Critics of the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) protests and similar actions around the country and around the world use the term "class warfare" to describe the objectives of the protesters. These critics use terms such as "socialist", "communist", and "anarchist" to dismiss the protesters and their concerns. Supporters of OWS spend too much time is spent arguing against these irrelevant points—it just doesn't matter whether their characterizations are true or false.
Let's then grant the following premise (which aren't actually true): OWS is nothing more than a bunch of communists intent on class warfare against the established power structures of the West. Does this premise mean their concerns should be readily dismissed?
Whether or not you want to grant those assumptions, communism is bad for many reasons not worth discussing in this blog. Any idea that you will address society's current ills by implementing Communism is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a recipe for the Soviet States of America. So, if we grant the absurd premise that the OWS protesters all are trying to overthrow American capitalism for Soviet communism, we're also granting that the protesters' solutions to our ills might be as bad or worse than the disease.
The Russian Revolution (the short version)
Nearly 100 years ago, Russia faced a real class war between real communists and a real ruling elite in the form of the feudalist Russian monarchy led by Czar Nicholas II. The world of early 20th century Russia was a political system based on a largely absolute monarchy with a feudalist economic system. Under feudalism, the "means of production" are controlled by land owners who make up a hereditary aristocracy. If you did not own land, you were at the mercy of your landlord for your economic well being. You essentially worked his land in exchange for protection, housing, and basic sustenance.
It's worth noting that Marx really didn't see communism as a replacement for feudalism. He believed societies needed to go through a progression from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and finally to communism. He also believed that these changes did not occur naturally—they required revolutions.
In other words, the status quo in Russia was a really bad thing with horrible injustices in place. Furthermore, that society did not provide any means for the disadvantaged to alter those injustices. A number of groups nevertheless attempted to make things better, including the Bolsheviks* (aka the Communists). The Bolsheviks were governed by an ideology based on the writings of Karl Marx—Communism. Communism sounds like a great idea in theory. It is an economic system that distributes goods and services based on need. Who wouldn't want a utopia in which everyone gets what they need?
Well, I don't. But that's beside the point and an argument for another time. The point is that Marx painted a very compelling picture to a people abused by a corrupt and unfair economic and political reality. Regardless of how silly or dangerous that picture was, it didn't change the reality that the people of Russia were being harmed daily by an unjust system.
Would anyone today seriously defend feudalism because some of the people protesting it were misguided in the solace they sought from communism?
Even if you would, there's no denying they were seriously pissed off and the result was the Soviet Union.
Having the Wrong Solution Doesn't Mean There's No Problem
We can learn two lessons from Czar Nicholas II and the Russian Revolution:
- Because the people who see a problem have the wrong answer to a problem doesn't imply that there's no problem.
- If the people capable of providing a just answer don't provide one, then the people with the wrong answers will ultimately force those wrong answers on everyone else.
The second lesson is much more dire than the first. Russia suffered through 70 years of authoritarian communist rule because the people who solved the problems of czarist feudalism were the Bolsheviks.
The voices of OWS are growing louder because there is a real problem. We've created false democracy in which political speech is equated with wealth and corporations are treated as persons. The result of this situation is the appearance of democracy when in reality only corporations and the people who govern them have any voice in how we are governed. The way Wall Street has behaved since the de-regulation of the late 90's has helped it do serious damage to the world economy and the companies that make up Wall Street have been immunized from those with political power from the capitalist forces that have traditionally make the US economy such a significant success.
The United States is no longer a capitalist democracy. It's a corporatist oligarchy with shades of democracy.
Some of the loudest people among the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd have the wrong solutions to this unsustainable situation. Some of them, however, might have the right answers. Ignoring all of them and pretending they are all Bolsheviks only increases the chances of real class conflict and, perhaps, real class warfare.
A Proposed Solution
I have a simple proposal for a solution that should address the valid objectives of the various OWS interests in the United States while not damage the fundamental values of our capitalist democracy. It's a Constitutional amendment that restructures the way campaigns are financed in the USA.
When you listen to the different voices of OWS, one theme emerges: People are tired of a nation in which wealth determines political voice. When spending money is considered free speech, those with more money will always have more speech. When corporations are considered persons, the considerations of large businesses will always outweigh the concerns of the small business or the individual. Let's end the idea of money as speech and corporate personhood through a Constitutional amendment that restructures the financing of political campaigns.
That means the public financing of all campaigns and elections. All candidates of significance should have equal amounts to spend on elections for public office. All entities with licenses to broadcast over public airwaves (radio, television) must be required to grant candidates equal time to make their case for election. Congress could be allowed to define what "candidates of significance" means, but it should be sufficiently lower to allow for multi-party elections.
Perhaps something like (I am not a lawyer, so this is obviously not bullet-proof legal wording):
The Campaign Finance Reform Amendment
1. Public funding. Elections for public office shall be funded entirely through public funds with the level of such funding determined from time-to-time by actions of Congress for federal elections and the States for state and local elections. All candidates of significance for public office shall have access to equal funds where "candidates of significance" may be determined by acts of Congress and the States. Definitions of "candidates of significance" must include at least three candidates for any office unless there are fewer than three candidates running for the office in question.
2. Independent groups. Congress may establish laws allowing for private citizens to form political groups that may act independent of candidates, but funding for those political groups must come from individuals and not many other kind of entity. Any monies in excess of $100 to a political group must be made public.
3. Use of public airwaves. All entities granted specific licenses over public airwaves must provide access to at least 5% of their total airtime to candidates free of cost in a manner equal in quality and quantity.
* Fun fact: The term Bolshevik comes from the Russian word for majority (the 99%?).
No comments:
Post a Comment