Make Believe

Submitted by Lindsay
Melbourne Australia!

Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper – fights a never ending battler for truth, justice and the American way!

(9/2018) The rise of President Donald Trump was inevitable. It had been in preparation for more than a hundred years, ever since the philosophy of Karl Marx was used by such people as Wallace Wattles and Mary Lincoln. They propounded that by merely thinking you could begin your journey to a rich life. As well, such power would flow out from you to others who would also benefit. And not just others, for it would extend to the community and the nation. It was Marx on LSD, a spiritual make believe that fitted right into the beliefs of the day. Wattles was a fiery Quaker and reformer, unknown in other circles, but one who’s message finished up packing such a punch that it has become the basis of today’s greed.

Sure, he was wrong to combine it with religion, but such was the fervor with which the messages were given that it was absolutely sure to be true. Wattles published a book titled ‘The Science of Getting Rich’ around 1910, and it became a best seller, as noted by Bloomberg business week. And it combined well with the works of another force, Ayn Rand. It’s doubtful if she had ever heard of Wattles, but the impulse was the same: you succeed through your own efforts. Others are less important, because it all starts with you. The rewards are material, and if you become rich you influence others to do the same.

Unfortunately, that has lead to the growth of me before you; that, in turn, has produced a disdain for the wellbeing of others and to a disregard for those who do not make it. It proves, say the followers of this antisocial way, that such people are not only unworthy, but crass and lazy.

Very few of us are like that, but there was, and is, another force at work that has taken most of us into its lair: Capitalism. This has been around for as long as money, and has proved to be by far the best way to run an economy. The idea of the state running everything, which was the ideal that Marx proposed, could never succeed because everyone is to some extent greedy, many also having a driving need to run things for their own ends. It breeds dictators who cannot help showing the worst of human nature.

So doesn’t that show that private enterprise is far better when it is in running things?

No, not really. To control some things, yes, but to put the control of nearly everything into the hands of corporations is the opposite to communism, and just as deadly. The same base motivations are at work, and after a while more is never enough, the only differences to communism being that it’s deleterious effects are felt more slowly while remaining at the pinnacle of good practice and the American way.

The outcome is the development of ‘Super Capitalism’, where some 90% of all business is in private hands. This in turn brings about a society that is dependant on having money which for the great majority means having a job and being able to do it. When things are buoyant and production is high this is reasonable, but as soon as they are not it spells disaster.

Which is where you are right now. This is when the depleted education system joins rundown infrastructure and the growth in employment is in high tech and specialties. Robotics and automation remove manual jobs, welfare is not part of super-capitalism, and the stage is set for someone like Mr. Trump.

His promises are just that, because although he has positioned himself as being not part of the old system, a reformer who will make things great again, he is in fact very much part of the new capitalistic regime. He believes he is part of the 1% who reside, godlike, at the top of the heap. The 70% who were once working and middle class are the serfs – the new slaves – who can be treated disdainful cynicism. Such is the power of this slight-of-hand that many of them still believe he can do no wrong even as suicides, mental illness, gangs, domestic violence and incarceration grow alarmingly in that group.

This trend began around 1980 as wealth and power became consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. The top !% held about 10% of the wealth back then. Today it is 63%. The bottom 50% held 21% of the wealth then, and now has less than 10%. This imbalance is wreaking havoc across much of the nation, but practically nowhere else, especially in Western Europe and where the British systems were adopted.

In Europe the figures are almost the opposite. In 1980 the top 1% held about 9% 0f the wealth, the bottom 50% had 21%. Now the top has 16%, the bottom 50%. That means the middle class has suffered a bit, but there is overall satisfaction and stability. The reasons will not appeal to you. Public ownership of essential services, health and infrastructure has remind in government hands. Conglomerates have been kept under strict scrutiny and small business, especially in the service and retail sectors are prevented from becoming dominant in their area. A Walmart or a coca cola could never happen.

Social structures, education, public transport and most infrastructure are funded by the state by means of taxation. This varies, but amounts to an effective rate, (including payroll tax), of round 50%. That’s not much different to the equivalent rate in America, but where the top rate kicks in is. Denmark’s, for instance, comes in at 1.2 times the average wage. In America, it is 8.5 times. This means most Danes are in the top bracket but in America only those earning more than about $400,000 are, which is a small percentage of the population and the overall take is quite small by comparison.

The result is the poor in America bear greater burdens. They feel the system sucks their blood and they get nothing in return. An equitable social structure has always been the aim of democracy, something that is now writhing in its death throws. Not even Clark Kent could save it.