Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth Still Guides Us

With efforts to turn a bit more local, I have been looking for more ways to learn about Pittsburgh's history and present day. Recently I found a copy of the autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, the steel "robber baron" based in Pittsburgh during the Gilded Age. While I haven't read the main text itself, it includes a reprint of Carnegie's short essay "The Gospel of Wealth" at the end.

I recommend everyone read it as a good way to "get inside the mind" of others. I found that Carnegie's words articulate many of the same objections and talking points that I hear today when I talk with others about progressive or Green causes. It seems likely that Carnegie, being such a big name in the city even to today, had a much larger influence on the political thought of the area than I at first realized.

Carnegie essentially makes an argument for capitalism, and why it is good that capitalism results in money concentrating in the hands of the wealthy. Carnegie was under no misconception of "trickle down economics" -- he specifically admitted that he knew this economy would fundamentally push more wealth to the wealthy. Carnegie's purpose was explaining why he thought that was the best idea.

In a nutshell, he argues that concentrating wealth is a good idea, and that the role of the wealthy in society is to give away most of the fortune to the greater civic good:

...thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.

What's interesting here is the implicit sense of superiority, that somehow the wealthy, just by virtue of having money, are smarter and could make better decisions than the poor. Carnegie even calls out Communism in his essay, with the typical attack of putting too much decision power into the poor that cannot handle it.

This is a refrain I've heard a lot recently, even from high school students that I spoke to -- that democracy, leaving decisions to the "common rabble", cannot be trusted. I see now this is an attitude Carnegie rubbed off on people, and honestly even Carnegie was likely influenced by earlier generations including the Founders that believed only the educated wealthy landowners should be able to vote. I don't know how people can argue against themselves having greater political power, but I have heard it with my own ears. I suppose this mindset convinces people they are special, and so many people experience no cognitive dissonance because they believe they are part of that special wealthy or at least middle class that makes the decisions, despite evidence being to the contrary. We obviously need to make a better case for expanded democratic rule as a way of equalizing political power. Convincing people to stop working against themselves and stop supporting this type of philosophy that puts more power into the hands of the few is part of our struggle.

Carnegie also argues against public spending for the poor in what can easily be described as social darwinism. After acknowledging the downsides of the "law of competition" (capitalism and concentration of wealth), he says:

...while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department.

This is that typical callous, utilitarian business view of people -- you are only useful or "fit to survive" if you fit in with the business world to make profits. Anyone not generating profit is at a minimum lazy, and perhaps not even fit to survive. In his view, the poor get lazy under social programs, and only by requiring them to work harder will they get out of their situation. Specifically:

In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves...

Carnegie then goes on to describe how giving charity to the poor that don't work hard enough and don't deserve it actually hurts them more than being poor. There's hints of the modern "they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" saying in his writing.

I found interesting his attack on alternative economic systems and distribution. For example, he makes an implicit argument that Native Americans are somehow less civilized because they didn't shower their leaders in wealth the way Europeans did, everyone was more equal:

The Indians are to-day where civilized man then was. When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was just like the others in external appearance, and even within the difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest of his braves.

While trying to argue that concentration of wealth is natural and a foundation of our society as a whole, he criticizes Communists and others calling for different systems:

Objections to the foundations upon which society is based are not in order, because the condition of the race is better with these than it has been with any others which have been tried.

Firstly, this isn't a very sound argument since he assumed that capitalistic wealth distribution is an integral part of "civilized" society. But more simply, his argument is essentially "well, it's good enough, could be worse!" While it could indeed be worse, this sort of statement also lacks imagination -- is current day really the best we could ever hope for? Even if it is true that we are better than in the past, shouldn't we try to improve further? Well, Carnegie has an objection to us seeking better alternatives:

...even if it were good to change it, which we cannot know. It is not practicable in our day or in our age. ... Our duty is with what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of good fruit under existing circumstances.

This strikes me as almost exactly word-for-word objections we hear from Democratic leaders on why we can't have things like single payer healthcare, free college tuition, and other social programs. "What a noble goal!" they say "It's just not practical." During Bernie's campaign, very commonly we heard "Why waste energy setting up single payer healthcare system when you can just protect the ACA and expand it?" Carnegie is saying exactly that here -- while more socialist economies might very well be more noble and efficient, why put energy into changing things when we can just make tweaks to what we have now? What we have now is practical. I wonder how many of the factories and technological advancements of Carnegie's era, much less today, would have been seen not as "practical" but "pie-in-the-sky" dreams a few hundred years ago. That's the flaw with these arguments, that somehow it's too difficult to advance when advancement has been exactly the story of humanity. Perhaps out of pride and conceit, we convince ourselves that we are today at the peak of human evolution, and nothing could ever possibly change at any point in the future. In reality, we will likely be the "cavemen" for some distant generation, much like we look at people during the Revolutionary War, the Middle Ages, or even further back.

Interestingly, Carnegie does support one fairly progressive reform: he argues that wealthy people sitting on money is not good for the economy, and that simply gifting that money to descendants is giving money to people that haven't earned it yet in the name of creating a dynasty. Carnegie actually argues for a high estate tax in order to encourage the wealthy to spend that money within their lifetimes rather than sit on it for inheritances, even going so far to say that he'd prefer to see that type of tax than most others. While this almost sounds like a good idea, Carnegie's point is that with a high tax rate, very little would get taxed and the government still wouldn't spend much -- instead, the wealthy themselves would act as "trustee" and spend that money on civic needs they deem worthy. Again, rather than democratic, public spending, he'd rather the wealthy act as oligarchs, deciding what the people need and don't need for them -- obviously, the wealthy are better than us and we should just trust them to make the best decisions on their own! Surprisingly, I've known poor people that defend this however; Republican family members of mine repeat talking points similar to this to explain why tax cuts for the wealthy are somehow good. They'll spend it on good things, obviously, and will definitely give good paying jobs and amenities to them in return.

Having heard these arguments from middle class and even working class people around Pittsburgh, seeing how much the arguments are intertwined with the city's history through Carnegie gives me new perspective on cultural inertia. While easy to imagine today's Republicans preaching the Gospel of Wealth, many of these statements sound a lot like Democratic leaders too, further emphasizing the fact that our two-party system has evolved to be an effectively one-party pro-corporate pro-capitalist system. While there is certainly difference and disagreement between the parties on some issues, they both have a fundamentally neoliberal outlook on society and economics.

We need more alternative visions and arguments, we need more diversity of thought, and we need to be prepared with counters to these arguments as we grow and get our message out to the public. Today's generations now live 100+ years after Carnegie's heyday; his influence, as well as the influence of many other capitalists, has long had a grip over our country's economic system. It will take a very sustained effort to get people to open up to alternatives, but knowing how they think by reading things like Carnegie's essay helps us understand the filter through which they see the world, and helps us devise new ways of presenting our argument.

A Break for Work

Social media is a very powerful force, allowing people from various geographic locations and cultural backgrounds to find each other and communicate. We can learn so much from each other. I truly think it is moving us toward a more peaceful and just world, as we learn more about each other and that we have much more in common -- even across continents and cultures -- than we do differences.

However, social media is a double-edged sword and can also be used to reinforce "bubbles". Rather than seeking out new ideas, people can block anyone different from themselves, and create an "echo chamber" of thought. By following only people you agree with, you get exposed only to reinforcement, never disagreement, and it's easy to begin to think you are correct and that "everyone" agrees with you.

Social media also has the effect of sapping time away. While a powerful force for quick organizing, mobilization, and information sharing, it also becomes a black hole quickly, into which energy is spent just hitting "refresh" so you have up-to-date news. Sharing posts and quick thoughts on the news become more of a task than actually doing things that make the news in the first place. Having previously criticized others for exactly that problem, I feel myself slipping a bit into that addictive cycle. I'm not a reporter or journalist, and if I'm not going to be those things, what do I accomplish other than taking up my time and filling others' feeds?

Therefore, I have decided to -- at least, temporarily -- suspend the Progressive Pittsburgh twitter and this blog. However, I am not stepping away from politics, but rather, gearing up for the next phase of involvement.

I have more directly joined my local Green Party and am actively working toward growing the party. I encourage any followers I have to instead follow the Green Party of Allegheny County on twitter and facebook (@AlleghenyGreens) to keep up to date with party announcements. That will be a much better source of progressive news in Pittsburgh than I am alone, and you'll be learning how to get more directly involved in bringing the Green New Deal to Pittsburgh.

Recent experiences have shown me the strong need for Pittsburgh and the surrounding region to get some new, progressive leadership and for many reasons I don't expect the Democratic party to be a leader. The Democratic establishment continues to focus on fundraising more than people's needs, and still challenge progressives every chance they get -- even going so far as to back an independent candidate in the District 8 special election because their hand-chosen person didn't get the Democratic nomination!

But I don't want Greens to be "leaders" handing down dictates either. I am a Green because I want communities to decide for themselves. We've had enough top-down decision making; it's time for bottom-up. It's time to empower communities and give them the tools and resources to make their own destinies. It's time to break up "good ol' boys" organizations and parties that feel entitled to make decisions on their own on your behalf while simultaneous ignoring your opinions or even becoming downright hostile to outsiders (often with excuses like: "I've lived in this neighborhood longer than you, I know better", or "That's how we've always done it, you just don't know," or the ever-popular "Do you even own property here? Because I do" that implies you don't matter if you don't own a house).

In lieu of social media, I will be focusing my attention on taking this message to others and building the party. Look for Green blog posts, pamphlets, events, and more, over the coming months; there will be a good chance that I wrote or contributed to some of it! I hope you will join me in the Green movement.

Petra Kelly and Lessons from the German Greens

Recently I read a short book titled "Thinking Green!", a collection of essays written by Petra K. Kelly, one of the founders of German Green Party and the European Greens. She was a recommendation to me by a fellow Green to learn more about what exactly Green values and philosophy consists of, and it was an enjoyable read that helped affirm those values.

Petra shares an interesting take on the Berlin Wall and fall of USSR and East Germany that I hadn't heard anywhere else. As a long-time activist, Petra describes making routine visits to East Germany for humanitarian aid and to help grow local activist groups in East Germany. She describes a growing group in East Berlin that favored Green values and ideals -- democracy, peace, social justice -- and a general trend toward decentralized democratic socialism against the statist form of "communism" pushed by Russia.

As the wall came down, the East German activists rose to take positions within the government vacated by the old Soviet-backed politicians that left when they saw what was coming. For a short time, Petra describes parades and marches in the street as the East German socialists, with the backing of the West German Greens, begin cleaning and rebuilding East Berlin.

However, Petra describes how that changed very rapidly as the American-backed West German government came in a few weeks later. The West Germans forced closing of all community banks in areas, and forced businesses to switch to West German currency for transactions. This had the effect of forcing East Germans to go to West German banks to get money, where the exchange rate was poor and fees were charged. For-profit private banks quickly moved into the neighborhoods, and with West German backing, used their financial power to put pressure on the socialist community organizations in favor of capitalism from American-backed West German businesses that suddenly flooded the city. Those same businesses and West German politicians began backing the unification narrative and used the nationalist (read: Neo-Nazi) element in East Germany as a way to oppose the Green-backed socialist organizations that were pushing for an independent state. With the sudden influx of money and power, the capitalist side won the struggle with the help of the nationalist organizations, and as Petra describes, the socialist marches and parades were quickly replaced with nationalist parades focused on pride in being unified German citizens, complete with huge German flags everywhere. Petra was one of the early members of the unified German parliament -- since elections in Germany use proportional representation, Greens have a good amount of seats and influence in Germany -- and describes seeing politicians in the parliament repeating German nationalist ideas and speeches that echoed some of Hitler's speeches. The West Germans were using that deep nationalist rhetoric to win votes and oppress the resistance as they profited from the switch to capitalism. I bet this doesn't sound familiar at all.

This story of American-backed capitalists forcing unification and stopping an independent socialist state from forming is obviously a part of the story I had never heard before. It was a very interesting read. By itself that story is worth a read, but there were other great essays.

Other essays included non-violence and "non-violent social resistance" as a way of fighting oppression and power without the need for violent war, and how the German Greens were influenced by Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi's work. She talks the need to respect the environment and put global warming (climate change) at the forefront of all issues. She also writes about the need to elevate more women into leadership roles, and how Greens must always support social justice and human rights. She seems direct participatory democracy as a requirement to address human rights and the environment.

One interesting aspect was that the essays also somewhat criticized the German Greens. On several issues, one strong example in particular being the Chinese violence against the Tibetan people, the German Greens had stayed relatively silent as a whole, and Petra was not happy. She criticized the German Greens for losing their identity and values as they tried to become too mainstream and too much like the other parties in German. Some German Greens were worried coming out too strongly against China or for Tibet, for fear of causing waves and potentially losing votes in the upcoming elections. In other words, as is often the case, the influence of money and power had corrupted even some of the German Greens. She cautions other Green parties around the world from the same fate, and to ensure that as we grow our activism and political influence that we always keep our eye toward our goal: decentralized democracy and power so that we can further human rights and protect the environment.

Keep in mind this book was written in the 1990s, so I'm not sure how much of the criticism of the German Greens at the time still applies today. However, it is still a powerful lesson.

Our goal as Greens is not take power for ourselves or become the next "major party" that simply replaces the Democrats. Our goal is to remake our political and economic system to be more free, fair, and just, to all people. If you want to learn more about Green values and what we can do to stay true to them as we fight the good political fight, Petra Kelly's book is a great one.

Progressives within the Democratic Party are about to be called "spoilers"

I've seen variation of an argument recently on social media that came out today as this NBC article: "Democrats are having a banner recruiting year -- and it could cost them". The article essentially makes the case that, because there are in some districts a large number of people running as Democrats, that it could "cost" the party. They specifically cite California and it's "top two" laws, that basically requires the top two candidates to go into a run-off even if they are the same party. The article argues that the large number of Democrats will split the vote in the primaries and allow the top two candidates in the general to be Republican candidates.

In fact, the article says:

But crowded primaries can also waste money, sow internal divisions, push candidates to the ideological extremes, and tarnish whoever emerges from the melee.

It goes on to say:

Republicans are counting on overcrowded Democratic races to help bail them out of what is shaping up to be a very bad year. 

"We look forward to facing whoever limps out of the Democrats' battle royale: black and blue, and broke," said National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Steve Stivers. 

One GOP super PAC is even considering meddling in Democratic races to sow chaos and promote weaker opponents. "It'd be too much not to," said Cory Bliss, the executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund. 

It cites the example from California again, that the state party has thrown its weight behind the candidate from last election, Doug Applegate, and is calling on challengers to drop out and support him, even though Applegate has been accused of scandal is not necessarily looking like a strong candidate. Regardless, the fact that the candidate and party are trying to pressure challengers out of the primaries -- the elections that are supposed to choose the candidate for the party, rather than allowing party elite to decide! -- shows that Democrats have not learned a thing since 2016.

This is exactly the arguments we saw as the Clinton wing of the Democratic party put pressure on Bernie Sanders and his supporters to drop out and fall in line behind Clinton. The "split the vote" argument is also exactly the reason they give for why voting for the Greens is a "waste".

Mark my words: the Democratic party is about to launch a campaign against progressive/socialist challengers, calling them "spoilers" and "weaker candidates propped up by GOP". This is all scare tactics to try to get people to fall back in line with the corporate "centrist" Democrats whom they will claim are "stronger" candidates that can "reach out to republican voters with bipartisanship".

The Democratic party could be working to fix this. Since the primaries are completely party-controlled, the DNC could do a simple vote and switch to ranked choice voting and make the "spoiler" argument completely obsolete. They could use ranked choice to find the candidate that is actually the most preferred by the most voters (open primaries would be even better at this!), rather than the establishment-backed flawed winning candidate of a plurality vote. And yet, they don't. I haven't heard a peep about ranked choice, and in fact, establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle are fighting ranked choice implementation in Maine after voters chose last year to switch to ranked choice. This might have something to do with how a number of Democratic state representatives in Maine have broken off and become Greens, and the Green Party is rapidly growing there. People are sick of establishment politics.

Democrats don't want ranked choice -- in the general election or even the primaries -- because they can use plurality voting and the "spoiler" argument and the "weaker candidate" argument as a stick to beat back opposition. They prey on the politics of fear, counting on you to ultimately side with their establishment pick out of fear that a worse candidate from the Republicans could ultimately win. They make this argument every election, and despite their corporate candidates typically winning primaries, they still go on to lose the general election. But instead of asking how their strategy can change to win over more voters, they still blame progressives and Greens for those losses. Despite the huge losses to the GOP and Trump in 2016, Democrats are continuing with their same policies, because why not, it has worked in the past. They are anticipating riding an anti-Trump wave to victory and have no need to appeal to progressives. They will use 2018 as an opportunity to try to crush the progressive "rebellion".

We need to move beyond the two-party narrative about how we vote. They use our voting methods to bash not only third party movements like the Greens, but even progressive challengers within the party.

Our energy is not well directed at "invading" the Democratic party, however. The primaries are not "official" elections, in the sense that they are party nomination procedures. Parties, as private organizations, can nominate however they want. Look at how much the Unity Reform Commission is struggling to get support to pass their small reforms that are much less than what progressives were originally asking for. There is huge momentum within the party to fight change. So to get the change you seek, you must take over nearly all local and state parties, with the end result being you get to maybe set some internal policy. None of that work is helping making fairer elections for our fellow Americans in the Republican, Green, Libertarian parties, or independent voters. (Remember that Trump won a lot of the early primaries with only something like 20% or 30% of the vote -- a landslide of Republicans did NOT want him and voted for someone else, yet he won -- ranked choice in the Republican primaries could have stopped Trump, and yet no one talks about that). Even if the Democratic party becomes more "progressive", we're still operating within a two party system that shuts out voices and opposition. We need to do better than this.

What we can do is change our laws for the general election. We can fight for a more fair system for all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, and make it easier for everyone to vote. While this is also an uphill battle, this is a battle for what's right, for making our system more democratic and fair to all, not just taking over a single party in a flawed two-party system. When we win this, we're not simply propping up a private organization with control over our elections process, we win and spread democratic reform for all Americans. This is what Greens stand for. We want proportional representation and ranked choice, we want voting holidays, we want equal access to debates and the airwaves, we want automatic voter registration and open primaries, we want verifiable voting methods instead of electronic machines we can't trust. These are things that are good for every voter and every party, and yet the two major parties never talk about any of this. And it's very clear why: they want to retain the control over our elections process, rather than opening it up to everyone with methods like proportional representation. Private organizations should NOT control our elections.

If you're sick of Democrats using the "spoiler" stick every election, please consider joining the Greens and helping us grow a new major party and change our election system.