Wealth Gap and Revolution

Lately I've been dwelling on the social strains caused by the wealth gap in the US. Everyone should know the difference between "income gap" and "wealth gap;" income being the annual revenues and wealth being the accumulated revenues or savings. The wealth gap is actually more pronounced than the income gap, but both have been growing for several decades. A recent statistic on wealth gap:

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth.

The word hoarding comes to mind as does a famous quote:

There is, inherent in the capitalist system, a tendency to self-destruct. - Schumpeter, 1942.

We see it happening before our very eyes playing out in the Washington budget debate. The notion, that giving the wealthy class, or owner class, tax cuts to spur growth is a widely held belief in our society. But this simplistic rule only makes sense when money is tight and production capacity at factories is tight and in need of investment to expand, neither of which hold today; we don't need any more production capacity and even if the owner class were to produce more, the commoners don't have the money to buy the stuff.

What we face is a market that is saturated with production capacity, but no money among we the little people, because the money is being hoarded and used for non-productive speculation. Buying commodities, like grains, industrial metals, oil & gas, have become disconnected from the real economy and turned into a gambling playground for the wealthy (not just Americans).

The tendency is for this kind of hoarding to create social instability (dare I say "revolution"?).
People are catching on to this, and the big questions are 1) will we get to the point where enough people become so destitute that they don't have anything, and thus don't have anything to loose if they rise up? 2) will the honest, wise wealthy people change policies before this happens, if only to save themselves?

Stay Tuned.

Sources:

Show Me the Money, Zine, Autumn, 2001, Tony Honeycut.

Who Rules in the World?

Reading the intro to Robert McChesney's "Communications Revolution"* today I was reminded of the following quote. It's from "The Revolt of the Masses" by Ortega y Gasset*, chapter 14 entitled, "Who Rules in the World?":

"It is necessary to distinguish between a process of aggression and a state of rule. Rule is the normal exercise of authority, and is always based on public opinion, today as a thousand years ago, amongst the English as amongst the bushmen. Never has anyone ruled on this earth by basing his rule essentially on any other thing than public opinion."

Not sure I buy much else written by Ortega y Gasset, but this resonated.

McChesney observes that the communications system is going through a transition that we can influence. In simple terms, the outcome of that transition will a media system that either "emphasizes democratic values" or "corporate profits." The default will be greater corporate domination, or "rule," over every facet of our lives and the future of our republic.

McChesney calls on us to seize "an unprecedented opportunity in the coming generation..."

... to create a communication system that will be a powerful imptus to a dramatically more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative society, where justice and self-government are the order of the day.

He warns that

This window of opportunity -- what I call "a critical juncture" -- will not be open for long. We will be opposed by very powerful entrenched corporate and political interests. We will need all hands on deck to win the fight.

If we fail, the outcome of "who rules in the world" is predictable.

Sources:

Communications Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media, Robert M. McChesney, the New Press, (2007).