 2025, chooses a different path. And make no mistake, the future is yet unwritten. As a wiser man than I once wrote, “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”