Claims that Schemes to Pay the Rich Address Inequality and Plutocracy - Anna Di Carlo - 
When Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau announced the
resignation of then Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his replacement
by Chrystia Freeland at a press conference on August 17, he was asked
by a
reporter why he had chosen Freeland. The reporter
prefaced his question by noting she is "known for wanting to
reduce inequalities in the society and wanting to do so by taxing
the rich." Trudeau responded that he and Freeland have been
having discussions for over seven years; he knows her views [on
inequality]. She has even written a book on the subject, he
added. He told reporters that the pandemic has
"highlighted
inequalities that still exist and the vulnerabilities we have as
a society." "We need to get through this pandemic
in a way that gives
everyone a real and fair chance at success, not just the
wealthiest one per cent," he said. It is known that
Freeland was recruited by the financial
oligarchy to run for the Trudeau Liberals, in part because of her
2012 book Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich
and the Fall of Everyone Else. Freeland
addresses herself to the concerns expressed by the
super-rich at the Davos Economic Forum which purports to address
problems of the world economy as a result of promoting unfettered
market economies, including the social consequences of a world in
which the rich are becoming richer, the poor poorer and the
destruction of Mother Earth has created an untenable situation.
The introduction to her book describes it as "an attempt to
understand the changing shape of the world economy by looking at
those at the very top: who they are, how they made their money;
how they think, and how they relate to the rest of us." The
book acknowledges "members of the global super-elite" such
as Eric Schmidt, George Soros, Jeff Immelt, and David Rubenstein.
Freeland writes they "helped me to understand their world and
some have become friends."[1]
The writing expresses a form of awe for the accomplishments of
the plutocrats whose stories Freeland tells. She describes them
as "meritocrats," frequently contrasting them to the "robber
barons" of the "first Gilded Age" at the end of the 19th
century. "This book," she writes, "takes as its
starting point the
conviction that we need capitalists, because we need capitalism
-- it being, like democracy, the best system we've figured out so
far." This "end of history" stand on democracy and
capitalism
indicates that what will follow is not an analysis of concrete
conditions so as to draw warranted conclusions, but a dogmatic
rendering of how capitalism and democracy can be renewed, both of
which have shown the results they give rise to favour the rich
and elite rule. She continues: "But [the book] also
argues that outcomes matter, too, and
that the pulling away of the plutocrats from everyone else is
both an important consequence of the way capitalism is working
today and a new reality that will shape the future." Freeland's
failure to analyze leads to a failure to predict
how the new reality she speaks of will shape the future. Her
morbid preoccupation with defeat is due to her dogmatic
end-of-history rendering of capitalism and democracy which block
providing the real problems of the economy and society with
solutions. What she does do is express the concern of some of the
plutocrats that if they don't reckon with what is happening, they
may contribute to the demise of the very system that enables them
to rise to the top. In this regard, her positions are akin to
those of U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden and his backers.
But, like Donald Trump, Freeland is also haunted by the spectre
of communism. Writing on the impact of the
industrial revolution (in
contrast to the current technological revolution), particularly
as it unfolded in Europe, along with an account of how the
social-welfare state was supplanted by neo-liberalism, Freeland
writes that it "was so socially wrenching that it inspired the
first coherent political ideology of class warfare -- Marxism --
and ultimately a violent revolutionary movement that would
install communist regimes in Russia, eastern Europe, and China by
the middle of the century. The victorious communists were
influential far beyond their own borders -- America's New Deal
and western Europe's generous social welfare systems were created
partly in response to the red threat. Better to compromise
with the 99 per cent than to risk being overthrown by them."
(TML emphasis.) She then piles
on historical oversimplifications by adding:
"Ironically, the proletariat fared worst in the states where the
Bolsheviks had imposed a dictatorship in its name -- the Soviet
Bloc. The living standards lagged behind [...] But in the U.S.
and Western Europe, the compromise between the plutocrats and
everyone else worked. Economic growth soared and income
inequality steadily declined." "This was the golden
age of the American middle class, and it
is no accident that our popular culture remembers it so fondly," she
adds. Speaking about the demise of this golden age
and the post-war
social contract, Freeland attributes the changes in the world
economy resulting in today's inequalities to the twin revolutions:
technology and globalization, and to the various economic and
political aspects of these two phenomena.  An ardent
defender of the neo-liberal globalized world order,
she coos: "Globalization is working -- the world overall is
getting richer. But a lot of the costs of that transition are
being borne by specific groups of the workers in the developed
West."
She eyes the current international situation
as it has
affected the people on a global scale as a new form of
"internationalism." "We are accustomed to thinking
of the left as having an
internationalist perspective. Liberals are the sort of people who
worry about poverty in Africa or the education of girls in India.
The irony today is that the real internationalists are no longer
the bleeding heart liberals, they are the cutthroat titans of
capital," she writes. To explain how this is so,
Freeland quotes from The Growth
Map: Economic Opportunity in the BRICs and Beyond by Jim
O'Neil, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs: "We
are in the early years of what is probably one of the
biggest shifts of wealth and income disparity ever in history. It
irritates me when I hear and read endless distorted stories of
how only a few benefit and increase their wealth from the fruits
of globalization, to the detriment of the marginalized masses.
Globalization may widen inequality within certain national
borders, but on a global basis it has been a huge force for good,
narrowing inequality among people on an unprecedented scale. Tens
of millions [...] are being taken out of poverty.... Vast
swaths of mankind are having their chance to enjoy some of the
fruits of wealth creation." Freeland's book is
filled with quotes from, and stories about,
plutocrats, ruling elites and their advisors to show how they are
the ones who care. Larry Summers, former Director of the U.S.
National Economic Council under President Barack Obama and U.S.
Treasury Secretary under Clinton, felt conscience-stricken about
elitist admission policies at Harvard when he was its dean. She
tells an insider story about how Mark Carney, when Governor of
the Bank of Canada, became a key protagonist in "a central battle
between the plutocracy and the rest of us" at a private
international gathering of bankers. In the same vein, she says
that in a public conversation with former Prime Minister Paul
Martin and former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, both
"members in good standing of the global elite," they "sounded a
lot like the kids camped out in Zuccotti Park." [site of the Occupy Wall Street
encampment in New York -- TML Ed. Note] The
Perverse Desire for a "Social Plutocracy"
Where, then, does Chrystia Freeland stand on the issue of the
plutocrats and the grotesque income inequality she describes?
The "new approach" claimed by the
Trudeau-Freeland-LeBlanc-Duclos team[2] falls into
a category described as "social-plutocracy" or
"inclusionary-plutocracy," which is essentially just another term for
the 1990s Third Way politics of Tony Blair, Anthony Gidden, the
Clinton's and others, including the Trudeau team. A
social plutocracy is defined by John H. Skinner, one of its
advocates, as follows: "In a plutonomy[3]
dominated by technology and offshoring, there is a need for
innovative approaches to accommodate major changes. Social
Plutocracy could become part of the solution to economic and
social problems created by plutonomy if avarice was replaced with
altruism. Social plutocracy is based on a society controlled by a
powerful minority who, realize that in order to maintain their
status, they must ensure economic stability of the masses. A
social plutocracy assures that all citizens have the ability to
sustain and improve their standards of living. The plutocrats can
become a driving force toward necessary reforms in health,
education, labour markets, taxation and the environment.
Plutocrats have benefited from governmental support and largesse
in myriad ways; it is time they help the majority. The U.S. faces
a future of continued income inequality and loss of work
opportunities unless the plutocrats pursue solutions. Changes can
be made without damaging the privileged, while at the same time
reducing the threat to their hegemony. Historically, the formula
producing disproportionate have's to have-not's has led to social
unrest and civil disorder. The solution lies in finding a middle
ground that does not discourage the free enterprise capitalist
system but also accommodates the dignity of those who desire to
work, but remain unemployed through no fault of their
own."[4]
A Desperate Plea for Liberal Democracy
In her book, when addressing the political side of plutocracy,
Freeland writes about a concept referred to as "cognitive state
capture." The term is said to have been coined by William
Butler, another member of the "global super-elite," who has served as
chief economist for Citigroup since 2010. Freeland shares how
Butler explained it to her: "It is not achieved by special
interests buying, blackmailing, or bribing their way toward
control of the legislature, the executive, or some important
regulator or agency ... but instead through those in charge of
the relevant state entity internalizing, as if by osmosis, the
objectives, interest and perception of reality of the vested
interest they are meant to regulate and supervise in the public
interest." Notwithstanding such "cognitive state
capture" of the liberal
democratic state by the economically powerful, when Chrystia
Freeland was given the Atlantik-Brücke award in 2018,[5] she delivered a
speech desperately
calling for its defence. Freeland cautioned the
audience to not be complacent about the
"inevitability of liberal democracy." "[T]he idea that democracy
could falter, or be overturned in places where it had previously
flourished, may seem outlandish [but] within the club of wealthy
Western nations, we're seeing homegrown anti-democratic movements
on the rise, seeking to undermine our open societies from
within," she warned. "[O]ther great civilizations have risen --
and then fallen. It is hubris to think we will inevitably be
different," she said. Freeland referred to liberal
democracy as a garden that has to be
carefully maintained and protected from the "vines and
weeds." The
analogy comes from The Jungle Grows Back:
America and Our Imperiled World by Robert Kagan. She read a
passage to the audience from the book: "If the liberal order is
like a garden, artificial and forever threatened by the forces of
nature, preserving it requires a persistent, unending struggle
against the vines and weeds that are constantly working to
undermine it from within and overwhelm it from without. Today
there are signs all around us that the jungle is growing
back." Freeland shares her opinion on "extremists"
threatening liberal
democracy with Justin Trudeau, Trudeau spoke in the same way
when
he rejected the advice of the Parliamentary Committee to adopt a method
of proportional representation because it would allow "extremist and
activist" voices to be heard.  Politically, the
thesis is filled with a wretched disdain for
the right to conscience, freedom of speech and of association and
for the right of members of the polity to provide the problems
society faces with solutions. In her speech, the "vines and
weeds" are described as "the preachers of hate, the angry
populists of the extreme right and left" who "rail against groups
like ours." "They like to claim that the rules-based
international order and multilateral institutions -- the UN, the
WTO, or EU -- and even liberal democracy itself are elite schemes
designed to benefit a small minority while marginalizing everyone
else. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the jungle
grows back, the weakest are the first to suffer."
She
then resorts to the Occupy Wall Street mantra: "But it is
also true that in recent decades in our countries, democratic
capitalism has served the one per cent better than the 99 per cent.
And so, as we cultivate our own plots [her choice of words --
TML Ed. Note] in the 21st century, we must take care that
they are gardens whose fruits are harvested by the many and not
just the few." Freeland then once again reveals the
extent to which she is
haunted by the spectre of communism. She refers to the title of V.I.
Lenin's book, What Is To be Done? (attributing it to "the 19th
century Russian socialists") and repeats the bravado of all those
remnants of the czarist forces who since the Russian Revolution
declare they are mired in hopelessness, helplessness and despair.
"Here is my answer," she thunders, "it is time for liberal
democracy to fight back."  Freeland
repeats the mantra of the financial oligarchy against the political
"extremist" threats and defends liberal democratic values which no
longer accord with the reality of present neo-liberal
arrangements. She is a spokesperson for the "rules-based
multilateralism" which she advocates the imperialist system of states
must adopt to renew the world order and save itself from overthrow.
In a blunt admission of the havoc and destruction the new
imperialist world order has wrought on the world, she says: "Neither
Canadians nor Germans want to live in a world where
might is right, where theft and murder and invasion are not only
tolerated, but become, in practice, the most effective tools of
statecraft. We do not want to live in a world where two or three
great powers carve up the spoils for themselves, leaving the rest
no choice but to choose sides and be satisfied with the
scraps." By championing the integration of the
Canadian economy into the
U.S. imperialist war economy and the Canadian state into the U.S.
imperialist state and war government this is, of course,
precisely what she does, de facto, stand for. Notes
1. Eric Schmidt:
former Google
Chairman and Alphabet executive chairman. Currently chair of the U.S.
Department of Defense's Innovation Advisory Board. His current net
worth is $14.7 billion. Georges Soros:
Hungarian-American billionaire investor and
philanthropist. As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3
billion, having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society
Foundations. Jeff Immelt: A venture partner of the
venture capital firm New
Enterprise Associates (NEA) and currently serves on the board of
NEA portfolio companies Collective Health, Desktop Metal and
Radiology Partners. He was chairman and chief executive officer
of General Electric, and before that was director of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, chairman of the U.S. Presidential
Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and a trustee of Dartmouth
College. David Rubenstein: Businessman and
philanthropist; financial
analyst and lawyer; co-founder and co-executive chairman of the
global private equity investment company The Carlyle Group. As of
June 30, 2020, The Carlyle Group manages $221 billion in assets
under management in 389 investment vehicles investing in
Corporate Private Equity, Real Assets, Global Credit and
Investment Solutions. 2.
Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister; Chrystia
Freeland, Finance Minister; Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs; Jean-Yves Duclos, President of the Treasury
Board, former professor at Laval University whose
specialty
was matters of equalities, social justice, poverty, and the like.
3. Plutonomy is a
term that refers to
the science of the production and distribution of wealth. The
term first appeared in the middle of the 19th-century in the work
of John Malcolm Forbes Ludlow. In modern times, Citigroup
analysts, beginning with Ajay Kapur in 2005, have used the term
to describe an economy in which the rich are the driving force
and main beneficiaries of economic growth. Citigroup
analysts advised their clients to take advantage of
inequality by building a stock portfolio made up of the luxury
items favoured by the wealthy. Fifteen years later, Kapur
suggested that antagonism to plutonomy had reached a tipping
point. (investopedia.com) 4.
Capitalism, Socialism, Social
Plutocracy: An American Crisis, John H. Skinner, 2014
5.
Atlantik-Brücke was founded in 1952
with the aim of advancing cooperation between Germany, Europe and
America to promote "multi-lateralism, open societies and free
trade." Its membership, by invitation only, is said to be
comprised of 500 "decision-makers from business, politics,
science and the media on both sides of the Atlantic."
This article was published in
Volume 50 Number 35 - September 19, 2020
Article Link:
Claims that Schemes to Pay the Rich Address Inequality and Plutocracy - Anna Di Carlo
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
