Baran and Sweezy on Capitalist Bourgeois Oligarchic Democracy

As I study Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capital I encountered this very cogent and clear explanation on the real functioning and limits of capitalist democracy.

Except in times of crisis, the normal political system of capitalism, whether competitive or monopolistic, is bourgeois democracy. Votes are the nominal source of political power, and money is the real source: the system, in other words, is democratic in form and plutocratic in content. This is by now so well recognized that it hardly seems necessary to argue the case. Suffice it to say that all the political activities and functions which may be said to constitute the essential characteristics of the system-indoctrinating and propagandizing the voting public, organizing and maintaining political parties, running electoral campaigns-can be carried out only by means of money, lots of money. And since in monopoly capitalism the big corporations are the source of big money, they are also the main sources of political power. 

It is true that there is a latent contradiction in this system. 

The non-property-owning voters, who constitute the overwhelming majority, may form their own mass organizations (trade unions, political parties ) , raise necessary funds through dues, and thereby become an effective political force. If they succeed in winning formal political power and then attempt to use it in a way which threatens the economic power and privileges of the moneyed oligarchy, the system is confronted by a crisis which can be resolved according to its own rules only if the oligarchy is prepared to give up without a fight. Since to the best of our knowledge there is no case in history of a privileged oligarchy's behaving this way, we can safely dismiss the possibility. What happens instead is that the oligarchy, which controls either directly or through trusted agents all the instrumentalities of coercion (armed forces, police, courts, etc.), abandons the democratic forms and resorts to some form of direct authoritarian rule. Such a breakdown of bourgeois democracy and resort to authoritarian rule may also occur for other reasons-such as, for example, a prolonged inability to form a stable parliamentary majority, or successful resistance by certain vested interests to reforms necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. The history of recent decades is particularly rich in examples of the substitution of authoritarian for democratic government in capitalist countries: Italy in the early 1920's, Germany in 1933, Spain in the later 1930's, France in 1958, and many more. 

In general, however, moneyed oligarchies prefer democratic to authoritarian government. The stability of the system is enhanced by periodic popular ratifications of oligarchic rule this is what parliamentary and presidential elections normally amount to-and certain very real dangers to the oligarchy itself of personal or military dictatorship are avoided. Hence in developed capitalist countries, especially those with a long history of democratic government, oligarchies are reluctant to resort to authoritarian methods of dealing with opposition movements or solving difficult problems, and instead devise more indirect and subtle means for accomplishing their ends. Concessions are made to pull the teeth of trade-union and labor political movements professing radical aims. Their leaders are bought off-with money, flattery, and honors. As a result, when they acquire power they stay within the confines of the system, merely trying to win a few more concessions here and there to keep the rank and file satisfied, yet never challenging the real bastions of oligarchic power in the economy and in the coercive branches of the state apparatus. Similarly, the oligarchy alters the machinery of government to the extent necessary to prevent any stalemates and deadlocks which might involve the breakdown of democratic procedures (for example, the number of political parties is deliberately limited to prevent the emergence of government by unstable parliamentary coalitions). By these methods, and many others, democracy is made to serve the interests of the oligarchy far more effectively and durably than authoritarian rule. The possibility of authoritarian rule is never renounced-indeed, most democratic constitutions make specific provision for it in times of emergency-but it is decidedly not the preferred form of government for normally functioning capitalist societies.

Baran, Paul A., and Paul M. Sweezy. 1966. Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. United States of America: Monthly Review Press. 155-7

The Multiverse or: How I Quit Smoking Tobacco

The fundamental question is:

Would you like yourself if you were to meet yourself?

If you were to meet someone that was you, but you didn't know who they were, and little by little you were getting to know this person, what would you think of them? Would you want to hangout with them, or would you think they were unpleasant or uninteresting?

And what if your answer to this question was that you were not attracted in some way to this person? What next, simply forget about it? Or try to change your behavior, at least those parts that you find at fault? And if so, how?

Behaviors are habits, and habits can be modified or stopped. I don't mean necessary bodily habitual impulses, like hunger, but those habits the alteration of which would not be in some way harmful to the self, whether physically or psychologically.

When, nine years ago, I finally decided to act on the wish of wanting to quit nicotine, cigarettes being my preferred delivery system, it took me about two years to actually bring myself to do it. I was quite a heavy user and by the time I quit I was averaging thirty cigarettes a day. I suffered from withdrawal anxiety and, because of that, I almost always tried to have a fresh pack along with me. I also had to have at least a carton at home and on long trips. All this to say that I was addicted to nicotine and to the physical and psychological habit of smoking. But this is also to say that if I was able to quit, anybody can.

The way I was able to do this was by bringing myself to dislike the habit and by consciously disliking myself for not being able to quit (we all unconsciously dislike ourselves for some habit but until we are able to consciously admit this we are not going to be able to do much about it — thus my initial fundamental question). I was able to consciously realize that I disliked smoking, even though I liked — or at least I thought I did — the physicality of it and the way it made me feel, for making me behave in ways that were harmful to myself and to those around me. I also disliked myself for financially supporting companies whose bottom line is dependent on killing people and who either support or are directly involved in other similarly despicable activities. This was, for me, a helpful psychological trigger.

But the more fundamental concept that allowed me to find this trigger and break with my addiction was that of the multiverse — or a least that of a multiverse theory.

Roughly, according to this theory, there is not only one uni-verse but an infinite number of universes — the so-called multi-verse. And, if so, everything that could happen has either already happened or it will happen in at least one universe. For example, there is at least one universe where our laws of physics do not apply; one where, all else being equal, I do not exist; at least one where, all else being equal, I do exist, smoke and die of lung cancer; at least one where I quit smoking; at least one where I quit and still die of lung cancer; and so on.

Then I asked myself: if I could choose which universe to be in, all else being equal, which universe would I choose? The answer was simple: in the one where I quit smoking. And so I made that universe this one by quitting. Because if I could quit in one universe with all else being equal then, it follows, I can also do it in this one.

I have not smoked tobacco or used nicotine voluntarily in nine years and I don't see myself ever doing it again (even though there is surely at least a multiverse where I do pick it up again). The simple reason being that I dislike it or at least I dislike telling myself that I like it. Mind you, I didn't quit without help and I used technologies to ween myself out of the nicotine dependency. But the concept of the multiverse allowed me to see that quitting was possible, because I realized that I, all else being equal, must be able to do it in at least one universe.

Since then I have changed other behaviors (or habits) that I disliked such as eating animals and their products — also a very rooted habit that most people cannot acknowledge, let alone change. Yet, once one accepts the idea that something is possible than it's simply a matter of finding the psychological lever (trigger) to spring oneself into action.

An important caveat:

This type of exercise is only possible with those habits that one has full control of, all else being equal. By full control I mean something that can be realized by acting on a wish. For this reason, this post is not meant to endorse those extreme neoliberal theories of self-reliance according to which everything is possible if one puts one's mind to it. Because even if I wished this was the universe where I do not die of lung cancer after quitting smoking — as it must happen at least somewhere — I do not have the power to actualize such wish. Thus, all I can do is try to reduce the odds of getting lung cancer by quitting smoking as I cannot simply wish my cells into not turning cancerous. I can just try to stop feeding them junk as much as possible, something that is within my control, and then hope for the best.

Did Francesco Gabbani Plagiarize US Rock Band Train?

When I first listened to Francesco Gabbani's "Occidentali's Karma," the winner of Sanremo 2017 — the most prestigious song contest in Italy — and now contestant in Eurovision 2017, I couldn't help but noticing an affinity with the 2009 song "Hey, Soul Sister" by US rock/pop band Train.

Francesco Gabbani winning Sanremo 2017

Specifically, the pre-chorus of Gabbani's "Occidentali's Karma" is interestingly similar to the second verse of Train's "Hey, Soul Sister."

In the following comparison the clips have been digitally processed in order to match the songs' pitch and speed.

First, the two sections in their entirety.

Here is Train:




And here is Gabbani:




And now a side-by-side comparison of the two sections:




What do you think, did Gabbani plagiarize Train or is it just a coincidence?

Twenty-First Century Fascism in the USA

...the merging of corporate and political brutalism into a war culture were on full display in the savage beating of a United Airlines passenger who refused to give up his seat because the airlines over booked. Couple this with the Star War spectacle of the United States dropping a 21,600 pound non-nuclear bomb on the Achin district in Afghanistan, which has a population of around 95,000 people. Nobody on the plane came to the aid of the passenger as he was being assaulted and dragged from his seat as if he were a dangerous criminal suggesting that brutality, fear, and powerlessness have become normalized in America.

Henry Giroux, "Toward a Politics of Ungovernability: Shutting Down American-Style Authoritarianism," Counterpunch, April 17, 2017.

Home of the Brave