Happy Thanksgiving!
However you might celebrate it, this is the time of year when many Americans express their gratitude toward others who have helped them (or have at least been kind to them) in the previous year. But what is it about Western society that thinks one day a year is sufficient enough to say "thank you" to our fellow human beings? How can one big meal make up for the centuries of exploitation that colonialism brought to the Americas? And why do we think that a little bit of showy philanthropy offered by a billionaire will right all the wrongs this individual has wreaked upon both people and the planet?
Our guest blogger considers this age-old concept, that somehow our "betters" will take care of us all...free of charge? You'd be surprised how common this bizarre belief still is in the 21th century.
Noblesse Oblige
by Coast Watcher
In French, noblesse oblige (No-bless OBlee-je) means literally "nobility obligates." It refers to the social contract
whereby those of high rank, birth or wealth are supposed to act
generously and honorably to others, especially those
of lower status and/or wealth.
The phrase has its roots in the feudal system that originated in Carolingian France of the 8th
century. It spread to dominate the whole continent of Europe within the
next three hundred years. Something akin to feudalism
existed at times in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, but in any case it
basically refers to the need of the weak and innocent for the protection
of a powerful man. The powerful—read, nobility—would allow those of
lower class to live on their land in exchange
for providing general labor or military service. In time the structure
of feudalism became rigid, with little scope for mobility between
classes.
Feudalism began a slow decline in the 14th
century when the Black Death struck Eurasia and Europe. One of the most
devastating pandemics in human history, the true death toll is unknown.
Estimates vary, but somewhere between
75 to 200 million people died during the plague, which peaked in Europe
from 1347 to 1351. The sudden scarcity of those who would labor or
fight for the nobility—usually under threat of dire punishment if they
defaulted on their obligations—resulted in a radical
shift in favor of the lower classes. Without a military to back them up
the nobility found themselves powerless in the face of demands for
social reforms from the lower classes.
The increasingly centralized power of monarchy also diminished the nobility’s scope to rule those beneath them. In time this led to a redistribution of wealth, and the middle class, or bourgeoisie, rose to occupy the ground between peasant and noble. Richer than a peasant, not as rich as a noble, the bourgeoisie lived comfortable lives and often worked in trade and industry. As a class they tended to be conservative. They also took on some aspects of noblesse oblige to those less fortunate.
The increasingly centralized power of monarchy also diminished the nobility’s scope to rule those beneath them. In time this led to a redistribution of wealth, and the middle class, or bourgeoisie, rose to occupy the ground between peasant and noble. Richer than a peasant, not as rich as a noble, the bourgeoisie lived comfortable lives and often worked in trade and industry. As a class they tended to be conservative. They also took on some aspects of noblesse oblige to those less fortunate.
So much for the history. What of the modern world?
Quo plus habent, eo plus desire ~ The more they have, the more they want.
Capitalism is a greedy and demanding cuckoo
in the nest of humanity. The more it feeds off the public in the shape
of tax concessions and subsidies, the more it wants. It loves it when
conservative-oriented governments privatize
public assets and sell them to the highest bidder. Often capitalism
doesn’t have to use force—just wads of lobbyist cash. The more money
capitalism takes from the economy, the more ordinary people have to
struggle to keep their heads above water. Money which
would otherwise be in circulation is being stashed away in offshore
accounts where its sole purpose is to provide purchasing power for big
business’ next venture.
When poverty increases, there’s a
commensurate increased need for charity to step in where government
either fails to do so adequately or otherwise ignores the problem. In
1929 the Great Depression began with the infamous Wall Street
Crash, lasting well into the thirties. Charities that normally provided
a stop-gap solution to immediate problems found themselves having to
sustain an impoverished population for far longer than funds would
permit. The situation was eased by FDR’s New Deal,
which provided public funds to get industry back on its feet and the
public back to work.
And so it is today. The 2008 crash saw
poverty hit America once more. Barack Obama bailed out the banks claiming
they were “too big to fail” instead of letting them perish for blatant
mismanagement of their assets—this after the CEOs
of those big banks flew their executive jets into Washington DC so they
could plead poverty. The mortgage crisis hit millions across the
country. Homelessness rose and has continued to rise.
Bankruptcies—especially from unforeseen healthcare costs—are endemic.
Charities are stepping into the breach once more, as they did during
the Great Depression, and again these charities are struggling to cope
with a high demand for their services.
What makes this situation all the uglier for those suffering economic hardship is the attitude of those more fortunate.
Even so, governments use the same philosophy to refuse assistance for the sick and struggling even though—especially in the case of the United States Constitution—it has a legal obligation to help.
Big business does indulge in a form of noblesse oblige,
usually as a public relations ploy and especially if their business
practices draw public and press disapproval. Some businesses such as
Amazon are not interested in
performing any charitable function. In fact, Amazon owner Jeff Bezos
plowed over a million dollars into the recent Seattle council elections
specifically to depose Socialist Alternative city councilor Kshama
Sawant and pack the council with his toadies. This
was after he browbeat the council into abandoning a tiny tax on
businesses in the city aimed at providing funds for the homeless. Bezos’
plan failed. Only two of the seven council candidates he sponsored won
their seats, and they look set to lose them at the
next election.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is
another example of capitalist noblesse oblige. With over $50 billion in
assets the foundation’s activities are worldwide and often
controversial. It drew criticism for its inoculation program
in Africa when it was linked to attempts to sterilize women.
Accusations have been leveled at the foundation concerning a hidden
agenda.
All things considered, the nobility and rich
in general take far more than they give. They rely on charities to take
up the considerable slack in helping the poor and disadvantaged in
society. It costs the rich far less than a tax
on their wealth aimed at providing at least adequate social benefits to
citizens.
Noblesse oblige: At the end of the day, is it worth it? Does
it work? Did it ever work? Or is it nothing other than gesture to soothe a
rich person’s conscience?
This excellent short video poses an important question of morality that needs to be answered for our very survival. https://youtu.be/axN8ppre-mU
From Bernie Sanders' Twitter Feed:
The wealth of the billionaire class is almost incomprehensible.
The Waltons get $70,000 richer every minute.
Jeff Bezos makes $2,489 a second.
That is why it is not radical to say that millions of people in this country should not be paid starvation wages.
11:41 AM · Nov 25, 2019
Check out even more damning evidence of how billionaires call the shots worldwide--by starting wars and funding coups to obtain oil and other resources illegally. Excellent piece from Dirk at Beanstock's World. Here's a short excerpt:
"By now, a growing number of Americans have become aware of how our
intended democracy has become undermined by Big Money and turned into a
sham where voter participation is essentially blocked by a twin party
tyranny of the R- and D-Party, both working exclusively for the rich and
their corporations, think tanks, and an army of 42,000+ registered
lobbyists (plus many more unregistered ones) while dangling billionaire
puppets in front of us as “our” candidates, excluding true people’s
representatives from our ballots or rigging the elections when one does
make it on the ballots."
***
| Don't let Wall Street silence activists | ||
| Tell SEC commissioners:
"Shareholder resolutions are a crucial way for shareholders to
hold corporations accountable. Changing SEC Rule 14a-8 would silence
shareholder activism and protect big corporations from the consequences
of their actions. Withdraw changes to SEC Rule 14a-8."
Add your name:
| ||
Shareholder resolutions have forced Fortune 500 corporations to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, promote transparency, improve racial diversity and confront climate change. But now, after lobbying from corporate CEOs, the SEC proposed new rules that make activists jump through increasingly difficult hoops in order to introduce and pass shareholder resolutions.1,2 We can't let the SEC help Wall Street crush the shareholder activists who hold major corporations accountable. We need to speak out against this awful proposal now, while the SEC is still accepting public input. Tell the SEC: Don't help Wall Street crush activists. Click here to sign the petition. The SEC is supposed to protect people from Wall Street. It is doing the opposite. In the past, the SEC made sure shareholders – from mom-and-pop investors to the pension funds of teachers and firefighters – can propose and pass resolutions demanding changes from the company they own stock in. But under the leadership of Trump's handpicked SEC chair Jay Clayton, the SEC is helping corporations hide their actions and escape accountability from shareholders. The Sierra Club recently sued the SEC to find out how the watchdog routinely allows corporations to exclude shareholder resolutions that force them to confront climate change.3 Shareholder resolutions are a powerful tool for holding corporations accountable. Many standard practices today – including banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, allowing shareholders to hold a vote on excessive CEO pay and banning conflicts of interests among board members – began as shareholder resolutions. And shareholders continue to push corporations to do better on racial and gender diversity, climate change, environmental and labor practices, disclosure of political spending, and far, far more.4 The new SEC proposal would help corporations crack down on these shareholder resolutions by limiting who is eligible to submit new ones and rejecting previous resolutions unless they gain immense popularity over a short period of time. It would even give corporations a say in which resolutions to recommend to shareholders – akin to letting Donald Trump edit the New York Times opinion page.5 Right now, the proposal is open for public comment and the narrowly divided SEC gives us a chance to block the new rules. Trump's SEC chair wants to let Wall Street CEOs write the rules governing who can hold them accountable, and we cannot let that happen. Tell the SEC: Don't help Wall Street crush activists. Click below to sign the petition: https://act.credoaction.com/ Thank you for speaking out, Heidi Hess, Co-Director CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
| ||
***
Surveillance is at the heart of Amazon's monopolistic business
model.They record our conversations, capture video footage of our lives,
creep into our elections, track our faces, and partner with police to
build a nationwide surveillance network. They exploit our intimate
moments and sensitive personal information for their profits. 1,2,3
Amazon devices don’t make us safer. Their executives recently
admitted there are no safeguards in place to protect our data, privacy,
or our civil liberties in their Ring doorbell cameras and surveillance
police partnerships.4
In response to Amazon’s blatant disregard for our basic rights and
security, a group of Senators sent letters demanding answers. But now
that lawmakers in DC are asking questions, Amazon will dispatch their
army of lobbyists and call in their favors with the politicians they
helped elect. There’s nothing they won’t do to avoid scrutiny and
accountability.
Amazon is going to continue to expand their surveillance network.
They will take advantage of the holiday season to sell more devices that
listen to us and watch us.
We need lawmakers to intervene. A Congressional hearing is the only
way to expose Amazon’s invasive data harvesting practices, and lay the
foundation for laws that will rein in their for-profit surveillance
practices.
Together, we can shutdown Amazon’s surveillance dragnet.
Ayele at Fight for the Future
Footnotes:
3. Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.
4. Fight for the Future: https://www.fightforthefuture.
Tax the rich. Squeeze them until the pips squeak. If corporations threaten to move their business elsewhere let them. It'll be cheaper and more effective to provide the public with UBI and grants than to subsidize one parasitical business.
ReplyDeleteYou know, most businesses who complain about paying too much in tax have already moved their factories/plants/services offshore (out of the US) so they could find even cheaper labor and even less safety regulations that cover their workers. We don't have to worry about their non-sensical threats anymore. Tax'em!
Delete