Posted in Human Rights | 1 Comment

From Ayn Rand to Paul Ryan: Capitalism as Morality

by Stefan Wallaschek, University of Bremen, Blaetter 10/2012


Society doesn’t play any role in Ayn Rand’s perspective. Rand reduced persons to the bourgeois who only thinks in economic categories and only needs to respect himself – and no one else – unlike the citizen engaged in society and actively championing a de4mocratic process of enlightenment. Rand defended the minimal state against the totalitarian and welfare state.

Posted in 2011 | 3 Comments

House Resolution Condemning President Trump’s racist comments

House Resolution Condemning President Trump’s racist comments, July 15, 2019, 4 pp

Posted in 2011 | 1 Comment

Karl Polanyi on Unfettered Capitalism


by Rainer Hank and Wolfgang Merkel

Karl Polanyi condemned profit greed and deregulated markets. Today’s capitalism critics are his heirs and don’t know it. An unfettered capitalism is responsible for the world coming out of joint. The ancestors of an orientation that the economy needs social embedding hardly know Polanyi.

“Finance capital was put in the driver’s seat.” Border-crossing capital transactions increased enormously and were used for financial speculation, not for investments in productive projects.

Posted in 2011 | 2 Comments

The American People From 2016 to the Present: “With Such People, You Can Do As You Please” by Jaime O’Neill, July 20, 2019, smirkingchimp.com


Posted in 2011 | Leave a comment

Venezuela and International Law by Urs P. Gasche, Feb 5, 2019


International law professors explain a US military incursion in Venezuela would violate the UN Charter. “All nations must desist from any threat or use of force in their international relations.” The media and government denounce violations of international law very selectively. International norms formalized in the UN Charter promote peaceful coexistence, not the right of the stronger.


Posted in 2011 | Leave a comment

Herbert Marcuse: The One-Dimensional Man

Herbert Marcuse: The One-Dimensional Man

Herbert Marcuse: The One-Dimensional Man by Jan Schuttler, Juliane Scholz and Yvonne Rudolph, grin.com


“Manipulation of needs” is one of the control instruments. Rulers change needs through manipulation. False needs are needs imposed from above like production and consumption of useless things.

The need for freedom no longer exists in developed capitalist countries. While individuals are manipulated and indoctrinated, they should distinguish false and true needs.

Academia.edu could be the people’s publisher. With over 20 million papers, academia.edu could be your publisher, ye translators, essayists, researchers, and activists!

Posted in 2011 | 2 Comments

Market Economy: The Superrich Endanger Democracy by Colin Crouch, 6/5/2019, Die Zeit


There are two main reasons why many observers are beginning to question the assumption — previously taken for granted — that capitalism and democracy are firm allies. First, modern capitalism is global, while democracy is mainly rooted at national and more local levels. Second, modern capitalism is driven by finance, which leads to increasing inequality. Yet, high levels of inequality threaten the operation of democracy.

That globalization presents a problem for democracy is clear. Much of the global economy is unregulated, and where it is regulated, it is done so by international organizations only very indirectly answerable to democratic bodies, or by informal and usually confidential arrangements among corporations themselves.

Furthermore, transnational firms can compromise the authority of national democracy by choosing to invest only in countries that pursue policies they like. The most visible manifestation of this is the decline in taxes on corporate earnings that has taken place across the world, as governments compete to offer the most generous fiscal regimes. The result has been a shift in the burden of taxation to individual citizens and a decline in the resources available to public services.

Governments could, of course, counter these developments by joining forces to confront the corporate challenge and protect space for autonomous political decision-making, but the temptation of trying to become the country that offers corporations the most generous terms usually prevents them from doing this. The European Union is a partial exception, and its parliament is the world’s only example of transnational democracy. Its impact, however, is weak, with European democracy facing two hostile forces: corporations lobbying the European Commission and individual governments at levels European Parliament cannot reach; and xenophobic populists trying to pull power away from the EU and back to the nation states. And because most populists are from the political right, they are not bothered by nations losing out to corporate power.

Corporate lobbying is so powerful at both the European and national levels because growing inequality has generally strengthened the political might of the wealthy. This is the second threat posed by contemporary capitalism to democracy.

Democracy operates in two different theatres: the formal roles played by elections and parliaments; and the informal actions of lobbying and other forms of political pressure that take place across civil society. For the former, we are careful to ensure considerable equality: one person-one vote, irrespective of wealth. Informal politics, by contrast, does not have many rules, and that is basic to its vitality and to our freedom. We can at any time use many different kinds of pressure to try to persuade governments to pursue various policies, provided we do not resort to corruption or violence. But our ability to exercise pressure depends on the resources we can command, so informal politics favors the rich, even though we all benefit from it. The equality rule that is fundamental to democracy is breached. This does not matter too much if inequality is limited, or if power exercised in one policy area cannot easily be transferred to another. This was broadly the case for the first three decades after World War II. Since then, however, inequality has been growing — not so much in the form of inequality within the broader population, but inequality between tiny groups of the super-rich and everyone else. One needs a lot of wealth to able to wield political power, and this small group, perhaps 0.1 percent of the population, is in such a position. This degree of inequality is most prominent in the U.S., but it is spreading to Europe.
Capitalism is creating problems for the effectiveness of democracy

The main motor of this inequality is the financialization of the global economy. The ownership and manipulation of financial resources produce earnings like no other form of human activity. Having acquired vast wealth, an individual or corporation can use some of it for political lobbying purposes, and this can mean securing government actions – tax policies, regulatory changes, government contracts – that enable the wealth holder to secure even more income in the future. There is a vicious spiral linking increasing inequality to the weakening of democracy.

There is however another spiral that works in the opposite direction. Modern capitalism depends on mass consumption for its profits, and mass consumption depends on the masses having growing income. In 2014, an OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper (no. 159) indicated that in the U.S., the top 1 percent of earners had captured nearly 50 percent of national income growth between 1975 and 2007 (the year before the financial crash). The great majority of wage earners had experienced static or declining incomes, and yet they continued to consume. This was possible because they took on heavy debt loads, risky behavior accepted by a financial system that had been deregulated thanks to heavy lobbying by the banks. Eventually, the burden of high-risk debt became too much for the financial markets to bear, and the crash, from which we have not yet fully recovered, took place.

Does a form of capitalism that generates increasing inequality but depends on mass consumption have any other way out of its dilemma than to encourage households to take on unsustainable levels of debt? At present, democracy seems unable to find an answer to that question. Global capitalism can only be reined in at a transnational level, while our political parties seem divided between those that have succumbed to corporate lobbying and do not believe in regulation, and those that want to retreat back to the limited reach of nationalism.

Capitalism is creating problems for the effectiveness of democracy, but capitalists have no reason to be dissatisfied with that form of government. Democracy guarantees the rule of law and clear procedures for changing the law, including lobbying for or against those proposed changes. These features are attractive to capitalists. On the other hand, though, democracy can produce a mass of regulations to protect non-market, non-corporate interests. Capitalists’ preferred regime is really post-democracy, in which crucial features of democracy continue operating, including, importantly, the rule of law, but where the electorate has become passive, responding to parties’ carefully managed election campaigns, but not engaging in disturbing activism, and not generating a civil society vibrant enough to produce awkward counter-lobbies that try to rival the quiet work of business interests in the corridors of government. The resurgence of nationalism creates some problems for this placid scene, but by concentrating on the nation-state, these movements do not disrupt the global level, which remains beyond their reach.

We have not yet arrived at a situation where the corporate dominance of our politics is complete; otherwise, all consumer protection and labor laws would already have been abolished. But that is where we are headed, boosted by continuing growth in inequality and the mutual reinforcement of political and economic power. Democracy in some form probably continues to be the best available shell for capitalism; but the reverse may no longer be true.

Posted in 2011 | 3 Comments

From Enlightenment to the Counter-Enlightenment

by Stephan Schulmeister



Brilliant minds elevated “the market” into a “higher being” of the postmodern age to which we must submit. The primacy of the market replaced the primacy of politics. A little contribution to the “new Enlightenment”

[This article published on August 31, 2016, is translated from the German on the Internet, http://diepresse.com. Stephan Schulmeister is an Austrian economic researcher and author of many articles and books critical of mainstream economics. His latest book is “The Road to Prosperity” (2019) that alludes to Hayek’s “The Road to Bondage.”]

“Enlightenment is the exodus of people from their underage existence of their own making,” Kant said. While the theories of Hume, Smith, Kant, Rousseau, Ricardo, Mill, Marx and Keynes are very different, they had a common goal: emancipating people from “higher beings” and their earthly representatives.

Struggling for basic rights through the middle-class revolutions and for the social state through the workers’ movement are the most important examples of the emancipation process. A comparison of the workers’ situation in the 1970s and the 1870s shows what people can do when they understand themselves as enlightened and solidarity subjects of history.

Today, four decades later, we all must adjust to the new “higher being,” “the markets” (mostly the financial markets). “They” demand “structural reforms”; “they” act as judges, punish Greece and reward Germany. “They” live out their feelings on stock exchanges – today friendly, tomorrow euphoric and depressed the day after tomorrow.

Subjects to which we have to submit came out of markets as our (useful) instruments. The “primacy of the market” arose out of the “primacy of politics.” How does this unique counter-enlightenment manifest?


Posted in 2011 | 1 Comment

How Russiagate replaced Analysis of the 2016 Election by Rick Sterling, May 19, 19 dissident voice.org

Posted in 2011 | Leave a comment

The US under President Trump: Gravedigger of International Law by Stefan Talmon

The US under President Trump: Gravedigger of International Lawby Stefan Talmon, 3/27/2019


Prof. Stefan Talmon is the director of the Institute for International Law at the University of Bonn

The US collaboratively built international law and its institutions and had an authoritative influence for more than 100 years. Today, the US is (1) turning away from rule-based international law, (2) violating individual norms of international law, and (3) openly undermining the legal order under international law.

The US under President Trump shows an unparalleled contempt for international law with its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights.


New 44-page report “International Regulatory Cooperation and the Public Good,” 5/21/2019 https://corporateeurope.org/en/2019/05/international-regulatory-cooperation-and-public-good

“Corporate trade as usual” – Corporate Europe Observatory 5/22/2019

Marc’s note: Eliminating Monday – until the con man is gone – makes sense on myriad levels. Reducing working hours is a socio-economic investment!

Germans produced 30% more in the last 40 years with 30% fewer workers! A 4-day work week would be so sensible – for better long-term health, more time sovereignty, less stress on the environment and less gridlock. Did wealth concentration and the elite democracy make us a slow, backward oriented people?

academia.edu has 3 million papers and moves research into a new world!

In 1930, John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, thought a 15-hour work week would be enough – and he never saw the Internet!

Visit Vancouver B.C. with its 26 community centers and a computer-operated Sky Train light rail and you become radicalized in what our slow, backward-oriented, hyper-materialistic society could become!

The 4-day week would be a social revolution! The state is not a business or a Swabian housewife but can become indebted to help present and future generations. The zero deficit is a myth as “finance drives the real economy” is a myth.

Unlike a chair, an idea can be shared by a whole people! Reducing working hours is a socio-economic investment – giving better long term health and more time sovereignty!

more at www.freembtranslations.net, www.academia.edu, www.openculture.com, and www.therealnews.com


Posted in 2011 | 4 Comments