Effing the Ineffable Looking for the ultimate fool's errand? I've found it. Spent my life trying to get answers to the questions everyone believes are unanswerable. Why are we here? Who am I? Who are you? Is there really something we can call Human Nature? If so, what is it? Is there such a thing as justice? Do we already know what it is? Must one person's utopia always be another's dystopia? Is our consciousness evolving, or devolving? Is there any hope? The worst part of this quest is that those who bother to think about these things usually are sure they have answers. Philosophy, religion, science, all try to fill those blanks. Try passing on what you think and others either already agree or are not interested in someone else's conclusions. Proof? Logic fails, experience is not transferrable. For what it's worth, here are some of my personal conclusions. First, I never tell the truth, and that's the truth. But, there's no need to worry, because all generalizations are false, including this one. Remember Socrates? “I am a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars.” Alfred Korzybski, the founder of General Semantics, wrote in Science and Sanity that English is an Aristotelian language, built around the verb “to be” that reduces reality to a simple equation in which everything is either this or that. Thus, it is impossible to tell the truth in English, because nothing is that simple. There are exceptions to every rule. That's the rule. You can see that I like paradoxes, which someone said are the Truth standing on its head, trying to get our attention. Without generalizations, it's impossible to have a useful discussion about serious matters. But there has to be an understanding that the existence of exceptions does not completely invalidate the usefulness of the generalization. Constantly repeating the mantra “more often than not” should not be necessary. Let's consider stereotypes, which are generalizations based on the collected experiences of a great many people over a very long time. They are not created out of whole cloth. Most are directly related to cultural values and standards, which vary widely from one culture to another. The definition of prejudice is “pre-judgement,” that is, to judge an individual based simply on a stereotype, without realizing that he or she may not fit the profile at all. While prejudice is a bad thing (and inherently unfair), it does not invalidate the generalization, even though, as I wrote earlier, like all generalizations, it is false. Isn't this fun? On to consciousness, the arbiter of our existence. As it happens, when Descartes announced that “I think, therefore I am,” he had it backwards, because he believed that our existence and our identity grew out of our minds. Actually, it is more accurate to say that “I am, therefore I think,” because our minds are just artifacts, tools in the service of our consciousness. If we practice the kind of meditation usually (inaccurately) called “Mindfulness,” we eventually learn that something is experiencing the mental activity. Some would call that experiencer the Soul. I just call it “that-which-experiences.” The mind moderates our experience with concepts and constructs that have accreted during our lives. In Eastern Philosophy/Psychology the mind has long been known as the “drunken, horny monkey.” Reading James Joyce's Ulysses gives one a good idea why. Ironically, even though DesCartes was wrong, he gave birth to the Enlightenment, which inspired our Founding Fathers, and the Scientific Revolution, which has improved our living standards while enabling us to despoil the planet and perhaps wipe out the human race. So, effing the ineffable. Care to join me?

Reflections on “Capital in the 21st Century” Some thoughts after slogging my way through Thomas Pickety's Capital in the 21st Century (577 pages), some of which have to be read three or four times in order to achieve even a modicum of comprehension. Despite this, the book is a best seller, and references to it keep showing up all over the place. His major premise is that as long as the rate of return on capital ( r ) is greater than the rate of growth ( g ) (economic and/or demographic) economic inequality will keep increasing (divergence) until a relative handful of people own 90% or more of all capital (Real Estate, financial assets, gold, diamonds and other natural resources – especially oil and gas, etc.). Disruptions in the 20th Century (wars and the confiscatory taxes to pay for them) temporarily reduced the divergence that had been typical for most of recorded history. As an aside, note that Reinhold Niebuhr, in Moral Man and Immoral Society, wrote that complex societies always create a privileged minority. Pickety provides voluminous data as evidence that this divergence is rapidly increasing yet again. He correctly places much of the blame for this on what he calls Reaganism and Thatcherism (I call it the Reagan/Thatcher Devolution), which began a process of slashing the taxes on excess income that had limited outsized, income demands by the 1% and created a healthy middle class in most of the developed world (now rapidly disappearing!). The present levels of excess income are truly obscene. His preferred solution (which is politically unfeasible, to say the least) is a progressive tax on world-wide wealth. Of course, if it were not world-wide, the wealthy could simply continue to move their assets from country to country. Such a tax would necessarily require total International transparency, aka no cheating on taxes. Good luck with that, Mr. Pickety; but the following quote is worth repeating (if not shouting): “The most plausible reason why tax havens defend bank secrecy is that it allows their clients ot evade their fiscal obligations, thereby allowing the tax havens to share in their gains.Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles of the market economy. No one has the right to set his own tax rates. It is not right for individuals to grow wealthy from free trade and economic integration (globalization) only to take off the profits at the expense of their neighbors. THAT IS OUTRIGHT THEFT [my emphasis].”

Rights is the Wrong Word (We need to talk about "needs")

As a 73 year old left-hander, I can testify to the dextrocentrism that defines our world. Those who studied Latin can easily recognize my neologism: dexter is latin for “right.” The Greco-Latin root for “left” is sinister. We tighten everything clockwise. Even the lowly screw is a right-handed tool, because it is most naturally and powerfully tightened by the right hand. Given that roughly 90% are right-handed, this bias goes almost completely unnoticed, One might say it's like water to fish. Not surprisingly, it dominates many other aspects of life. The common synonym for correct is “right.” Even left-handers say it reflexively. In politics, the Right is always more “conservative,” the Left more likely to be radical. They say this dates back to monarchies, where the most important allies of the king always sat on his right. What, you may well ask, does this have to do with “needs?” Let's start with the concept of Human Rights: we call the first ten amendments of the Constitution the Bill of Rights. It mandates only political rights. Nothing there about economic rights, like food, shelter, education and healthcare. America never signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because it includes those economic rights. Educated foreigners correctly consider us hypocrites when we criticize others for their policies regarding Human Rights. They know that in the real world, economic needs take precedence over political rights. Further, the word “rights” implies entitlements, mandated by laws. Thus, we have a so-called Social Security system that has been sold as a universal retirement plan, which must reward in proportion to the amount “invested.” That was the only way FDR could get conservative Democrats to support the program during the Depression. But, look at its name: Social Security: i.e., a social commitment to the security of those who really need it. There's that word again. With the breakdown of intergenerational support, many elderly citizens would not survive without their Social Security check. In a perfect world, it would be understood that younger, productive citizens have a moral obligation to ensure that all elders have access to the things they need to survive. If we really want to protect Social Security, the easiest way is to deny it to those who manifestly do not need it. If we removed the ceiling on Social Security taxes, those to whom needs are irrelevant could pay for a more generous compensation for the needy elderly. As for Medicare, the most obvious solution is to provide Universal Medical Care, with a requirement for those who want more than basic care to pay for it. We all know that America pays much more for Healthcare than any other developed country, while our health outcomes are among the worst. Drugs, surgery, hospital stays, all cost multiples of what they would if we just removed the profit motive from the situation. In San Francisco, where I live, the cost of housing is astronomical, fueled by overpaid technicians working in the Internet. It's not just the poor and the elderly who are being evicted and bankrupted. Even the rapidly disappearing Middle Class (police, firemen, electricians, plumbers, etc.) are becoming endangered species. The lion's share of new construction is multi-million dollar condos and apartments that are often just convenient pieds-a-terre, used only for a few weeks while the owners are here on vacation or business. When basic needs are provided for a profit, when prices for these needs are determined by whatever the the market will bear, many are left behind. Since the financial crisis of 2007-2008, it has become increasingly clear that a rising tide does not lift all boats. It's more likely to swamp and sink those that are not yachts. Is there a solution? Not likely in our present politico-economic scenario. The Plutocrats have hijacked our democracy. Plato is smiling somewhere. In the Republic, Socrates avers that the main fallacy of democracy is the false assumption that all citizens are equally capable of self-government. Greek democracy had failed when Oligarchs hired Sophists (we call them “spin doctors”) to use their rhetorical skills to convince less enlightened citizens to vote against their own best interests. Sound familiar? After more than 200 years, our Constitution has lost its luster. Thomas Jefferson wrote that new Revolutions would be necessary over time, as things changed. Sadly, however, ours seems to have been the only Revolution in History that was not immediately replaced by something worse. What we need is not revolutionary but evolutionary change, based on needs, not rights. Since 1980, we have been devolving, regressing to a Medieval form of government that exists to enhance and protect the wealth of those who already have more than they could ever need. If we are to resume evolving, basic human needs must become more important than political rights, which seem to be eroding rapidly in any event. Profit has its place, the markets are not going away, Communism and Socialism have been tried and they failed. But markets can be regulated and profits can be shared more equitably. It has been said that the ultimate judgement of a society is how fairly its fruits are distributed. If so, we should be judged harshly by history. Recently. frustration with Obama's futile attempts to implement the Community Organizing model nationally convinced me to resign from the Executive Board of the San Francisco Organizing Project. A few years ago, I attended a National Training put on by PICO, which is a federation of more than fifty local organizations around the country. One of the instructors suggested that we were trying to create a kind of structure, which, like most buildings, has a front door and a back door. He said that people with real needs (that word again!) come in the front door, while folks with values come in the back door. I am certain that if any political movement was able to organize all the people with needs and those with values, they would represent a significant majority of the American electorate. So far, no such political organization exists, The two major parties have been bought out, and the minor parties want to put bandages on a patient that seems to be terminally ill. The Green Party is a perfect example. Degradation of the environment is essential to our excess consumption, pathological growth economy. Only when those with needs and those with values are finally organized, can we begin to create a more just society.

Debt Forgiveness Day If the current uncertainty were to panic the financial markets and precipitate the Big Bankruptcy, that’s probably the only way we could clean up the mess we’ve created. I once had a business cleaning vacant apartments for a large real estate company. One lesson I learned was that a badly stained toilet can be cleaned only if all the water is first removed. It’s a nuisance, but nothing less will serve, because water dilutes the cleaning agent. The worst stains can only be removed by full-strength cleaners. Sadly, our present economic system is not only a “toilet,” it is grievously stained, and money is the water which flows through that system. It follows that only bankruptcy can interrupt the flow of money/water long enough for us to remove those stains. For those who prefer a more elegant approach to this subject, I present Thomas Carlyle, whose definitive History of the French Revolution was published more than 150 years ago. Speaking of the events which led up to that revolution, he wrote: “Are we breaking down, then into the black horrors of National Bankruptcy? Great is Bankruptcy, the bottomless gulf into which all falsehoods, public and private, do sink, disappearing... For Nature is true and not a lie. No lie you can speak or act but it will come, like a bill drawn on Nature’s reality, and be presented there for payment, with the answer: no effects. Pity only that it had so long a circulation, that the original forger were so seldom he who bore the final smart of it. Lies, and the burden of evil they bring, are passed on; shifted from back to back, and from rank to rank, and so land ultimately on the dumb lowest rank, who with spade and mattock, with sore heart and empty wallet, come daily in contact with reality, and can pass the cheat no further... ...Honor to Bankruptcy, ever righteous on the great scale, though in detail it is so cruel! No falsehood, did it rise heaven-high and cover the world, but Bankruptcy, one day, will sweep it down and make us free of it.” Carlyle could as easily have been speaking of modern America, where economic “lies” are so pervasive they’ve become clichés: Let’s blame welfare mothers or immigrants for our problems. Forget health insurance for workers; if they want it, they can pay for it themselves. The more austerity for workers, the more likely they are to accept demeaning work. The only time in recent history that we acted like a civilization was during the Great Depression. We paid writers to write, artists to make art, and we wrote laws that created the eight-hour workday, overtime pay and Social Security, all of which are now being threatened. The reason this happened was that the Wagon had turned over, and the power junkies were out of power (they were too busy jumping out of windows!). None of this would have happened had it not been for Roosevelt, and he was heavily influenced by an agenda laid out by Progressives, starting in San Francisco at the turn of the Twentieth Century. They were reacting to Social Darwinist excesses of the Nineteenth Century (and Bellamy’s hugely successful book!). The failure of modern “Progressives” to set out a new agenda does not bode well for the next (inevitable) national bankruptcy, which will otherwise be vulnerable to totalitarian forces. As I’ve already noted, the new progressive agenda must concentrate less on jobs and more on economic justice, since there will never again be enough good jobs. On one of his national radio programs, Charles Osgood interviewed one E.J. Peters, the owner of a neighborhood grocery store in a small New Hampshire town. Peters’ customers had accumulated more than $10,000 in debts to his store, and most were too embarrassed to come around. His business was dying, so Peters placed this ad in the local paper: “All is forgiven. No one owes me anything. Customers, please come back.” Asked Osgood: “Where did you get an idea like that?” Replied Peters: “From my heart, sir.” Osgood: “What do you think of that, America?” I’ll tell you what I think, Charles: I think we should set a date in the near future, declare International Debt Forgiveness Day, and get the dirty water out of the “toilet” so that we can eradicate the stains once and for all. Take, for example, those who have been collecting the interest we pay on the National debt. Perhaps they’d enjoy looking for a nice, low-paying, demeaning job. And, how about those who’ve been grabbing a disproportionate share of our national wealth simply by trading in pieces of paper? Maybe they’d like to do something productive for a change. The mind boggles at the possibilities. These days, government at all levels is irrelevant. Market forces hold all politicians hostage with the threat of bankruptcy. Failure to kowtow to the desires of bond traders and stock speculators has turned them into a herd of terrified sellers, who are leavng devastation in their wake. If we decided to embrace that bankruptcy as a purgative, a relentless cleaning device, then government might be in a position to exercise a little political muscle for a change.

Andrew Carnegie and Jesus A recent essay from Reader Supported News (6/13/12), by a retired Baptist minister named Rev. Howard Bess, was titled “Jesus, the Radical Economist.” In the essay, Rev. Bess' first paragraph was “Jesus made his reputation as a Jewish economist, one with very strong opinions about wealth and property, about the relationship between the rich and the poor.” “From early childhood he must have understood that he was seen as a brash, pushy kid from a small town in Northern Palestine, an area without religious leadership and an unemployment rate well over 50%.” “...he is presented in the Gospel of Luke as being a precocious 12-year-old boy absorbed in debating religious leaders about the meaning of the Torah.” Bess says that Jesus was fully aware of the passage in Leviticus (credited to Moses, but undoubtedly written after the exile in Babylon in the Sixth Century) that mandated a Jubilee Year, every 49 years (seven time seven), during which all debts were to be forgiven, all slaves manumitted (freed) and all land returned to its original owners. Most scholars believe that a similar mandate had been periodically issued for hundreds if not thousands of years in the various civilizations that occupied the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, because that long history had taught the priests and rulers that wealth inevitably gravitates toward a smaller and smaller group of “elites,” eventually making the entire society economically dysfunctional. Only a severe and total redistribution could resolve that imbalance. Quoting Bess again, “Hundreds of years later, however, when Jesus lived and taught, the combination of Roman rule, compliant fat-cats and religious elites made the observance of Jubilee impossible.” Though everybody knew about it, everyone but Jesus had given up on it. Bess then quotes from Luke recounting a visit of Jesus to a synagogue, where he read the following passage from the book of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. God has sent me to bring good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim release of captives and liberty to the oppressed. This is the acceptable year of the Lord.” It would seem that later scribes had chosen to eliminate the word “Jubilee” from that passage. Bess then says: “Everyone in his hearing understood what he [Jesus] was saying: Israelites had gone too long without a Year of Jubilee. It was time for the wealthy to turn loose what they had accumulated. It was time for the poor to receive their full stewardship.” But the poor knew that their oppressors (including the ruling Rabbis!) considered the Year of the Jubilee as “impractical.” Bess says that one of the reasons Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem before he turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple was “to mock the rich, who favored horses.” What was true then is true now. “The evils of greed and mindless ownership are with us in ever growing magnitude. Resulting inequities and injustice surround us.” Where, you may well ask, does Andrew Carnegie enter this discussion? Through the back door, to be sure, but there are a number of strange parallels between the foregoing and Carnegie's “Gospel of Wealth,” written in 1898, and subsequently published in many languages around the world. It would not surprise me to learn that many of today's most successful Capitalists have read it as well. First, though, we have to look at Carnegie's main inspiration, which was the decidedly secular “religion” of Evolution, as propounded by Herbert Spencer, infamous (to many of us) as the Godfather of Social Darwinism. Spencer seized on the writings of Darwin (much to Darwin's disgust!) to develop an elaborate theory of human evolution, which held that all of human history (and pre-history) was just a process of increasing complexity that would eventually lead to a “perfect” society. What made him especially popular with Carnegie and other Robber Barons in the emerging Industrial Revolution, was the idea that this increasing complexity always created a class of “superior humans” whose wealth was prima facie evidence of their superiority. One particularly egregious example of Spencer's moral depravity is quoted in David Nasaw's biography of Carnegie, in the context of one of Carnegie's repeated battles with his workers. Spencer: “It seems hard that a laborer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life and death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be of the highest beneficence.” [my emph.] That phrase, “the highest beneficence” occurs repeatedly in Carnegie's “Gospel of Wealth” and many of his other writings. In addition to “justifying” economic inequality, it also served to “justify” the merciless exploitation of workers by Carnegie and his fellow Robber Barons. The inexorable “progress” of human evolution required whatever means were deemed necessary to maximize the wealth of these “superior” humans who were in charge. Of course, Carnegie was a mass of almost incomprehensible contradictions. Well read, compassionate (towards those in his social circle), extremely intelligent, personable to those whose support he valued, a passionate advocate of American democracy (as he saw it) and of universal suffrage in Great Britain, where he spent much of his later life, all the while denouncing the rigid class system there. But, whenever workers' demands got in the way of profits, he was rigidly ruthless. They could not be allowed to impede the accumulation of wealth by Spencer's “superior” people. In “The Gospel of Wealth” and later writings, Carnegie differed from Spencer in a very important manner. Much like the Old Testament Prophets (quoted above), Carnegie believed that wealth was not really the private property of those who accumulated, but was held in trust by them, solely so that they could re-distribute it in their lifetime, to public institutions of their choice. We all know that he was especially enamored of libraries, many of which around the world continue to carry his name. He also endowed music halls, schools, and many other public institutions. Mind you, that wealth was not held in trust for the Lord! He and Spencer were adamantly secular, often critical of Western Religion, though Carnegie was intrigued by the Buddha and some Eastern Philosophies. No, the “trust” was to serve Spencer's idea of the “highest beneficence,” the eventual perfect society toward which the chosen few were leading us. Carnegie wrote: “This then is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer....in the manner which in his judgement is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community.” Can you say, “Bill Gates?” My own question is: who appointed these materialist accumulators to decide what is “most beneficial to the community?” Nawas wrote: “Carnegie reserved his greatest scorn not for his ideological and political opponents, but for the men of his own class,” who failed to follow his advise. “He began by assailing those who left [quoting Carnegie] 'great fortunes to their children. If this is done from affection is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred on legatees, the thoughtful man [i.e. Carnegie!] must shortly say, “I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar,” and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride which inspires these legacies.' To prevent the bestowal of vain and foolish legacies, Carnegie advocated the steepest possible inheritance taxes. 'By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.'” Words to live by, eh? If only.... Meanwhile, back in the real world debt is smothering us. Private debt, public debt, bad debt, usurious debt, all despoiling our future. Across the millennia, Jesus and the Old Testament Prophets are calling us, demanding that we declare a universal, world-wide Jubilee Year. Imagine the collective sigh of relief, the surge of positive energy, the promise of a brighter future for all mankind. But my sigh is one of resignation, because I have been trying for many years to get anyone, anyone to join me in this Holy cause. Everyone just looks away, no doubt pitying my foolish idealism, returning to their work and their families, like the poor of Jesus' time, taking “on the understanding of life that their oppressors presented and taught.”

Moral Man and Immoral Society By Reinhold Niebuhr After reading this book, written in 1932, with a new introduction written in 1960, I am convinced that his message is, if anything, more relevant today than when it was first written. His two major premises were: one, that individuals are capable of moral values and behavior, while larger groups are usually not; and, second, that what he calls, variously, “educational authorities,” “social scientists,” “middle-class intellectual and religious moralist hope [naively] to insinuate the ideal of personal morality into the behavior of groups.” “Since reason is always, to some degree, the servant of interest [read: special interests] in a social situation, social injustice cannot be resolved by moral and rational suasion alone, as the educator and social scientist usually believes. Conflict is inevitable, and in this conflict, power must be challenged by power.” Later, “Modern educators, like rationalists of all the ages, are too enamored of the function of reason in life.. The world of history, particularly in man's collective behavior, will never be conquered by reason, unless reason uses tools, and is itself driven by forces which are not rational. All social cooperation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion.” Note that he says, “requires a measure of coercion.” Of course, those whom he refers to as intellectual and religious moralists, we would call “Liberals.” Chris Hedges recent book, The Death of the Liberal Class, and Paul Krugman's book from 2004, The Great Unraveling, both make the same point in different ways. We are at the effect right now of a Plutocratic coup d'etat, a Right-wing Reactionary Revolution. As paradoxical as that term may seem, it is accurate, reflective as it is of the inherent cognitive dissonance plaguing those who are promoting and benefitting from it. Somewhere, Plato is smiling smugly, as his critique of Democracy – that it is based on the false belief that all citizens are equally capable of self-government – is being borne out again. Krugman, in his introduction, quoted extensively from the doctoral thesis of Henry Kissinger (of all people), which traced a similar failure of the liberal thinkers to recognize and confront similar revolutions in Europe in the 19th Century and again in the mid-20th Century. When Niebuhr says that a measure of coercion is required, he is not talking about violent revolution, though he does acknowledge the need for limited forms of violence in dealing with what he calls the “privileged classes” who inevitably dominate any political system as long as they are unchallenged by the oppressed majority. Niebuhr explains that as soon as human societies begin to develop more complexity, a privileged class always emerges, in one form or another. He returns often to the rampant hypocrisy which serves to mask the chasm between the moral values of the vast majority of individuals within a society, and the manifestly immoral, often bestial (predatory) values of the larger society (a group of groups). Values may be relatively moral within a group, but never between different groups, especially between those at the top and those at the bottom. “With the increased centralization of economic power in the period of modern industrialism [and, nowadays, the financial institutions] … economic rather than political and military power has become the significant coercive force in modern society [remember: he was writing this in 1932!]. Either it defies the authority of the state or it bends the institutions of the state to its own purposes [sound familiar?]. Political power has been made [through media manipulations that Niebuhr could not have foreseen] responsible to industrial [and financial] interests, while economic power has become irresponsible to the need of the larger society.” “It may on occasion appropriate the police and army of the state to defend its interests against internal and external forces [can you say “Occupy”?]. “Power sacrifices justice to peace within the community and destroys peace between communities....The whole history of mankind bears testimony to the fact that the power which prevents [what it considers] anarchy in intra-group relationships encourages anarchy in intergroup relations.” Commenting on another apparently permanent problem, Niebuhr wrote, 80 years ago, “Thus,for instance, a laissez faire economic theory is maintained... through the ignorant belief that the general welfare is best served by placing the least possible political restraints upon economic activity. The history of the last hundred years [now 180 years and counting...] is a refutation of the theory; but it is still maintained, or is dying a too lingering death, particularly in nations as politically incompetent as our own [again, some things never seem to change]. “It suffers because of the ignorance of those who suffer injustice at its hands because they fail to attribute their difficulties to the social anarchy and political irresponsibility which the theory sanctions.” Chapter Five is titled, “The Ethical Attitudes of Privileged Classes.” “Classes may be formed on the basis of common functions in society, but they do not become sharply distinguished until function is translated into privilege.” That produces what I call the Envelope of Privilege. Also, privilege clings to those who need it most, and they will do almost anything to keep it. Niebuhr says: “The moral attitudes of dominant and privileged classes are characterized by universal self-deception and hypocrisy.” We are up here in the wagon of privilege because we are better, as Edward Bellamy noted long ago in Looking Backward. Later, Niebuhr says: “The blessings which Jesus pronounced upon the poor and the warnings he sounded against riches are based on the recognition that there are temptations of riches which are too great to be overcome. They can only be escaped by voluntary or involuntary poverty. Special privileges make all men [and women] dishonest. The purest conscience and the clearest mind is prostituted by the desire to prove them morally justified.” To summarize: denial and hypocrisy allow rationalization and protect against guilt and shame, because only a handful of humans are capable of conscious evil. While discussing the role of violence in revolution, he writes,”nothing is intrinsically immoral except ill-will and nothing is intrinsically good except goodwill.” “Since it is very difficult to judge human motives [indeed!], it is natural that, from an external perspective, the social consequence of an action or policy should be regarded as more adequate tests of its morality than the hidden motives.” The Marxian prediction of “inevitable revolution” was derailed by several developments: 1. The peasant class craved land reform and included some bourgeois values. 2. The middle class was greatly expanded by education and expanded suffrage, which made the political class more responsive to their need/wants. 3. Technology created ever more skilled workers whose pay was better. As they bought homes and watched some of their children rising through education and ambition, their unions became increasingly reactionary. 4. The worst excesses of Capitalism were modified externally and internally enough to stave off any ''inevitable'' collapse. They periodically over-produce and/or over-borrow [sound familiar?], creating economic crises, but they are incredibly clever using their money and political influence to wiggle through. FDR and World War II helped them a lot. Regarding the communist/socialist ideal of “from each according to ability and to each according to need,” he says “it is sentimental and romantic [naïve!] to assume that any education or any example will ever completely destroy the inclination of human nature to seek special advantages at the expense of, or in indifference to, the needs and interests of others.” I think he is too cynical here, but we definitely have a problem with the nature of some humans – those for whom enough will never be enough. Anticipating recent realizations of the limitations of the rational will, as part of his criticism of middle-class intellectual schemes to create a gradual political evolution toward a more just society, he says, “Such is the inclination of the human mind for beginning with assumptions which have been determined by other than rational considerations [aka irrational considerations], and building a superstructure of rationally acceptable judgements upon them, that all this can be done without any conscious dishonesty.” The penultimate chapter titled, “Moral Values in Politics,” talks a lot about the need for “equal justice,” and the role of coercion in accomplishing that. The most important conclusion is that oppressed groups “have a higher moral right to challenge their oppressors than these have to maintain their rule.” Whether that requires violence “must be deferred.... It is important first to insist that equality [which he has earlier qualified as equal justice, since equality itself is an unreasonable and impossible goal in the real world] is a higher social goal than peace.” Especially since, “peace is often maintained by the privileged classes through clandestine coercion.” This is painfully relevant at a time when billionaire oligarchs like the Koch brothers are using the “Citizens United” decision of the Supreme Court to sponsor demagogic appeals to ignorant, frightened voters to vote agains their own best interests, electing extremist Right-Wing Republicans to all levels of government so they can use our current debt crisis (here and in Europe) to complete the dismantlement of our social safety net, reducing government to military and police protection of their wealth and privileges, leaving millions of workers with no choice but to accept bad jobs for peon wages to prevent homelessness or even starvation. Writing more than 80 years ago, Niebuhr said, “All social power is partially derived from the actual possession of physical instruments of coercion, economic or martial, but it depends also to a large degree upon its ability to secure unreasoned and unreasonable obedience, respect and reverence.” To which I would only add ignorance and insecurity, the ultimate “potting soil” for the worst demagoguery. In the final chapter, “Individual and Social Morality,” he says that at a simple level we are talking about the inherent conflict between ethics and politics: “One focuses on the inner life of the individual, and the other in the necessities of man's social life.” This conflict, he says, is not insoluble, but is extremely difficult to solve. The key is “the control of moral goodwill. Any justice which is only justice soon degenerates in something less than justice. The realistic wisdom of the statesman is reduced to foolishness if it is not under the influence of the foolishness of the moral seer.” On the last page of the book, “We can no longer buy the highest satisfaction of the individual life at the expense of social injustice. We cannot build our individual ladder to heaven and leave the total human enterprise unredeemed of its excesses and corruptions.” We need “new illusions for the abandoned ones.” “The most important of these illusions is that the collective life of mankind can achieve perfect justice.” This illusion is needed because “justice cannot even be approximated if the hope of its perfect realization does not generate a sublime madness in the soul. Nothing but such madness will do battle with the malignant powers and 'spiritual wickedness in high places.' This illusion is dangerous [of course] because it encourages fanaticisms. It must therefore be brought under the control of reason. We can only hope that reason will not destroy it [the necessary illusion] before its work is done.”

Terrorists and Hostages

Terrorists and hostages: Since 2008, we have all been held hostage by financial terrorists, whose power derives from a combination of our dependence on financial markets and the instability and herd behavior of the stock and bond traders who run those markets. Everything that has been done by the President, the Federal Reserve Board and the Congress has been necessary to coddle and mollify those traders, lest they repeat the precipitous drop from 14,000+ Dow points to 7,000 following the demise of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the credit markets. Bailouts, QE I and II, the failure to pursue and prosecute the perpetrators, the tolerance of their almost instant return to obscene profits and bonuses – all necessary to pump up the markets and pamper the traders. And all were successful for a while.

Until, that is, another group of terrorists emerged, political terrorists who call themselves the Tea Party. Angry at these policies and either ignorant of their purpose or not caring about the consequences, these terrorists, spurred on by sociopathic oligarchs like the Koch Brothers and political whores like Dick Armey, the founder and leader of Freedom Now, set out exploit the Debt Ceiling deadline in order to sabotage the government's strategy, regardless of the ultimate outcome. And they have succeeded, thanks largely to Obama”s inability/unwillingness to negotiate from strength. Besides which, as many columnists have been noting, he is well to the right of some elected Republicans.

Well, the Market and its traders responded as one might easily have anticipated. They hit the panic button. For those who may not be sufficiently informed about the modern financial marketplace, those same traders can make just as much money riding the market down as they do riding it up. They are essentially pimps, just carving out their piece of the action. Amoral at best; predatory at worst.

To summarize, we have two groups of terrorists, fighting over a corpse. And, by the way, nowhere in this scenario is there any strategy to resuscitate the real economy. Unemployment is actually beneficial for the business sector – much less likelihood of dangerous inflation – frightened, insecure workers don't dare even beg for higher wages to offset higher energy and food prices. Profits are up almost everywhere as automation, globalization and outsourcing enable higher “productivity,” which is really just more profit from less workers. Human labor is expensive and problematic. Intelligent people with serious money have no motivation to hire workers. There is no demand, anyway, because even those who have jobs are afraid to buy anything they don't need.

Let us pray that, as the pundits are finally acknowledging, next year's election will be about the true nature of this conflict: not the size of government, but its appropriate role. Many of us believe that an institution as powerful as government can only be justified if it serves to protect the powerless from powerful predators. Others have a medieval idea of government, that it should only protect the wealth and power of a privileged few at the expense of a desperate many. Those who are unwilling to pay the taxes necessary to maintain the first kind of government must be assumed to favor the second.