Over the last few months I’ve posted several brief biographies of individuals of faith who have advocated economic democracy principles. Now economic democracy has received attention by the magazine Tikkun, which is edited by its founder Rabbi Michael Lerner. Rabbi Lerner is the progressive rabbi of the Bay Area synagogue Beyt Tikkun and author of “The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back from the Religious Right” (Harper San Francisco, 2006). Most recently Tikkun has expanded its outreach to include the non-Jewish community through the formation of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
The current issue of Tikkun (May/June 2008) has several articles not only about why capitalism is corrupt and dangerous but two excellent articles on economic democracy as well. One fantastic article is by David Schweickart who is the author of “After Capitalism” and who is a high profile advocate for economic democracy. It’s safe to say that without a doubt Professor Schweickart has been a major influence on my advocacy for third way economics.
Schweickart’s fantastic article, “What to Do When the Bailout Fails,” is written as an open letter to President Obama. It explains in clear and straightforward language why the economy collapsed and, while there are some good ideas from the current administration (unlike some conservatives Schweickart expresses hope for their success), he explains why the odds are against the policies succeeding. Schweickart then explains what economic democracy is and why it would be superior in every way to capitalism.
In addition to the article by Professor Schweickart there is a very good article on economic democracy by Gary Dorrien titled, “A Case for Economic Democracy.” Professor Dorrien not only addresses the need for creating an economic democracy but addresses some of the challenges we would have encounter as we try to make it a reality. I found it to be a very thought provoking article.
Finally, I think it’s important to give serious consideration to the editorial by Rabbi Lerner. In it he wrote, “This is too important a task to be left to the economists, political scientists, Washington policy mavens, journalists, columnists and talk show hosts (though we do wish there were more like Jon Stewart and Amy Goodman). We need a grassroots movement of people meeting together in their communities in "After Capitalism" groups and discussing their own ideas about how to create a better global economy. Spiritual progressives should play a central role in stimulating these discussions-not only in every church, synagogue, mosque, and ashram, but also on college campuses, in union halls, in professional organizations, and at town meetings. Just as the American Revolution was stimulated by "committees of correspondence" in which people met and shared their ideas about what should replace British rule, today we need a democratic mobilization for this kind of discussion.”
My question is whether we are willing to answer Rabbi Lerner’s call for action?
Well… are we?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A Glimmer of Hope
Dallas, Texas has always been a place of contradictions. It’s a city known for being the buckle of the Bible Belt with many churches that are hostile to gays yet it has twice elected a lesbian as county sheriff. It’s a city known for banking and big business yet some of the early settlers were socialists from a nearby failed commune known as Las Reunion. And then last Saturday this Republican dominated city, which recently saw a massive “tea bag” demonstration, voted to start a community-owned economic enterprise.
Like so many urban centers the city of Dallas has long struggled to revitalize its once vibrant downtown business district. Over time businesses had fled the downtown area to the suburbs, leaving it largely a ghost town. Some progress has been recently made as abandoned office buildings are starting to be converted into apartments. But City Hall is still struggling to bring life back to the heart of the city. One of those challenges that have made it especially difficult has been the lack of adequate hotel space in the downtown area. This lack of hotels has cost the city convention business as well as sporting events. Over the years the city has tried, to no avail, to get a new hotel through the old standby techniques of giving tax incentives for new construction. In the 90’s the city seemed close to having a new hotel built but the Crow family, who owns the Dallas hotel Hilton Anatole, provided land to build a park, which was so generous that the city couldn’t politically turn it down. The idea of a new hotel in the central business district seemed dead.
Then the city leaders had an idea.
After years of trying to get the market to provide a new hotel the city leaders decided to build a publically-owned hotel. Once the city council approved the enterprise the city started working to have it built. First, it bought the land (admittedly it overpaid for it). It then hired a construction firm to break ground and begin construction. To no one’s surprise not long after that forces opposed to the hotel, which consisted largely of the Crow family (remember them?), were able to push through a referendum to force a public vote on the hotel. After a dirty and expensive campaign, with the most money spent by the hotel opponents, amazingly the Dallas voters approved the publically-owned hotel.
This hotel project is far from perfect. The biggest flaw is how it will be managed. The city chose a private firm, Omni Hotels, to manage the new hotel. The city should have instead established a worker-managed corporation in which the workers of the hotel elected their own board of directors to manage the enterprise.
That criticism being said the idea that a conservative, pro-business, heavily Republican, city such as Dallas can choose to start a community-owned enterprise, which is one of the elements of an economic democracy, should give us all hope for the future.
Like so many urban centers the city of Dallas has long struggled to revitalize its once vibrant downtown business district. Over time businesses had fled the downtown area to the suburbs, leaving it largely a ghost town. Some progress has been recently made as abandoned office buildings are starting to be converted into apartments. But City Hall is still struggling to bring life back to the heart of the city. One of those challenges that have made it especially difficult has been the lack of adequate hotel space in the downtown area. This lack of hotels has cost the city convention business as well as sporting events. Over the years the city has tried, to no avail, to get a new hotel through the old standby techniques of giving tax incentives for new construction. In the 90’s the city seemed close to having a new hotel built but the Crow family, who owns the Dallas hotel Hilton Anatole, provided land to build a park, which was so generous that the city couldn’t politically turn it down. The idea of a new hotel in the central business district seemed dead.
Then the city leaders had an idea.
After years of trying to get the market to provide a new hotel the city leaders decided to build a publically-owned hotel. Once the city council approved the enterprise the city started working to have it built. First, it bought the land (admittedly it overpaid for it). It then hired a construction firm to break ground and begin construction. To no one’s surprise not long after that forces opposed to the hotel, which consisted largely of the Crow family (remember them?), were able to push through a referendum to force a public vote on the hotel. After a dirty and expensive campaign, with the most money spent by the hotel opponents, amazingly the Dallas voters approved the publically-owned hotel.
This hotel project is far from perfect. The biggest flaw is how it will be managed. The city chose a private firm, Omni Hotels, to manage the new hotel. The city should have instead established a worker-managed corporation in which the workers of the hotel elected their own board of directors to manage the enterprise.
That criticism being said the idea that a conservative, pro-business, heavily Republican, city such as Dallas can choose to start a community-owned enterprise, which is one of the elements of an economic democracy, should give us all hope for the future.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
G.K. Chesterton
“I have said that the strong centers of modern English property must swiftly or slowly be broken up, if even the idea of property is to remain among Englishmen. There are two ways in which it could be done, a cold administration by quite detached officials, which is called Collectivism, or a personal distribution, so as to produce what is called Peasant Proprietorship. I think the latter solution the finer and more fully human, because it makes each man as somebody blamed somebody for saying of the Pope, a sort of small god.” ~ G.K. Chesterton
What follows is another installment in occasional biographies of influential people in cooperativism.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (b. 5/29/1874 – d. 6/14/1936) was born in Campden Hill in London, England to a Unitarian family. His father was a successful auctioneer and considered liberal in his political thought. Chesterton was a large man in more than just intellect and words. Chesterton was six foot four and weighed over three hundred pounds. In addition he carried around with him a small arsenal consisting of a sword, a knife and a gun. When once asked why he had a firearm he said he had bought it to protect his wife right after their marriage. He bragged that whenever he heard someone say that life wasn’t worth living he would pull it out and point it at the person. One must wonder at the other person’s reaction facing down the barrel of his gun.
While Chesterton was a towering intellect that loved to debate he was very dependent upon his wife and others. He was unable to dress or shave himself due to his large size. Plus, he was dependent upon his wife to make nearly every decision for him. She handled his finances, such as filing and paying his income tax, and even details as minor as whether he would take the stairs or an elevator to go to another floor.
One might wonder how much his father’s liberalism influenced him. According to Christopher Hollis his liberalism was based on a “belief in small units.” For example, GK Chesterton supported the South Africans against his own British during the Second Boer War because he felt like the British were using their Imperial might against the weaker South Africans.
This belief in small units also translated into a disdain for nationalistic patriotism. According to Hollis, “At the same time he had no sympathy with those who decried the virtue of patriotism. For the British Empire as such he cared little, but he championed as passionately the right of an Englishman to live England as of a South African to love South Africa.”
One might also see his advocacy of the small over the large reflected in his economics. Chesterton ran a newspaper called the New Witness in which they would, “oppose alike the capitalist solution which would concentrate all property in the hands of rich men and the Socialist solution which would concentrate all property in the hands of the State and to argue that instead property should be as widely distributed as possible.” As a result Chesterton is widely known as a Distributist.
In would be incorrect to say that Chesterton would approve of all elements of economic democracy. It’s known that he opposed the state insurance for workers in England, which were modeled after Germany’s, because he thought it would lead to a “return to slavery and a Servile State.” And he held several views that very few today would support, capitalist or otherwise. For example, he opposed giving women the right to vote. Even with these faults Chesterton was a strong supporter for cooperativism and for that he deserves to be recognized here.
What follows is another installment in occasional biographies of influential people in cooperativism.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (b. 5/29/1874 – d. 6/14/1936) was born in Campden Hill in London, England to a Unitarian family. His father was a successful auctioneer and considered liberal in his political thought. Chesterton was a large man in more than just intellect and words. Chesterton was six foot four and weighed over three hundred pounds. In addition he carried around with him a small arsenal consisting of a sword, a knife and a gun. When once asked why he had a firearm he said he had bought it to protect his wife right after their marriage. He bragged that whenever he heard someone say that life wasn’t worth living he would pull it out and point it at the person. One must wonder at the other person’s reaction facing down the barrel of his gun.
While Chesterton was a towering intellect that loved to debate he was very dependent upon his wife and others. He was unable to dress or shave himself due to his large size. Plus, he was dependent upon his wife to make nearly every decision for him. She handled his finances, such as filing and paying his income tax, and even details as minor as whether he would take the stairs or an elevator to go to another floor.
One might wonder how much his father’s liberalism influenced him. According to Christopher Hollis his liberalism was based on a “belief in small units.” For example, GK Chesterton supported the South Africans against his own British during the Second Boer War because he felt like the British were using their Imperial might against the weaker South Africans.
This belief in small units also translated into a disdain for nationalistic patriotism. According to Hollis, “At the same time he had no sympathy with those who decried the virtue of patriotism. For the British Empire as such he cared little, but he championed as passionately the right of an Englishman to live England as of a South African to love South Africa.”
One might also see his advocacy of the small over the large reflected in his economics. Chesterton ran a newspaper called the New Witness in which they would, “oppose alike the capitalist solution which would concentrate all property in the hands of rich men and the Socialist solution which would concentrate all property in the hands of the State and to argue that instead property should be as widely distributed as possible.” As a result Chesterton is widely known as a Distributist.
In would be incorrect to say that Chesterton would approve of all elements of economic democracy. It’s known that he opposed the state insurance for workers in England, which were modeled after Germany’s, because he thought it would lead to a “return to slavery and a Servile State.” And he held several views that very few today would support, capitalist or otherwise. For example, he opposed giving women the right to vote. Even with these faults Chesterton was a strong supporter for cooperativism and for that he deserves to be recognized here.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Take Me Out to the Ballgame
Ah, spring. Flowers are in bloom. Grass is turning green. Birds are singing. Spring also means the return of America’s favorite past-time: baseball. Baseball is of course more than just a sport. The boys of summer bring with them tradition and history that strikes a chord deep within into the American psyche. Baseball is also special in another way. Within baseball we can see evidence of the superiority of cooperativism over rugged individualism.
While baseball grants numerous opportunities for individual displays of talent for a team to be successful it demands teamwork and a willingness of each team member to make personal sacrifices. The best batter on the team at times may have to sacrifice bunt if it means advancing another player. On a fly ball one outfielder often has to swallow his or her pride and allow another to make the catch. All of these plus other sacrifices will often times be necessary for the good of the team.
The Texas Rangers are the perfect example of how the lack of teamwork will work against a baseball team. How could a team that had great pitchers like the all-time no-hitter Nolan Ryan never win a single playoff series? A major reason is that while the Rangers have had great batters, great pitchers, great catchers they have always lacked teamwork.
Like a well run baseball team a cooperative strikes a balance between the needs of individual and the needs of the group. Each individual has opportunities to show his or her talents in the daily operations. Yet, for the cooperative to be successful the individual members must work together. If they begin to compete against each other in their daily operations then the cooperative will fail.
So as you sit there at the ballgame eating your hot dog and drinking your beer remember that you’re not just watching a wonderful sport. You’re watching a great example of cooperativism in action.
PS: Looking for a great baseball team? Check out the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers. According their web site, "The Timber Rattlers are a non-stock, community-owned team similar in structure to the Green Bay Packers organization."
While baseball grants numerous opportunities for individual displays of talent for a team to be successful it demands teamwork and a willingness of each team member to make personal sacrifices. The best batter on the team at times may have to sacrifice bunt if it means advancing another player. On a fly ball one outfielder often has to swallow his or her pride and allow another to make the catch. All of these plus other sacrifices will often times be necessary for the good of the team.
The Texas Rangers are the perfect example of how the lack of teamwork will work against a baseball team. How could a team that had great pitchers like the all-time no-hitter Nolan Ryan never win a single playoff series? A major reason is that while the Rangers have had great batters, great pitchers, great catchers they have always lacked teamwork.
Like a well run baseball team a cooperative strikes a balance between the needs of individual and the needs of the group. Each individual has opportunities to show his or her talents in the daily operations. Yet, for the cooperative to be successful the individual members must work together. If they begin to compete against each other in their daily operations then the cooperative will fail.
So as you sit there at the ballgame eating your hot dog and drinking your beer remember that you’re not just watching a wonderful sport. You’re watching a great example of cooperativism in action.
PS: Looking for a great baseball team? Check out the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers. According their web site, "The Timber Rattlers are a non-stock, community-owned team similar in structure to the Green Bay Packers organization."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Bad Air
You’re mad. I know it because that’s all I hear or read about in the news. They say that every time a person hears "AIG" and "bonuses" used together he or she gets so angry they could spit. It turns out that the politicians on Capitol Hill are mad too. They make comments such as the executives should either "resign or go commit suicide" (Sen. Charles Grassley later said that he really didn’t mean they should kill themselves). The problem with all of this outrage is that it redirects us from the real source of the problem much in the same way that a magician redirects our eyes as he does his magic trick.
My readers over the years know that I often use analogies in my postings. A while ago I wrote about the attempt to control malaria during the construction of the Panama Canal. ("Draining the Swamp" 10/14/2007) This horrible disease can also serve as an analogy for AIG and the "retention bonuses."
According to Wikipedia malaria gets its name from Medieval Italian mala aria, which means "bad air." At one time malaria was thought to be caused by miasma, or "pollution", which was defined as a poisonous vapor of particles consisting of decomposed matter. It was thought that one could identify this miasma by the presences of foul odors. Of course the real cause of malaria is not some particulate cloud but is actually a virus carried by the mosquitoes that flourish in unclean conditions and that live in stagnate water and swamps.
Limiting ourselves to being angry about the bonuses is like limiting ourselves to bad odors while being blind to the underlying cause of disease. We can scream in anger, jump up and down, and tax the bonuses but it won’t get to the source of the problem because it isn’t the greed of just a few executives. The source is an economic system based on capital.
As an example of historical irony the answer can be found in the works of Adam Smith, who most consider to be the father of capitalism. Of corporations ("joint stock companies") in his classic An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations he wrote, "The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."
Smith showed us years ago that it was inevitable that the executives of corporations should develop this culture of greed because it goes to heart of capitalism. Centering on the bonuses and not removing the source, capital and the investor-owned firms, is like spraying perfume to try to prevent malaria. It might smell nice but it ignores the source.
My readers over the years know that I often use analogies in my postings. A while ago I wrote about the attempt to control malaria during the construction of the Panama Canal. ("Draining the Swamp" 10/14/2007) This horrible disease can also serve as an analogy for AIG and the "retention bonuses."
According to Wikipedia malaria gets its name from Medieval Italian mala aria, which means "bad air." At one time malaria was thought to be caused by miasma, or "pollution", which was defined as a poisonous vapor of particles consisting of decomposed matter. It was thought that one could identify this miasma by the presences of foul odors. Of course the real cause of malaria is not some particulate cloud but is actually a virus carried by the mosquitoes that flourish in unclean conditions and that live in stagnate water and swamps.
Limiting ourselves to being angry about the bonuses is like limiting ourselves to bad odors while being blind to the underlying cause of disease. We can scream in anger, jump up and down, and tax the bonuses but it won’t get to the source of the problem because it isn’t the greed of just a few executives. The source is an economic system based on capital.
As an example of historical irony the answer can be found in the works of Adam Smith, who most consider to be the father of capitalism. Of corporations ("joint stock companies") in his classic An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations he wrote, "The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."
Smith showed us years ago that it was inevitable that the executives of corporations should develop this culture of greed because it goes to heart of capitalism. Centering on the bonuses and not removing the source, capital and the investor-owned firms, is like spraying perfume to try to prevent malaria. It might smell nice but it ignores the source.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Reverend Frederick Denison Maurice
Back in May of 2008 I posted a brief biography about the founder of The Catholic Worker: Dorothy Day. This time I’ve decided to post a short biography of one of the lesser known advocates of cooperativism: Reverend Frederick Denison Maurice.
Reverend Maurice (b. 8/29/1805 – d. 4/1/1872) was the son of a Unitarian minister and one of the most brilliant of the 19th century Christian Socialists. He’s been described as “mild, unobtrusive, averse to undue opposition, convincing by his example and his earnest logic rather than by appeals to the feelings.”
Maurice honed his skills on a debate club as a young man in an Owenite society. As a young adult he was denied the right to graduate from Cambridge for refusing to sign the Anglican Church’s "Thirty-nine Articles." He later reversed himself and signed the Articles, which allowed him to attend Oxford. Between Cambridge and Oxford, Maurice worked as a writer and wrote a novel. In addition, after being ordained he served as a chaplain at Guy’s Hospital.
While a member of the faculty at Cambridge's King's College Maurice was known for being scholar, theologian, and historian. After his book, Kingdom of Christ, was published his reputation was enhanced. The Kingdom of Christ is often viewed as an omen of the future ecumenical movement for holding that while there are many divisions, such as denominations and sects, the church is essentially united. In 1848 Maurice joined with Kingsley and others to form the Christian Socialist Movement. Then in 1853 he published Theological Essays in which he expressed a belief that hell was not eternal. This was the last straw and as a result he was dismissed from his position at King’s College. He then became the first principle of the Working Men’s College.
According to Capaldi, the Christian Socialists "tried to combine cooperative economics with political conservatism." Of Christian Socialism, Maurice wrote that it was, "true socialism, true liberty, brotherhood, and equality- not the carnal dead level equality of the communist, but the spiritual equality of the Church idea, which gives every man an equal chance of developing and rewards every man according to his work." Once Maurice learned of the Parisian co-ops he was convinced that there was a need of cooperatives in England. He then wrote several pamphlets on cooperatives and declared that anyone that accepted the principles of cooperation could be called a socialist. In addition, Maurice and the Christian Socialists rented a building in London to start a cooperative with 12 tailors called the Working Tailor’s Association. Later the Society for Promoting Workingmen Associations was formed, which made loans to start-up other cooperatives.
Early on Maurice and the Christian Socialists were very successful. Soon in London there were approximately 17 cooperatives. After a point these cooperatives formed a central body, which was a forerunner of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. But they weren't limited to London. Cooperatives also began springing up in other large cities.
By 1853 though, things began to fall apart. The productive cooperatives started to close as problems appeared in their organizations. Some workers were robbed of their funds. Others closed due to internal disputes or apathy. Yet, he did help push through some legislation that helped cooperatives. While the Christian Socialists of the time failed to substantially change England, the work of Reverend Maurice did have a major impact on Christianity that is still felt today.
Reverend Maurice (b. 8/29/1805 – d. 4/1/1872) was the son of a Unitarian minister and one of the most brilliant of the 19th century Christian Socialists. He’s been described as “mild, unobtrusive, averse to undue opposition, convincing by his example and his earnest logic rather than by appeals to the feelings.”
Maurice honed his skills on a debate club as a young man in an Owenite society. As a young adult he was denied the right to graduate from Cambridge for refusing to sign the Anglican Church’s "Thirty-nine Articles." He later reversed himself and signed the Articles, which allowed him to attend Oxford. Between Cambridge and Oxford, Maurice worked as a writer and wrote a novel. In addition, after being ordained he served as a chaplain at Guy’s Hospital.
While a member of the faculty at Cambridge's King's College Maurice was known for being scholar, theologian, and historian. After his book, Kingdom of Christ, was published his reputation was enhanced. The Kingdom of Christ is often viewed as an omen of the future ecumenical movement for holding that while there are many divisions, such as denominations and sects, the church is essentially united. In 1848 Maurice joined with Kingsley and others to form the Christian Socialist Movement. Then in 1853 he published Theological Essays in which he expressed a belief that hell was not eternal. This was the last straw and as a result he was dismissed from his position at King’s College. He then became the first principle of the Working Men’s College.
According to Capaldi, the Christian Socialists "tried to combine cooperative economics with political conservatism." Of Christian Socialism, Maurice wrote that it was, "true socialism, true liberty, brotherhood, and equality- not the carnal dead level equality of the communist, but the spiritual equality of the Church idea, which gives every man an equal chance of developing and rewards every man according to his work." Once Maurice learned of the Parisian co-ops he was convinced that there was a need of cooperatives in England. He then wrote several pamphlets on cooperatives and declared that anyone that accepted the principles of cooperation could be called a socialist. In addition, Maurice and the Christian Socialists rented a building in London to start a cooperative with 12 tailors called the Working Tailor’s Association. Later the Society for Promoting Workingmen Associations was formed, which made loans to start-up other cooperatives.
Early on Maurice and the Christian Socialists were very successful. Soon in London there were approximately 17 cooperatives. After a point these cooperatives formed a central body, which was a forerunner of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. But they weren't limited to London. Cooperatives also began springing up in other large cities.
By 1853 though, things began to fall apart. The productive cooperatives started to close as problems appeared in their organizations. Some workers were robbed of their funds. Others closed due to internal disputes or apathy. Yet, he did help push through some legislation that helped cooperatives. While the Christian Socialists of the time failed to substantially change England, the work of Reverend Maurice did have a major impact on Christianity that is still felt today.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Other
"If men could only know each other, they would neither idolize nor hate." ~ Elbert Hubbard, US author (1856 - 1915)
Recently our new President made history (again) by speaking before a joint session in Congress in his first year. The majority of his speech consisted of Obama making his case for his economic package. Near the end the President introduced several guests. One of them was a banker name Leonard Abess. I’ll let the President explain:
"I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn't tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, "I knew some of these people since I was seven years old. I didn't feel right getting the money myself.""
Leonard Abess provides an interesting lesson for us on the Left. The lesson isn’t a claim in the nobility of capitalists nor is it to praise bankers. The lesson Mr. Abess teaches is that we cannot, we must not, stereotype capitalists or anyone else as being "The Other." It’s the socio-economic system of capitalism that’s evil. Capitalists are people who are caught up in an oppressive system. We need to recognize that the capitalists are victims as well as workers.
Labeling any group of people as evil runs the risks of starting down a path that eventually ends at a guillotine.
Recently our new President made history (again) by speaking before a joint session in Congress in his first year. The majority of his speech consisted of Obama making his case for his economic package. Near the end the President introduced several guests. One of them was a banker name Leonard Abess. I’ll let the President explain:
"I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn't tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, "I knew some of these people since I was seven years old. I didn't feel right getting the money myself.""
Leonard Abess provides an interesting lesson for us on the Left. The lesson isn’t a claim in the nobility of capitalists nor is it to praise bankers. The lesson Mr. Abess teaches is that we cannot, we must not, stereotype capitalists or anyone else as being "The Other." It’s the socio-economic system of capitalism that’s evil. Capitalists are people who are caught up in an oppressive system. We need to recognize that the capitalists are victims as well as workers.
Labeling any group of people as evil runs the risks of starting down a path that eventually ends at a guillotine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)