Great essay revealing fundamental dynamics of civic decay.
In the 1950's the CIA popularized the Gini Index (named after an Italian economist to describe the distribution of something among a population, where "0" means everyone has an equal amount and "1" indicates it is all concentrated in one person/unit's/country's hands) as a measure of a country's stability. They determined an index over 40 was a warning of civic unrest. For years the USA hovered unacceptably high at over 35 (close to Mexico) and far above the Scandinavian countries (e.g. Sweden is at 30 in 2024). Obama with his tax on stock transactions and the ACA was the only President since the 1960's to lower our Gini. Since then, especially with no raise in the minimum wage, impotent unions, the Republican minimization of estate taxes, caping income tax rates, and the Trump tax cutout, the USA Gini Index is now an estimated, unadjusted 48. One American is the richest man in the world. Three Americans have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population. Beyond Musk's political power, both American families and American government have been starved, both economically and politically. You are quite right. For the last 50 years, and on an accelerating basis, we are watching, playing out in real time, civic dysfunction and disorder whose main engine is wealth inequality. OUCH! I agree, more than anything else this explains the panoramic dynamics of the MAGA movement. In the end the CIA was right, wealth inequality destabilizes a society. In the real world, each scenario will unravel in a unique way. Now, in real time, we are watching this great civic defect create its havoc.
"The most useful way to analyze the state of American democracy is not to focus on the unwieldy coalitions of the two political parties and their respective toeholds in Washington. It is, simply, to think about the distribution of power in our society. Is it fair? Do portions of our society have power that more or less represents how numerous they are?"
This resonated heavily with me. Too much of the conversation about politics in the US becomes immediately reduced to an electoral framework. Not only is it an unproductive framework to solely operate from, it also saps our ability to legitimately take stock of the material and social conditions laid out before us. As this article details quite well, the disproportionate accumulation of capitol, and by consequence, political power, has led us to a point where the only institutions capable of broad-sweeping change are the ones that are seemingly most compromised. If the majority of political discourse continuously hinges on incorporating these institutions without meaningfully reforming them, how can things ever change?
In my opinion, the resurrection of a more organized and militant labor movement seems to be this country's best shot at meaningfully reforming the economic conditions of society. One impactful step people can take is to spend more time thinking about the state of their lives and their neighbor's lives and question what they see. 'Why do I work so much? Is this normal? Are people receiving equal reward for equal effort? Why does my vote feel impotent? How does this change?' - In most cases you may find that the answer to these questions don't come from considering electoral strategies or party platforms.
The same thing has happened in the UK, with both Labour and the Tories enthralled by the super-rich and no change in sight. They all tell the economic lie that if we tax the super-rich multi billionaires they will remove their money. We have a situation where a multi-millionaire PM prefers Davos, headquarters of the WEF to Westminster, and threatens to send the police around to knock on the doors of the 3 million who signed a petition against his government. I'm 78 and I have never known the country so angry. £800 billion has been moved from the public purse to the elite, yet we have the hughest tax burden since the war, yet nothing they do makes a difference to the public, yet they help finance NATOs wars.
This is all true, but there needs to be more. Also, we should understand that unions have frequently NOT been democratic, with management most often exercising the very rottenness you describe in our political system, with which this management often colludes with to undercut the potential power of the rank and file, such as keeping striking groups isolated from other striking groups with the same grievances—consolidation that would be hugely empowering! And, the idea of “Union” should be re-conceptualized to consider the voting public a potential union—what might that look like, besides dealing a major blow to Capitalism? After all, there really are so very many more of us than there are of the 1%—think of society as the rank and file, without whose “labor” they could not exist…. AND this should be global….
Agreed, except our democracy has definitely been dead since either Bush v Gore in 2000 or Obama's suspension of Habeas Corpus that is still with us, take your pick. Regardless, we don't live in a democracy, but an oligarchy.
Until people can face that unpalatable truth, democracy will remain dead.
Really great perspective. I just wrote a piece on how the Democrats have been "pro union" without doing anything to increase union membership. It's ultimately a losing political strategy, but your argument helps reinforce that the outcome isn't just election losses for a party - it's a degradation of the foundational premise of democracy.
Not to No True Scotsman you but what you're describing:
If democracy subjects the majority of people to the long term control of political power by a small minority, why would the majority of people ever agree that democracy is doing its job? They would eventually lose faith in the system. Then—whether through sudden overthrow, or slow nihilistic abandonment—the democracy would wither.
Is exactly backwards. Democracy withers and people notice and lose faith. Not to be the sophomore college student at the thanksgiving table but America isn't a democracy - maybe never had been but lets focus on now.
When people talk about young people (and I'm not one to be clear) "losing faith" in "democracy" I know two things.
One, the question was presented to them slanted - what democracy? Pick a "democratic" country, US, UK, France, anywhere and ask the people if they feel like their voice or their vote matters. Two, the kids see through both their governments lies and the false framework of the push-poll designed to turn comfortable middle age and older libs into blaming "young people" for, lets say Trump. Cleanly splitting off the people who used to hold moral values from the people who have not yet managed to buy into homeownership or whatever it is (maybe just an accumulated threshold of decades of MSNBC consumption) that turns you into a lib.
I see this with supreme court reporting constantly. "This ruling could jeopardize their respect and standing" bitch no one normal holds the SCOTUS in high esteem and no one normal has faith in the system thats been very clearly rigged and crooked as long as they've been alive.
I'm a fan of Democracy to be clear. Wish I had some. I'd love to get some, but I realize there'll be literal blood in the streets if we try to replace what we have with democracy, as the current beneficiaries will have their cops do what their cops do everytime theres a push for democracy in the streets.
This is why the Democratic Party's anti-Trump electoral strategy of saying they're defending/saving "democracy" doesn't work. First of all we've never had a real democracy. But beyond that if they're saying what we have or had is a democracy well democracy hasn't been delivering for the average person for a long time so what use is it?
"We know, from experience, that it is not enough to simply raise taxes on the rich and funnel some of that money to the poor, without changing anything else. (Wealthy interests will always be incentivized to recapture the government and shift the taxes and regulations back in their favor, which indeed is the story of post-WW2 America.)"
And the other side of redistribution is that it requires the ongoing creation of wealth through exploitation. Whatever you do to cut off those ill-gotten profits, the pool of funds to be redistributed dwindles.
I'm not an American but I thought of 3 necessary principles on how to "fix" the system in the "democratic" world and nudge it towards a better (as I see it) situation:
The labor movement through the unions is limited, by the vested interests of "labor aristocracy", who seeks to rule their anthill rather than lift a finger to expand its colony.
Militant workers always meet their first barrier there, which is designed to deplete their energy so they have less left to use to fight for their interests and agency on the broader plain of politics.
We need a different model of organization to take back our agency, devoid of fiefdoms, but that almost anyone with vaguely left beliefs can find a place in, or alongside of.
Maybe something as simple as what used to be called "Townsend Clubs", back in the early 20th c. Or something like the "Social Aid & Pleasure Clubs" in New Orleans. Or a 'burial society' or 3. Whatever.
Our enemies did this stuff for years; before they decided that mass-media atomization/alienation from society was the way to go.
Rotary,
Jaycees,
Chambers of Commerce,
Eagles,
Knights of Columbus,
all started as other things but became vectors and strongholds of right-wing politics as well.
Great essay revealing fundamental dynamics of civic decay.
In the 1950's the CIA popularized the Gini Index (named after an Italian economist to describe the distribution of something among a population, where "0" means everyone has an equal amount and "1" indicates it is all concentrated in one person/unit's/country's hands) as a measure of a country's stability. They determined an index over 40 was a warning of civic unrest. For years the USA hovered unacceptably high at over 35 (close to Mexico) and far above the Scandinavian countries (e.g. Sweden is at 30 in 2024). Obama with his tax on stock transactions and the ACA was the only President since the 1960's to lower our Gini. Since then, especially with no raise in the minimum wage, impotent unions, the Republican minimization of estate taxes, caping income tax rates, and the Trump tax cutout, the USA Gini Index is now an estimated, unadjusted 48. One American is the richest man in the world. Three Americans have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population. Beyond Musk's political power, both American families and American government have been starved, both economically and politically. You are quite right. For the last 50 years, and on an accelerating basis, we are watching, playing out in real time, civic dysfunction and disorder whose main engine is wealth inequality. OUCH! I agree, more than anything else this explains the panoramic dynamics of the MAGA movement. In the end the CIA was right, wealth inequality destabilizes a society. In the real world, each scenario will unravel in a unique way. Now, in real time, we are watching this great civic defect create its havoc.
"The most useful way to analyze the state of American democracy is not to focus on the unwieldy coalitions of the two political parties and their respective toeholds in Washington. It is, simply, to think about the distribution of power in our society. Is it fair? Do portions of our society have power that more or less represents how numerous they are?"
This resonated heavily with me. Too much of the conversation about politics in the US becomes immediately reduced to an electoral framework. Not only is it an unproductive framework to solely operate from, it also saps our ability to legitimately take stock of the material and social conditions laid out before us. As this article details quite well, the disproportionate accumulation of capitol, and by consequence, political power, has led us to a point where the only institutions capable of broad-sweeping change are the ones that are seemingly most compromised. If the majority of political discourse continuously hinges on incorporating these institutions without meaningfully reforming them, how can things ever change?
In my opinion, the resurrection of a more organized and militant labor movement seems to be this country's best shot at meaningfully reforming the economic conditions of society. One impactful step people can take is to spend more time thinking about the state of their lives and their neighbor's lives and question what they see. 'Why do I work so much? Is this normal? Are people receiving equal reward for equal effort? Why does my vote feel impotent? How does this change?' - In most cases you may find that the answer to these questions don't come from considering electoral strategies or party platforms.
Divided we beg, united we bargain!
“It is the load bearing wall that has been eaten by the termites of capital for decades now.”
Ah.
A writer who throws a good punch.
Hemingway would like that sentance.
The same thing has happened in the UK, with both Labour and the Tories enthralled by the super-rich and no change in sight. They all tell the economic lie that if we tax the super-rich multi billionaires they will remove their money. We have a situation where a multi-millionaire PM prefers Davos, headquarters of the WEF to Westminster, and threatens to send the police around to knock on the doors of the 3 million who signed a petition against his government. I'm 78 and I have never known the country so angry. £800 billion has been moved from the public purse to the elite, yet we have the hughest tax burden since the war, yet nothing they do makes a difference to the public, yet they help finance NATOs wars.
Simple and brilliant- cuts through the fog
Very useful piece, thanks.
Thank you for this & all of your work. Here’s another short piece on these issues, published this morning, that I loved:
https://darkforum.substack.com/p/you-cant-subtract-your-way-to-a-majority?r=7hblj&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
This is all true, but there needs to be more. Also, we should understand that unions have frequently NOT been democratic, with management most often exercising the very rottenness you describe in our political system, with which this management often colludes with to undercut the potential power of the rank and file, such as keeping striking groups isolated from other striking groups with the same grievances—consolidation that would be hugely empowering! And, the idea of “Union” should be re-conceptualized to consider the voting public a potential union—what might that look like, besides dealing a major blow to Capitalism? After all, there really are so very many more of us than there are of the 1%—think of society as the rank and file, without whose “labor” they could not exist…. AND this should be global….
Agreed, except our democracy has definitely been dead since either Bush v Gore in 2000 or Obama's suspension of Habeas Corpus that is still with us, take your pick. Regardless, we don't live in a democracy, but an oligarchy.
Until people can face that unpalatable truth, democracy will remain dead.
Really great perspective. I just wrote a piece on how the Democrats have been "pro union" without doing anything to increase union membership. It's ultimately a losing political strategy, but your argument helps reinforce that the outcome isn't just election losses for a party - it's a degradation of the foundational premise of democracy.
https://frankspesia.substack.com/p/can-a-president-be-pro-union-when?r=2qxph7
Not to No True Scotsman you but what you're describing:
If democracy subjects the majority of people to the long term control of political power by a small minority, why would the majority of people ever agree that democracy is doing its job? They would eventually lose faith in the system. Then—whether through sudden overthrow, or slow nihilistic abandonment—the democracy would wither.
Is exactly backwards. Democracy withers and people notice and lose faith. Not to be the sophomore college student at the thanksgiving table but America isn't a democracy - maybe never had been but lets focus on now.
When people talk about young people (and I'm not one to be clear) "losing faith" in "democracy" I know two things.
One, the question was presented to them slanted - what democracy? Pick a "democratic" country, US, UK, France, anywhere and ask the people if they feel like their voice or their vote matters. Two, the kids see through both their governments lies and the false framework of the push-poll designed to turn comfortable middle age and older libs into blaming "young people" for, lets say Trump. Cleanly splitting off the people who used to hold moral values from the people who have not yet managed to buy into homeownership or whatever it is (maybe just an accumulated threshold of decades of MSNBC consumption) that turns you into a lib.
I see this with supreme court reporting constantly. "This ruling could jeopardize their respect and standing" bitch no one normal holds the SCOTUS in high esteem and no one normal has faith in the system thats been very clearly rigged and crooked as long as they've been alive.
I'm a fan of Democracy to be clear. Wish I had some. I'd love to get some, but I realize there'll be literal blood in the streets if we try to replace what we have with democracy, as the current beneficiaries will have their cops do what their cops do everytime theres a push for democracy in the streets.
This is why the Democratic Party's anti-Trump electoral strategy of saying they're defending/saving "democracy" doesn't work. First of all we've never had a real democracy. But beyond that if they're saying what we have or had is a democracy well democracy hasn't been delivering for the average person for a long time so what use is it?
100% agree.
"We know, from experience, that it is not enough to simply raise taxes on the rich and funnel some of that money to the poor, without changing anything else. (Wealthy interests will always be incentivized to recapture the government and shift the taxes and regulations back in their favor, which indeed is the story of post-WW2 America.)"
And the other side of redistribution is that it requires the ongoing creation of wealth through exploitation. Whatever you do to cut off those ill-gotten profits, the pool of funds to be redistributed dwindles.
I'm not an American but I thought of 3 necessary principles on how to "fix" the system in the "democratic" world and nudge it towards a better (as I see it) situation:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150005313
The labor movement through the unions is limited, by the vested interests of "labor aristocracy", who seeks to rule their anthill rather than lift a finger to expand its colony.
Militant workers always meet their first barrier there, which is designed to deplete their energy so they have less left to use to fight for their interests and agency on the broader plain of politics.
We need a different model of organization to take back our agency, devoid of fiefdoms, but that almost anyone with vaguely left beliefs can find a place in, or alongside of.
What is it?
Maybe something as simple as what used to be called "Townsend Clubs", back in the early 20th c. Or something like the "Social Aid & Pleasure Clubs" in New Orleans. Or a 'burial society' or 3. Whatever.
Our enemies did this stuff for years; before they decided that mass-media atomization/alienation from society was the way to go.
Rotary,
Jaycees,
Chambers of Commerce,
Eagles,
Knights of Columbus,
all started as other things but became vectors and strongholds of right-wing politics as well.