Greed Is Goob

Today I find myself a little miffed. A little frustrated. As well I might be. For I have come to the conclusion that this society, this world we live in, for all of its promise, for all of its innovation and high technologies, is actually more perception than substance. That it's actually more disappointment and irritation, than solace and satisfaction. I'm talking about the incessant daily frustrations that seem to come with the products and services we buy, based on very clever advertising and expectations, only to find them falling short of what was actually promised.  And wondering why.

In their infancy on the drawing board and in the planning stages, there are many wonderful processes, products, and services which promise to offer us all manner of conveniences, leisures, and efficiencies. Unfortunately they often fail in those promises either shortly after coming to fruition or sometime thereafter. And the culprit seems to lay not within the technologies or innovations themselves, but within the actual follow-through once it moves beyond development and into production. The fact that it may be either a product or a service doesn't seem to make much difference.  The fact that all are subject to the pressures of profit does. 

It is, unfortunately, one of the pervasive consequences of living in a capitalist society. And an irony which undermines one of the supposed benefits of the same capitalist system. The pursuit of profit which drives innovation. A supposed benefit that looks pretty good on paper. But it is the pressure of that pursuit, the pressure to profit, which will nearly always lead to a product's undoing (and sometimes a company's) as sales begin to reach saturation and a business can only continue to increase its annual profits by either raising prices, reinventing the product (new and improved) to make the older version obsolete so that you must buy it again, or by cutting back in the areas of quality, quantity, or even altering production levels (such as demanding more from workers who are paid less to do more and who cannot maintain attention to detail, or are simply unable to maintain quality at ever-higher production rates).

This is not to say that enormous profits are not made, all the same. Indeed they are. But it lays bare the biggest failure of capitalism, and its most familiar one. And the fly in the ointment is our old friend ...... GREED.

I seem to recall a time not so long ago, though again it may be only perception, when business in America was quite different. Of course, there have always been those with a voracious appetite for wealth and power. The "robber barons", for example. But one was still able to find, surviving in their midst, the honest and sincere business owners and entrepreneurs. People who took pride in their businesses, in their products, and in their ideas. And although they still hoped to become profitable and to attain an elevated comfort level for themselves and their families, it was not the sole, obsessive motivation which drove them. So too, their accepted methods for increasing profits were far different than what is the accepted norm of today.

Again, I do not pretend that there existed some "golden age" in which all business owners were imbued with higher ideals and moral purpose than those in business today. (One has only to read of the shoddy clothing and equipment furnished to the Union armies during the Civil War, with the suppliers making a killing.) Greed unarguably plays a leading role at every point in the history of our world. But as compared with what seems to be a dearth of ethical and committed businesses today, there really seems to be a time when a business was considered a reflection of its owner, and a time when that mattered.

Perhaps, as much as any other factor, it's simply become a crisis of scale, with national chains replacing locally owned businesses. So that we lose the opportunity to meet and get to know our business owners. While these faceless businesses hawk ever more wares that come not only from beyond our communities, but beyond our shores, as well.

By comparison, I remember a time when companies and businesses were owned and operated by the original innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs. And to these owners, who most often were known locally, it mattered a great deal what kind of product they were sending out their doors. For many, it was more important than profit. For they believed that the way to more profits was to make a better product. A quite archaic way of thinking in today's business world.

These owners often ran their companies for their entire lives. They knew intimately many of the people that worked for them and actually cared to provide their workers with a decent wage, benefits, and eventually health insurance ..... because that's what you did for people in your community. Even Henry Ford knew that if you didn't pay people a decent wage, they couldn't buy your cars. As much as the products going out the doors, so too did the people going out those doors reflect upon the business owners when you all lived in the same communities. Even though, for the owners, it may have been a loftier neighborhood, how you were thought of in your community was still important.

Admittedly, this was not the overwhelming majority of business owners which cared so much for their companies and their employees. But there were many existing that did, and it was certainly not the rarity it appears to be now. Again, this was before so many large corporate conglomerates and multinationals became what is now the overwhelming landscape we see along main street and beyond. And there is a correlation to be found there.

One of the differences between "then" and "now" seems to be in the motivations for starting a business. It is true that in each of these business climates there have been innovators and inventors who have given birth to companies and inserted their hearts and souls. Yet, in an earlier time, the owner was the company, and vice versa. And it was rare that he would entertain the thought of selling his company, his "child". It was unthinkable. Nor would he consider cutting every corner in order to increase already liveable, if not sizeable, profits. Compare that with now, where it is considered normal and customary to do so. And, unfortunately, where it must be so in order to survive the pressures of simply staying afloat. If everyone else is doing it, how else can you compete?

Again, we do not assume there existed a time when ethics and reputation and doing what was right took precedence over all other business considerations. To do so would be simply naive. But perhaps the difference is in a business atmosphere which allows such a thing to occur. In today's climate it becomes nearly impossible. And this is where we can draw a relation between simple greed and today's motivations for starting a business.

Greed, as a driver of today's business, is merely profit motive on steroids. It is aggressive, meant to build in a short amount of time ....... and destructive. And it leads others to follow along the same destructive path simply in order to compete, in order to reach the "big leagues". And make no mistake about it. Greed is destructive. Though Gordon Gekko, the legendary character from the film Wall Street, may have proclaimed, "Greed is good", it is only good for a very small number of individuals. And when the collateral damage of those exclusive benefits far outweigh the collective benefits to a society, it must be considered destructive and, in military thinking, a failed objective. 

Looking back again to businesses "then", it seemed that many business owners entered into a business as a livelihood venture. Something which, with loving care and attention, would last them to the grave, and for their offspring, possibly beyond. That, in itself, was their prime motivation. But today it seems to be quite a different motivator.

It would be incorrect, however, to simply say it is "greed" which has changed our current world for the worse. Greed has always existed, so long as there has been "wealth" or the idea of some having more than others. After all, the antithesis of greed would never leave one in a position of having more than others, now would it? But perhaps the difference has become one in which instant gratification has now taken a prominent hold on the reins.

For many it is the idea of getting rich which causes them to enter into business at all. And rather than trying to build a business over a generation or two, more often they are looking to cash out at the earliest opportunity. Maybe that's just an extension of the, "I want it all and I want it now" mentality that has taken such a firm foothold in our society. But when more businesses maintain an "all ahead full" mentality, you are either forced to follow closely in the same path, or get lost in the wake. Both equally dangerous options when one is following a drunken captain who gives no consideration to anything more than moving ahead at all speed.

It must be said that the pursuit of profits, of itself, is not such a bad thing. Obviously, it is the engine which drives economies in a capitalist system. But when it becomes the sole consideration within that system, then it threatens to undermine all of the other benefits within a society, and even democracy itself. And let's not forget that the whole reason we form collective societies and nations is because it is in the best interests of all to do so. When we reach a point where that is no longer true, then what's the point? And when we are left with a "Pottersville", where wealth accumulates towards the few, while the quality of life for the many suffers, then the laws and rules (moral or otherwise) which bind that society will inevitably begin to break down. The contract is considered no longer legitimate and it becomes a free-for-all. You take ..... or you don't get.


The problem today can be squarely laid at the feet of "big business".  It is a characteristic symptom of size.  A symptom of huge corporate conglomerates and multinationals whose only loyalties are to profits and stock options, rather than people and communities, or even nations.  And it has led us to a market that is anything but free,  and where the rules of the game are dictated by those who have the sizable weight to throw around.  Is it fair to blame "big business"? I think it is. And the reasons for doing so are easily found.

 First, if nothing else can be offered, business can always be counted on to be consistent. This means that with very narrowly defined goals come very narrowly defined ways of reaching them. It also leads to a tendency towards a "pretzel logic", where the same solution to every problem is a forgone conclusion. For a CEO, it is the very narrow logic of doing whatever it takes to increase profits at my company, for my shareholders, and for my stock options. Get in. Get rich. Get out. But the same narrow focus which would seem to be in the best interests of good business is also at the heart of an economic short-sightedness which can only result in destruction, no matter its best intents.

For example, during economic downturns, when people are spending less money on goods and services, the historically consistent response by any company is to downsize the workforce. Makes sense. You're doing less business, so your labor needs are less. Might as well make cuts there until the economy rebounds. Right? Well, unfortunately, this only works on a small-scale basis. If a handful of companies lay off workers in order to cut expenses, they will indeed benefit in the short term. But, considering this very narrow focus results in a consistent response among all companies, the hoped for benefits never quite materialize. Instead, as layoffs occur nationwide, there is even less money being spent than before, with even less profits, more layoffs ...... repeat. Business becomes a victim of its narrow focus, rather than a beneficiary. Whereas, a more collective sensibility might lead to a collective strategy of increasing the amount of money available for people to spend, increasing profits, etc..
 
Worse, a business will eventually begin to feed upon itself.  In its relentless pursuit of profit a company will, as other options run dry, undermine its own products or services or whatever it was that made them successful in the first place.  We have all seen this at work in our everyday lives and in our everyday frustrations.  A product which suddenly is sold in smaller sizes or portions for the same price.  More packaging (or more air), less product.  Or a product that is being produced with increasingly inferior (and cheaper) materials.  And, be it a service, perhaps less service for more money.  (Failing this, of course, there can simply be hidden fees of which you are unaware, or an increase in the number of fees.)  Such that, within a lifetime, a company and its products become indistinguishable in anything other than its logo from the company which originally attracted us.  Or at the least, a mere shell of what it was in the beginning.

If this occurred only on a small scale, as perhaps a business struggled to get a handle on its own faulty management, it might possibly be seen as one of those "adjustments" that a company must make from time to time in order to regain its focus.  But this is, instead, the pervasive attitude and game plan throughout all of the business world of today.

Big business and Wall Street are forever hungry.  To such an extreme that there is no consideration given to a "sustainable diet" that might keep a society from being "eaten out of house and home".  Instead, a company is expected to generate greater profits this year than last.  And to do it again next year, and the year after.  Those "blue chip" companies which generate consistent profits from one year to the next may have been attractive once upon a time.  But Wall Street is now more interested in making a large amount of money in a short amount of time.   

And for them, companies are no more than a vehicle for creating that wealth, anyway.  The more that can be squeezed out of the business, the better.  Drain every last penny of wealth out of a company and move on.  There's no time for long-term investing.  So if you suck the life blood and the company dies, no worries. It's known in business as "IBG/YBG".  I'll be gone, you'll be gone.  So, who cares?

Perhaps it's time we start to question.  What has this society morphed into in order to support the very narrow goals and vision of business?  Have we become a singular society with the singular purpose of creating wealth?  Are there no other values remaining?  And is our net worth as individuals now limited to nothing more than a financial consideration?  I tend to believe that we, as a society, are concerned with larger questions than profit and loss.  And that we still hold values that seem to no longer find a place in current economic models.  

Perhaps it is when we find the answers to all of these questions that we will also find we want to relegate capitalism and "big business" to the supplemental role it should occupy in our lives and in our societies.  Rather than being the sole purpose and driving force behind every breath that we breathe.  Or the sole value by which we judge a single life.  It's a discussion we need to have.  And I think the time for that discussion is now. 

Mallet Discourse

In this time of irrational, thought-choking discourse, perhaps the glaring light of a little critical thinking should be brought to bare on a few topics. Over the years the well-placed and well-to-do in this country have done a thorough job of wielding the blunt mallet of propaganda to control what we think and eventually what we believe is in our own best interests. They have done this largely by controlling mainstream debate, by controlling language and the meaning of words, and by controlling the dogma of our nationalist ideology. In doing so, just as intended, they have also controlled us.

The most effective tool, of course, has been the obligatory draping of the flag and the holding high, as on the mount, of the "American way of life" and our ideals. And should actual scrutiny come too close to revealing "that man behind the curtain", one simply needs to scream and shout and with furrowed brow to proclaim the imminent threats to that way of life and those we love. Those who would seek to change the status quo, or even stand in its way, are branded as traitors, unpatriotic, radical elements or - even worse - as terrorists. The American people, for the most part, have often fallen victim to and hastened the spread of this fever. And as the victims of the hysteria and insanity pile high, the status quo thus assures its survival for at least one more generation. The chief irony being that among the many victims are usually to be found the same ideals we thought we were protecting.

Communist was for a time a very useful term, invoking the same fear and ignorance as was being called a witch in merry old Salem. That usefulness has mostly ended, however, partly due to Joe McCarthy's "red scare", which may have gone farther than intended, and partly because to rail against communism at a time when China owns a large portion of America's debt is probably not a good idea. It's also better to keep the focus away from their partnership with corporate America and the fact that the communist Chinese are turning out to be better capitalists than we are. And that's part of the problem.

We in America have been led to believe that capitalism and democracy are the same thing. That without one, you cannot have the other. Even worse, we've been led down a path in which we increasingly believe the American way of life is capitalism. We are consumers, and the whole democracy business is merely something we have to deal with once in awhile, when we're not trying to spread it around. Sounds more like the flu.

Unfortunately, we have most often been led down the path of ignorance. It's not because we're just stupid. The status quo has been adept at making very seductive and convincing arguments. Arguments which have relied heavily on the ability to manipulate our most primitive emotional instincts. In contemporary society it's become an art form, with many of the most successful PR firms being hired to manipulate public opinion for corporations, governments, and even the most wealthy among us. And during their long history they have learned that the most effective way to affect opinion isn't through rational discourse and reasoned debate. It's through emotions.

The result has been an understanding of our social, political, and economic world that is more firmly grounded in our emotional responses than in any rational informed understanding. For instance, if I ask you to explain communism, many of you might struggle or simply not know. But if I ask you what you think of when I say communism, you're likely to say Russia, Stalin, Kruschev, Red China, and Chairman Mao. The same with socialism. Although you might likely explain that it's government control, you might still find a definition difficult. And yet images of Hitler and Nazi Germany would quickly come to mind. That's because images are planted to invoke emotional connections. They don't allow for the freedom of discourse or discussion.

They work in the same way that the image of a large, fat woman with ten kids was used to symbolize the "welfare mother" when they decided to dismantle social programs. Even though most of the needy families with struggling mothers were nothing of the sort, the images accomplished what they were intended to do. Most Americans seem to be finally coming to grasp with this, considering we are routinely being manipulated on a daily basis from every side. But we are still missing the element of critical thinking, and without it we'll be forever vulnerable to emotional manipulation by those who have our interests least at heart.

Critical thinking. The easiest way to explain it is perhaps to say it's similar to common sense. Although it differs in that common sense is often based on assumptions, whereas critical thinking is looking at all the facts, listening to all sides of the argument, deciding who the arguments are intended to serve, and then making up your own mind. Although not absent of it, emotion plays a limited role. And one is less likely to be manipulated when they have all of the facts in hand. But, considering "all of the facts in hand" rarely benefits the arguments of the status quo, it's no surprise that critical thinking is discouraged whenever possible.

Unfortunately, nowhere is discourse and understanding more discouraged than in the differences in social, political, and economic systems. It's ironic that our ancestors more than seventy years ago were more politically astute than we are today. I don't intend to delve deeply into a discussion, as entire volumes have been devoted to just that. But I will try to clarify some differences that should be already apparent, although they're usually not.

Let's start with capitalism. At its most basic, capitalism is a system in which capital takes priority. It's not dependent on a democratic society, as China is proving, and one could just as easily be living in a capitalist dictatorship. Even fascism tends to elevate corporate power to the highest levels. A fact we had best keep in mind. And capitalism, it should be noted, is an economic system, not a political one. When it begins to blur with the political as well, that's a movement towards fascism. There's a fact the status quo will never tell you.

Socialism, in turn, puts society as its higher priority, with capital taking a back seat. The greater common good, in other words. And the wealth of the nation, although still allowing for the wealthy, is meant to benefit the nation as a whole.

Communism, put simply, is similar to communal living in which everyone owns and shares the wealth equally. While no one prospers enormously, no one falls through the cracks either.

On paper, all three systems are equally viable, and each has its own pluses and minuses. The problem throughout history has been in the extremes these systems have been pushed to. And in each and every case, it's important to note, extremes were reached solely in order to support the wealth, power, and privilege of a minority of people. So it's never been a matter of one system being good and another bad. They all have the potential to work very well, or to become oppressive and unjust. That is why, if you know nothing else about these systems, you need to know this: If a minority of people are allowed power and privilege at the expense of the rest, any political, economic, or social system will become unjust and is doomed to become oppressive for the majority.

What we currently have in this country is a capitalist democracy. Big C, little d. That flirts dangerously close to fascism, and if the "d" gets any smaller, we'll be there. In any case, when capital begins to take priority over democracy, we again have the never-ending scenario of a system benefitting a minority, at the expense of the majority. And when that minority is writing their own rules, which they are, then democracy is fading.

That's why it saddens me and infuriates me that the current discourse being controlled by the status quo (the threatened status quo) is whether these policies are a move to socialism. That discourse should instead be one which asks who benefits if things change, and who benefits if they remain the same. With all that's occurred, perhaps we should be asking the status quo to defend its own business as usual demands. That might just prove to be a difficult task for them indeed ... with anything but a blunt mallet.

Condemned To Repeat

It was Edmund Burke who famously said, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it". And although the quote is recycled and reworded throughout each succeeding generation, the lesson still manages to escape us.

In April of 1932, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, in the aftermath of the Great Crash, held hearings in an attempt to get to the bottom of things. One of the witnesses they called to testify was Richard Whitney, the President of the New York Stock Exchange. Following is a description of his testimony, taken from John Galbraith's After the Crash :

.... The government, not Wall Street, was responsible for the current bad times, Whitney averred, and the government, he believed, could make its greatest contribution to the recovery by balancing the budget and thus restoring confidence. To balance the budget he recommended cutting the pensions and benefits of veterans who had no service-connected disability and also all government salaries. When asked about cutting his own pay he said no .... it was "very little". Pressed for the amount, he said that currently it was only about $60,000. His attention was drawn by the committee members to the fact that this was six times what a senator received, but Whitney remained adamantly in favor of cutting the public pay, including that of senators.

..... on March 8, there was a stunned silence on the floor of the Exchange when President Charles R. Gay announced from the rostrum the suspension of Richard Whitney and Company for insolvency. Members were rather more aghast when they learned that Whitney had been engaged in theft on a large scale for a long time.

..... Then on March 10, 1938, District Attorney Thomas E. Dewey ..... ordered the arraignment of Richard Whitney. The charge was grand larceny.

And All for the Living Dead

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. Yet, all of our fiction comes from stories of lives actually lived, sometime ... somewhere. And our great works of fiction capture those moments in time, in lives, as vignettes. While in the process they also capture the truths of human failures, human triumphs, our frailties and our strengths. Stories that echo humanity's essence, year upon year, upon century.

Our country is currently going through a very difficult time. It is, once again, experiencing the devastating fallout of years of unbridled greed. Many Americans are suffering, with many more to come. Some of those will blame the greedy perpetrators of our situation, and rightly so. Others will do as they have been conditioned and blame themselves. But for the vast majority of struggling Americans, there is a commonality of truths that span the history of our world.

They are the simplest of things, these common truths. And they are much the same throughout the world, whether you live in the African plains or in the richest country in the world. We find these truths to also span time and space in the history of man. They are what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "self evident". By his definition they included "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". But they are even more simple than that. People want to be able to live happy and full lives, free from economic servitude. They want to be able to raise healthy families with schools for their education. They want to be able to own a home. They want to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors in leisure and comfort, free to laugh and free to spend time with those they love. They're not looking to be rich, or powerful, or famous. They simply want unharried and meaningful lives ..... lived in dignity.

But for some, that is not enough. For some it's important to have the biggest slice of the pie in the room. For others, nothing short of the whole pie will ever be enough. And it's for those people that I feel most sorry. For they have an emptiness inside that can never be filled. It is an insecurity and an inner terror of what lies beneath their own skin. And it feeds a fear of inadequacy, incompetence, and cowardice. Driven by their fears, they must forever overcompensate by acquiring and having as a measure of their self worth.

They would also seek to obliterate their inner tremors by amassing ever more power over the lives of others. And they are among those who cannot stand tall, lest it be upon the backs of those others, only able to rise above by pushing others down. They are frightened, vacant and empty shells. And the void will never be filled, to the detriment of those whom they despise who have grown comfortable in their skins, and who feel nothing to prove.

Yes, I feel sorry for these, the living dead. But not so sorry that I will not stand and fight them with every surviving dignified breath. For they are the true vampires, and must feed on the blood of the living in order to survive. But just as the light of each new dawn brings with it a terror for the undead of fables, so too can the light of scrutiny and truth cause those who prey on the living to shrivel and crumble to a mound of dust.

Not so long ago, while working in a warehouse, I formed a close relationship with my manager. We had a good deal of respect for each other and spoke openly of whatever happened to be on our minds. On one particular afternoon we happened to be sitting in our break room discussing politics when she suddenly asked me, "So, you're a socialist?". I was rather surprised, but when I saw she was sincere I replied, "Well, not exactly. Although I do believe in a social democracy. I'm more of a populist." "What's a populist?" I thought for a moment, and then finally answered."A populist is someone who has no problem with people getting rich, so long as it's not at everyone else's expense." At the time I don't know if she really understood, but it's a good bet she may understand now.

Knowing of What We Speak

Shortly after that fateful and tragic September day that changed America forever, I began noticing some very troubling signs. Renditions, detainees with no rights to a jury, wiretaps on the American people, the end of habeus corpus, to name a few. All of these and many more, instituted without question, or with little opposition, raised red flags for me and caused me no small amount of concern.

I'd seen this before. An attack on a nation, hysteria, the resulting nationalism, and the "sacrifice" of basic rights in a time of war. While government, industrialists and corporatists, and a powerful minority, consolidated ever more power.

As a child I'd spent many nights watching documentaries on the second world war with my father, who enjoyed anything historical. And we rarely missed any rare opportunity in those days before cable TV. I'd often curl up on the carpet in front of the television and see the images of war, Hitler, Mussolini, the Nazis, and fascism. And though my father never made a point to teach me exactly what those images meant, I absorbed enough over time to recognize characteristics and the signs of danger wherever they happened to appear.

In the days following 9-11, there were clearly similar signs. The power grabs by the executive branch, the attempts to silence and intimidate dissent, the extreme propaganda, and the nationalistic fervor which branded so many as unpatriotic (not to mention the creepiness of anything which begins with Homeland), were enough to make me believe we were at last making our own march towards fascism.

But I tend to be the type that doesn't "brand" anything unless I know what I'm talking about. So I began reading whatever I could get my hands on which might provide me with some insight into this evil known as fascism. I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer's definitive work on Hitler and Nazi Germany, along with works on Mussolini and Franco of Spain. I moved through Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism, Heywood Broun's The Fight, and John Strachey's The Menace of Fascism. I even read the speeches of the world's leaders of the time, including Franklin D. Roosevelt (as well as Mussolini and Hitler, themselves). These were all individuals who lived through the specter of the rise of fascism, and who likely knew it better than anyone. That was important, considering how many generations soon forget.

What I learned during that time justified my initial suspicions and concerns. We are indeed moving towards fascism. Whether it reaches fruition is largely left to us. But it's abundantly clear that the conditions for its arrival are in place.

Unfortunately, we tend to toss around the terms fascism, socialist, Nazi, and Hitler the way we would any derogatory term, with little understanding and simply as a means of "branding" something as evil. The danger which lies in this ignorance is, while we may be correct in the terms we use, we may be grossly misdirected in those we apply it to. (And often, it is those to whom it more aptly applies that are directing us to point the finger at everyone else.)

In my upcoming posts I'll be sharing what I have learned about fascism, and the reasons why I believe we are as near to it as we have ever been. And if I am wrong, I will rejoice. But if I am not, then we all need to learn to recognize it. And then to stop it.

In the meantime, here are some quotes which are as instructional as they are notable, from many who were there ... and know of what they speak:


Heywood Broun, The Fight, May, 1936 -

First of all we need a definition. Fascism is dictatorship from the extreme right, or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords. Now one of the first steps which Fascism must take in any land in order to capture power is to disrupt and destroy the labor movement. It must rob trade unions of their power to use the strike as a weapon.


U.S. Army: Army Talk, Orientation Fact Sheet 64, March 24, 1945 -

Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze; nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy ... Points to stress are: (1) Fascism is more apt to come to power in time of economic crisis; (2) Fascism inevitably leads to war; (3) it can come in any country; (4) we can best combat it by making our democracy work.


Bertrand Russell, Freedom, 1940 -

The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other.


Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress proposing the Monopoly Investigation, 1938 -

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.


Ernest Hemingway, Address to the American Writers Congress, 1937 -

There is only one form of government that cannot produce good writers, and that system is Fascism. For Fascism is a lie told by bullies. A writer who will not lie cannot live or work under Fascism. Because Fascism is a lie, it is condemned to literary sterility. And when it is past, it will have no history, except the bloody history of murder.


Victor Margueritte, Oration, French Academy -

The fascists cannot argue, so they kill.


Harold Ickes, Address to the A.C.L.U., December 8, 1937 -

As a matter of fact, it is the fascist-minded men of America who are the real enemies of our institutions. They have solidarity, a common interest in seizing more power and greater riches for themselves, and ability and willingness to turn the concentrated wealth of America against the welfare of America. It is these men who, pretending they would save us from dreadful communism, would superimpose upon America an equally dreaded fascism.


John Lewis, AFL Convention, 1947 -

The Taft-Hartley Statute is the first ugly, savage thrust of fascism in America. It came into being through an alliance between industrialists and the Republican majority in Congress, aided and abetted by those Democratic legislators who still believe in the institution of human slavery.


And finally, and most ironically:


U.S. Army, Classes in Citizenship and War Issues, (issued during World War II) -

To gain the backing of powerful industrialists ... a form of society is offered which will protect their objective; disunity is created by playing political groups against each other, religious groups against each other, social and economic groups against each other. A confused and disunited people can offer no effective resistance to the seizure of power by this newly-merged oligarchy.

Empty Hands

I recently read John Steinbeck's classic work The Grapes of Wrath. If you've never read it, I highly recommend it. (And NO, it's not the same as seeing the movie.) Published in 1939, it captured the era of the Great Depression in a way that history books can never convey today. It was a story of the dispossessed, the haves and the have-nots, and the desperation of those who have been reduced to whatever they can beg, borrow, or carry.

I had intended to offer links to passages so that readers could sample excerpts. Unfortunately, The Grapes of Wrath cannot be found as an online book offering anywhere on the internet. With the many thousands of books which can be read online, I found this to be not only odd, but disturbing. For a classic on the scale of a Steinbeck novel, especially what is considered to be his seminal work, one is lead to draw a conclusion that this must almost be by plan.

Whatever the reason for its omission, I have decided to include excerpts in this post. Everything that the book contains could easily be used to describe the title of this blog. Simply enough, given the first condition (Empty Hands), it is only a matter of time before you are left with the second (Clenched Fists).

I will continue to include excerpts from this great novel in this blog, absent any available alternative on the internet. I hope you can appreciate Steinbeck as much as I do, and I do recommend reading the book yourself. With the difficult times affecting so many today, and the dim prospects for the near future, it is a timeless commentary on the worst in us, as well as the best. Enjoy. -JW


CHAPTER 21

The moving, questioning people were migrants now. Those families which had lived on a little piece of land, who had lived and died on forty acres, had eaten or starved on the produce of forty acres, had now the whole West to move in. And they scampered about, looking for work; and the highways were streams of people, and the ditch banks were lines of people. Behind them more were coming. The great highways streamed with moving people. There in the Middle- and Southwest had lived a simple agrarian folk who had not changed with industry, who had not farmed with machines or known the power and danger of machines in private hands. They had not grown up in the paradoxes of industry. Their senses were still sharp to the ridiculousness of the industrial life.

And then suddenly the machines pushed them out and they swarmed on the highways. The movement changed them; the highways, the camps along the road, the fear of hunger and the hunger itself, changed them. They were migrants. And the hostility changed them, welded them, united them - hostility that made the little towns group and arm as though to repel an invader, squads with pick handles, clerks and storekeepers with shotguns, guarding the world against their own people.

In the West there was panic when the migrants multiplied on the highways. Men of property were terrified for their property. Men who had never been hungry saw the eyes of the hungry. Men who had never wanted anything very much saw the flare of want in the eyes of the migrants. And the men of the towns and of the soft suburban country gathered to defend themselves; and they reassured themselves that they were good and the invaders bad, as a man must do before he fights. They said, These goddamned Okies are dirty and ignorant. They're degenerate, sexual maniacs. They'll steal anything. They've got no sense of property rights.

And the latter was true, for how can a man without property know the ache of ownership? And the defending people said, They bring disease, they're filthy. We can't have them in the schools. They're strangers. How'd you like to have your sister go out with one of 'em?

The local people whipped themselves into a mold of cruelty. Then they formed units, squads, and armed them - armed them with clubs, with gas, with guns. We own the country. We can't let these Okies get out of hand. And the men who were armed did not own the land, but they thought they did. And the clerks who drilled at night owned nothing, and the little storekeepers possessed only a drawerful of debts. But even a debt is something, even a job is something. The clerk thought, I get fifteen dollars a week. S'pose a goddam Okie would work for twelve? And the little storekeeper thought, How could I compete with a debtless man?

And the migrants streamed in on the highways and their hunger was in their eyes, and their need was in their eyes. They had no argument, no system, nothing but their numbers and their needs. When there was work for a man, ten men fought for it - fought with a low wage. If that fella'l work for thirty cents, I'll work for twenty-five.

If he'll take twenty-five, I'll do it for twenty.

No, me, I'm hungry. I'll work for fifteen. I'll work for food. The kids. You ought to see them. Little boils, like, comin' out, an' they can't run aroun'. Give 'em some windfall fruit, 'an they bloated up. Me. I'll work for a little piece of meat.

And this was good, for wages went down and prices stayed up. The great owners were glad and they sent out more handbills to bring more people in. And wages went down and prices stayed up. And pretty soon now we'll have serfs again.

And now the great owners and the companies invented a new method. A great owner bought a cannery. And when the peaches and the pears were ripe he cut the price of fruit below the cost of raising it. And as cannery owner he paid himself a low price for the fruit and kept the price of canned goods up and took his profit. And the little farmers who owned no canneries lost their farms, and they were taken by the great owners, the banks, and the companies who also owned the canneries. As time went on, there were fewer farms. The little farmers moved into town for a while and exhausted their credit, exhausted their friends, their relatives. And then they too went on the highways. And the roads were crowded with men ravenous for work, murderous for work.

And the companies, the banks worked at their own doom and they did not know it. The fields were fruitful, and starving men moved on the roads. The granaries were full and the children of the poor grew up rachitic, and the pustules of pellagra swelled on their sides. The great companies did not know that the line between hunger and anger is a thin line. And money that might have gone to wages went for gas, for guns, for agents and spies, for blacklists, for drilling. On the highways the people moved like ants and searched for work, for food. And the anger began to ferment.

Terrorism To Fight Terrorism

Initially, I'd intended to write something else for my introductory post to Hands and Fists. But, I came across a piece I'd written years back, as U.S. troops were invading Iraq. I was, at first, afraid it might have lost its relevance. Reading through it again, however, I discovered it to be as fitting now as it was then ... as well as for any time, any place, or for any country. I hope you agree:

I do not understand why terror must be fought with terror. Why, in order to defeat terrorists, you must become a terrorist yourself. Does this stem from Old Testament justice of "an eye for an eye"? By escalating the amount of violence in the world, the world becomes a less safe place. What other result can we expect? Do we really believe that by flexing our might it will cause the world to quiver and acquiesce? On the contrary, it will cause an escalation of armaments and a militarization, out of fear for the security of all.

My America is an immature adolescent. It is rash and self-centered, with little consideration given to the community which is the earth. In hindsight, suppose we had responded differently to the 9-11 tragedy. In the moments following, receiving the empathy of the world for our losses, suppose we had instead announced that we would honor our own innocent civilian casualties by refraining from the killing of innocent civilians abroad.

That we would enlist the world to find, capture and prosecute those responsible for this heinous act, but that we would not pursue retribution at the expense of innocent lives abroad. We would remain firm, vigilant, and resolved to finding those responsible by utilizing all of the world's intelligence services, and with the determination of the world's community.

We would also reach out to those who harbor hateful intent towards us and ask them why. We would respect their needs and suffered injustices, and examine our own policies which could be responsible for so much hatred.

We would focus the world on a peaceful resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We would focus the world on the plight of it's poorest and most devastated communities. We would call the world to focus, and then we would help lead.

We would help lead in the elimination of nuclear weapons. We would help lead towards a more inclusive community, with more responsive, fair and balanced economies. At the expense of greed, usury, and economic injustice. We would lead the world in a war on greed, on waste and corruption ..... even legalized corruption.

We would together work against hate and discrimination, embracing cultures and diversity, while learning to walk hand-in-hand as neighbors and members of the human community. Stressing that the highest ideal is the betterment of all of the worlds peoples ..... at the expense of the betterment of the few. We would work for a world where the wealthiest are, instead of being the epitome of life's offerings, instead looked upon as being a symptom of society's many ailments.

Suppose we had responded to the tragedy, and to the world, in even one of these ways. The capacity for love, even within one's enemies, is only sleeping. More soundly in some than in others, but truly the best way to eliminate those who may hate you is to eliminate their hate. Gandhi proved that by avoiding senseless retaliation you capture the hearts and minds of the world, including your enemies. Once you retaliate, it becomes a war, a conflict. By not taking up arms, acts committed against you become naked aggression. Very few in the world have the heart or the soul to support such a thing.

Even within the ranks of an enemy, it becomes difficult to command hearts and minds against an adversary who refuses to kill your fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers. While bearing your murder and aggression, and still offering you water when you thirst, food when you hunger.

Escalating the conflict with bombs and missiles is unfortunately the standard operating procedure. And it becomes obvious that there is a national insecurity, even an immaturity (or what I like to call "the little-dick syndrome"), when all that a nation can offer in response to evil is more evil. Terrorism to fight terrorism. Murder in response to murder.

Yes, America is still an adolescent in the world of history. And because of our leaders we are no longer a shining beacon to the world. Although we could be ..... we should be.