The focus of our October discussion was two books by economist James Galbraith, Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just Before the Great Crisis (2012) and his latest book, Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know (2016).

Going back to ancient times such as Greece — and even in the Bible* — there is mention of how those in need often became dependent on the wealthy in hard times. If debts continue to be unpaid, debtors have gone to prison or had themselves and families perpetually indentured to the lender.
 
Inequality leads to discontent among those at the lower end of the scale, which result in insurrection or revolution as has happened throughout history in countries including the US, France, Russia, and China. Economic discontent is more frequently expressed via elections in nations that are considered democratic.
 
In countries considered democratic, however, there also is growing inequality that began in the 1980s and continues into our day. According to Galbraith: “Increasing inequality is a sign that something has gone wrong.” (Page 13) By all measures - both within and between countries — inequality is increasing.
 
Galbraith doesn’t agree that democracy automatically leads to an egalitarian society. In his view: “the result holds only for a subclass of democracy, namely social democracies that have been stable for a long period of time.” (Page 15) Most of those are located in Western Europe, but Eastern European countries on the whole have the lowest level of inequality.
 
In the US, “states with higher inequality tend to have lower turnout of potentially eligible voters in presidential elections — a result consistent with the idea that in high-inequality states the wealthier voters have a strong interest in restricting access to the ballot among the poor.” (Page 16) This is exactly the pattern we’re seeing at present in a number of southern states.
 
Different from what some might expect, countries with less wage inequality have lower unemployment rates. (Page 17) American states that are highly polarized, with a strong divide between rural and urban areas, tend to vote Democratic.
 
Since the 2008 crash, inequality is largely due to the division between those who do and don’t have stocks, since the stock market rallied within a couple years of the crash.
 
Income and pay inequality were largely reduced after World War II, but now continues to shoot up. (Page 72) Globalization — goods being produced overseas more cheaply — have played a major role in that trend. (Page 97) Reductions in inequality generally take place over a long time as the result of changes in public policy.
 
Reduction of inequality can be a driver for people to become more active and increase their tendency to vote if they don’t become lethargic. (Page 152) One factor that reduces inequality is more equal pay structures — i.e., not having a huge difference between those at the top and bottom of the pay scale. Strong social structures, like excellent medical and retirement benefits — also tend to reduce inequality.
 
The 2008 crash — which should serve as a warning for our own day — was caused in large part by overly easy credit availability due to too much money in the system looking to be lent out, which in turn was the result of interest rates held artificially low. These trends followed the elimination of Depression-era regulations, such as Glass-Steagall, that prohibited banks from speculating in investments with client funds. (Page 293)

​The main reason for the increase in inequality was an increase in investment income at the very top of the economic ladder, rather than increasing inequality of wages and salaries. The growth of tech spearheaded this trend. In the 1970s and 80s “the top technologists in the big corporations realized that they would be far better off if they set off on their own, incorporated themselves as independent technology firms, and then sold their output back to the companies for which they had formally worked in salaried jobs. In that way, technologists could become owners, taking advantage of venture finance, and could, in effect, upset the previous structure of American corporate valuation.” (Page 86) This trend was furthered by tax changes during the Reagan administration encouraging greater corporate executive salaries, paid in large part in stock options. “Now top incomes are no longer fixed salaries but instead closely track the stock market.” (Page 118) Deregulation and changes in the business culture also contributed to “corporate looting, rapid corporate growth, stock market valuations, too good to be true business plans and reporting, and vast accumulations of personal wealth by insiders.” (Page 132)
 
A few other possible reasons for increasing inequality in the U.S.:

1. Trade agreements that shifted manufacturing from North to South, e.g., to Mexico or China, definitely had an effect on the manufacturing sector in the US. Good paying manufacturing jobs shrank, from about 15% to now about 8% of the national economy, while the lower paying service sector expanded.
2.  The decline in private sector union membership.
3.  The reorganization of the family to create greater numbers of families headed by single, low income women.

​
Galbraith does not put much stock in the theory, popular among some economists and politicians, that a major factor in US inequality is the rise of technology that put a premium on education and put those without education at a greater disadvantage. This theory is not well supported by available evidence.
 
Why Do We Care about Economic Equality?
 
“It should be possible for an egalitarian society to be entirely composed of the poor. [But] there seems to exist no such society in the world. Egalitarian states are almost all rich; poor countries are all highly unequal,” with Cuba as the possible exception. (Page 126) There is also considerable evidence that egalitarian societies do better in terms of health care, mortality, life expectancy, and other factors.
 
Policies That Reduce Inequality
 
“There is little doubt that countries with strong unions and high minimum wage laws — in relation to the average productivity of the country — have less inequality than those in the opposite position.” (Page 140) Other policies: Making income tax more progressive, Earned Income Tax Credit, Social Insurance Programs.
 
One of our members stated that the economies — just like the environments — of all countries are interrelated. Thus the leading democracies must press for universal reforms to preserve our economies which are tied to basic rights for everyone.

Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site renewingdemocracy.org

The book distinguishes between what the author calls Discrimination I, an ability to discern differences in qualities of people, and Discrimination II, treating people negatively based on animosity to those of a particular sex or race. He agrees that Discrimination II is destructive to democratic society, but argues that Discrimination I is inevitable and actually beneficial. Beneficial discrimination would include the reality that employers hire those who they see as best meeting job qualifications, or that children who meet college entrance requirements are most likely to succeed.

He justifies what he calls Discrimination IB, where an employer would hire based on the general characteristic of a racial or other demographic group to avoid having to examine the background of every applicant. He claims that this type of discrimination is cost effective because it eliminates needing to consider people whose backgrounds make them unlikely to succeed. Several people in our group called into question the distinction between Discrimination IB and Discrimination II, because both were based on stereotypes, were unfair to individuals and costly to individuals and society. Contrary to Sowell, these critics believed it was legitimate to legislate to prohibit Discrimination IB to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc.

Sowell states that people tend to sort themselves by race and ethnic background. Thus he denies that segregation is major factor in housing discrimination. Even within communities of every background (Sowell is African-American), he claims that groups sort themselves based on identification with their subgroup, as did, for example, those of Irish from English from Italian populations in America at one point, and as did established blacks from poor recent arrivals in the North. He claims that this type of segregation is entirely natural, normal, and justified. He doesn’t account for the fact that whereas segregation among white ethnic groups usually disappear within a generation or two after immigration, segregation against blacks has persisted across generations.

He points to the landmark 1954 Supreme Court Decision, Brown v. Board of Education that ordered integration of schools, as one that may have been well-intended, but ultimately did not meet its goal of equal educational opportunities. This is because, he claims, educational advancement for blacks did not result. Instead, he points to schools designed for particular groups, such as charter schools, as providing educational excellence. A member of our group pointed to contrary studies, for example ones showing significant gains in lifetime earnings for blacks who had attended integrated schools.

He also devotes a chapter to the idea that words and statistics can be used to prove the point of those who already have made up their minds, and then use arguments and math to justify their previously determined positions. Words like “diversity” and “social injustice,” he claims, are used to justify government override of “millions of peoples mutually agreed transaction terms.” i.e. a society in which markets predominate free of government interference. Many in the group found this familiar conservative formulation unpersuasive.

In the realm of taxes, he devotes a lot of energy to praising tax cuts and decrying tax raises, stating that national revenues actually have risen during times of tax cuts. He criticizes those who would denigrate “tax cuts for the rich,” another abuse of language. He cites examples of when tax cuts for the rich led to increased government revenue because the wealthy had less incentive to shelter their income, but does not cite many counterexamples where such tax cuts resulted in revenue decline, such as the 2017 tax cuts.

Most of us probably would agree with his idea that one of the key factors of success is motivation. Those who work hard to succeed are most likely to do so. But what about those from backgrounds where they were provided minimal stimulation or were neglected? Should we just say “tough luck” to those people? Sowell makes a claim that many people, and/or families, don’t stay in poverty for long, but his view is countered by, among others, Thomas Piketty, who wrote Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a book we have reviewed, that has reams of statistics showing how inequality increases in families over time. Michael Sandel’s 2020 book The Tyranny of Merit cites studies suggesting that social mobility in the US is significantly less than commonly thought, with only about 4–7 percent of those born in the bottom fifth if the income distribution making it to the top fifth. Most in the group did not believe that Sowell had successfully made the case against government intervention to help those who struggle in today’s economy, although it could be acknowledged that not all past interventions have been successful.

Perhaps this is the most relevant question we might ask ourselves: “What is government for in a democracy?” The answer would be different if we ask: “What is government for in an autocracy?” The promise of democracy that emerged around the world earlier in this century is largely unfulfilled, with many democratic-leaning states now leaning backwards. The reason is that the governments of those nations have been repurposed to serve the narrower needs of a portion of the population rather the population as a whole. Democracy is a Greek term for “government by the people,” and all governments serve some of the people. Governments that serve the needs of the largest amount of people are the most democratic. Those who would have their governments serve mainly themselves, or those like them, ultimately are compromising the lives and rights of everyone.

Every attempt at democracy has been based on restoring rights to a segment of people who believed themselves overlooked, including those who founded the US, where we have gradually moved in the direction of greater human rights with perhaps three steps forward and two back. But once that vision is lost by those who serve themselves or their leaders rather than democratic principles, the slide toward autocracy begins. The purpose of government in democracy is to continually return us to that balance.

The focus of our July discussion was the book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them by Jason Stanley. We discussed how fascism operates to entice people into following leaders who often act against democracy and how we might respond against what seems to be a growing trend that undermines many countries in our time.
 
The theme of this book is that fascism is based on creating scapegoats for the fears of those who believe themselves threatened. Leaders take advantage of people’s fear of losing their rights to “the other” whom they become convinced are out to steal them. These fears often are projected onto minorities portrayed as threats to the “real” national character. Following are selected quotes from the book.

Our group then discussed how to move past the inroads that fascism seems to be making in many countries. How do we create a world where we move toward its opposite — which is democracy — and work with others toward a more equal society?
 
Part of the fascist mentality is characterizing people by the groups to which they belong rather than their individual actions. We can criticize fascist elements where we see them yet this often results in a circle of blame.
 
But as individuals, we each can move toward a more democratic society by striving to see people more as they are beyond race, religion, gender, political preference and every other type of label we place on them.
 
All of us at times engage in unfair judgments, and then sometimes look back and regret our actions as having been harmful when we may not have meant them to be. But if we learn from our very human pattern of judging others and begin to treat them with greater respect we can contribute to a more fair and equitable world.
 
Perhaps we can begin to realize that the needs of others — for recognition of both their value as people and their physical needs — also are our needs. If our actions in our personal and political lives move us toward a world that maximizes the value and potential of everyone, those benefits also accrue to ourselves. This is the essence of democracy.
 
Also, I recommend this article about the deterioration of democracy in Nicaragua as an example of what has happened to many countries in this century:
​
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/opinion/daniel-ortega-nicaragua-election.html

The focus of our June 7 discussion was Israel/Palestine. We were honored to have Alan Dowty — author of a book by that name — join us to help understand the current Middle East situation and the history of the relationship between Jews and Palestinians in that region.
​
The origins of the conflict between these populations goes back to the 1880s when Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe began settling in the region as a result of persecution. At the time the area was under the Ottoman (or Turkish) empire, where Jews generally had been welcomed as refugees as far back as the time of their expulsion from Spain in 1492. But the Jews who migrated into the empire had usually been welcome as citizens who merged into the prevailing culture. Those who arrived in Palestine followed the admonition of Theodore Herzl to establish a homeland, which was a threat to the population already living there.

The Arabs in the area, around one-half millions Muslims and Christians, lived under the shadow of the Crusades, the aborted attempt of Christian European armies to recapture the holy land at any cost from about 1100-1300. After World War I, British displaced Ottoman rule, which improved health, transportation, and communication services.

​For Arabs, the growing Jewish presence presented a threat that they would lose their land. After World War II, almost all Jews accepted the idea that Palestine should be their homeland after persecutions and rejections by other countries. Hagenah(meaning Defense) was founded in 1920 to protect Jewish immigrants. In 1936 “the great revolt” by Palestinians began with the intent to expel what they considered Jewish interlopers in their land.
 
Dividing Palestine was first proposed in 1937 by the British Peel Commission. The British were caught in the growing conflict from Jews escaping persecution and native inhabitants, eventually evacuating in 1948 as the State of Israel was declared. Israel also inherited a sizable Arab minority as the war between Israel and its neighbors — plus Palestinian groups — began. Nevertheless, an agreement was reached between Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon — for Israel to claim possession of about 78% of the former British Palestinian mandate.

The two decades between 1948 and 1967 wars were dominated by the personality of Gamal Nasser, who served as a model for unity of all Arabs. By the early 1960s a number of Palestinian fighting groups emerged, including Fatah (under Yasser Arafat) and the PLO. The period of 1956–67 was relatively quiet as UN peacekeepers were stationed on the border between Israel and Egypt.

 Anwar Sadat became Egyptian president when Nasser died in 1970 until his assassination in 1981. Sadat coordinated an attack on Israel with Syria in 1973 which was defeated. Starting in 1977 Egypt strengthened ties with the US and negotiated peace with Israel under Manachem Begin, which also led to a treaty with Jordan. But the Palestinians still saw themselves as oppressed, which resulted in the Intifada and Hamas, which had both violent and non-violent purposes: improving the lives of Palestinians and confronting Israel. But among Palestinians — many of whom worked in Israel — income and consumption levels have improved considerably since 1967.
 
There have been numerous short bursts of war between Israel and Palestinians since that time, among them in 2008, 2012, and the most recent spate of attacks that resulted in many deaths, but inevitably more on the Palestinian side which has inferior offensive and defensive capabilities. UN fact finding often has found fault on both sides for causing excessive civilian casualties.

The most recent change in government about to take place that combines representatives from the right and center of Israeli politics, as well as Arab members of Knesset, may be cause for cautious optimism. The current coalition may be a hopeful sign that all sides are willing to give a bit in an effort to end the politics of confrontation that has affected the area for over 100 years. At first they might seek to agree on rebuilding the infrastructure and economies of all areas before they can hopefully build enough trust to address the ultimate and unavoidable issue of how the land is to be shared or divided.

The focus of our May 3 discussion was Class and Inequality. We were honored to have Hy Thurman, author of Revolutionary Hillbilly, provide a presentation based on his community work in Chicago in the 1960s. A new incarnation of his organization, The Young Patriots, has recently been formed.

From Revolutionary Hillbilly, by Hy Thurman, 2020, Regent Press:

I was a founding member of the Young Patriots Organization (1967). We were a group of Southern  white youth dedicated to serving and defending our community — an impoverished neighborhood called Uptown in Chicago. We were Southerners whose families migrated … looking for work. We came to form part of the First Rainbow Coalition, working together with the Black Panthers and Puerto Rican Young Lords. We fought against racism, police brutality, and city planners who administered the urban renewal programs to force poor people out of their homes.… We organized free health services, breakfast for children programs, food pantries and legal services for the poor. I attempt to preserve the history of a forgotten people dealing with the brutal conditions of migration, starvation, slum living, death, disease, classism, racism, police brutality and even murder.
 
In the remote, underdeveloped regions of Appalachia in the 1950s and 1960s, poverty was so widespread that people were experiencing hunger on a daily basis, and the results of malnutrition were catastrophic. Since these regions collected very little taxes, they were denied government funds to change living conditions. Programs in education and job training were unavailable to those in the mountainous regions due to unmaintained roads that prevented industry in the small towns, while it was difficult for many to travel to other towns to seek jobs.
 
During the harvest season, we would rise early before daybreak to work in the fields to survive. At the end of the day, we would pool our daily wages to come up with an amount that would assure us eating. Growing up in a small town made many poor whites and blacks a target for crimes by the local cops. They would arrest and falsely accuse young of crimes that were committed by the more privileged in the county.
 
The majority of the southerners came from mining regions after losing their jobs due to closed or mechanized coal mines. Mining towns were created and required miners to live in cheap shacks. A company store was set up, and the miners had to purchase needed food and survival items at a price that was often several times more than the wages of the miners. In the 1890s the miners had had enough abuse from the operators and joined the newly organized United Mine Workers Union. Others came from regions were textile mills closed due to the import of foreign materials and products, against which the southern mills could not compete. Farmers were forced to leave their land because of mechanized farming, or because their farms were repossessed by banks.
 
I arrived in Chicago in March of 1967 at the age of seventeen to escape the harshness of poverty, classism, lack of jobs and collapse of the farming economy due to the mechanization of farms in the South. I was also hoping to escape police harassment and class hatred in my home town. I had heard that Chicago was the “promised land,” that life was better up north, and that jobs were abundant for those who were willing to work. But there was a shortage of housing, and within my first two weeks in Chicago, I witnessed two cops beating an elderly man. Absentee landlords discovered a very profitable market by not maintaining the apartments and renting to poor migrants from the South and other parts of the world.
 
Many migrants had to rely on jobs with unethical day-labor agencies. These jobs were usually unskilled, menial jobs that were physically demanding, and with a high risk of injury.… Laborers were always worried about whether they would be chosen for work the next day, and if the job would be safe.… The lack of jobs in the North made it almost impossible for the Southern migrant to climb out of poverty. The stereotype that Southern whites were lazy and did not want to work is just plain wrong. The city of Chicago did not have the resources, nor the desire, to provide for the needs of the poor of any color. People of color are judged due to their skin color, and poor whites are looked down upon as an inferior class of white people.
 
The search and seizure law was used excessively to stop vehicles without any cause. Several vehicles were seized and never returned to the owner, without proof that the owner was guilty of any wrongdoing. Any person with a Southern accent was a target for the Chicago police.
 
In  1964, Students for a Democratic Society moved into Uptown to help the poor organize and control their community.… One SDS founder, Tom Hayden, believed that society could be changed by an “interracial movement of the poor.” Although the capitalist system had indoctrinated the poor that communism and socialism was bad for them, it wasn’t hard to convince community residents that workers should have ownerships of what they produced, and control over their future.
 
Lack of education and opportunities, as well as class hatred, played a major role in committing crimes to exist or face starvation. In its 5 year history, JOIN convinced residents to fight for their community. It taught “participatory democracy,” formed tenant unions, helped to organize a march against police brutality, built food coops, formed a People’s Theater, engaged in the war on poverty, helped perform lead screening drives, and held community rallies, picnics, and demonstrations at the welfare office and city hall.
 
In the 1950s, fifty million dollars in state and federal funds were used to build the University of Chicago in the Hyde Park neighborhood, removing poor Italians, Mexicans and Blacks, without replacing the housing … turning the neighborhood into an upper- and middle-class community.… Uptown was not exempt from Chicago’s removal plan.
 
Eldridge Cleaver (Black Panthers) and Peggy Terry (Peace and Freedom Party) attempted to educate the public that there was little difference in the living conditions of poor whites and poor Blacks, and that they needed to use the commonality to unite and organize with each other.
On December 4, 1967, Dr King announced the Poor People’s Campaign and a march on Washington DC to make the world and politicians aware of the plight of the poor.
 
The War on Poverty Program announced by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966 provided federal funds to improve the lives of the poor, by attempting to offer much-needed services to poor communities.… The plan was a major failure, because the Johnson administration and Congress thought that bigger government was necessary and should control the program. We defined liberation as people having the freedom  and power to make their own decisions concerning their lives.… The message that we were relating to the community had to be very clear and in the language that they understood.
 
In September of 1969, the doors of the Young Patriots Health Clinic, located in an apartment, was opened to the Uptown people. According to a report by the Chicago Board of Health, Uptown had the highest infant mortality in Chicago and the nation as a whole, due to lead poisoning, malnutrition, and the poor health of many children. November of 1969 was the beginning of continuous surveillance and harassment by the FBI and Chicago police.
 
Solidarity isn’t just a word. It is a process, and sometimes it is an uncomfortable process. Not only was racism a central issue in our efforts to liberate our people, we also began to develop a new awareness of the gay, lesbian and women’s liberation movements that were gaining popularity and demanding liberation in the US and around the world.
 
Culturally Southern people are fundamentalist Christians, believing that God put government officials in power and guided their decisions. Any organizing had to directly come from our own understanding of the situation, and not from outside political activists. It was important to teach our people that the middle and upper classes enjoyed their wealth due to the poor and working class laboring at minimum or low wages.
 
The Black Panther Party for Self Defense, founded in 1966 in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, was a black political organization that provided a revolutionary model of service to the people with a Ten Point program that guided their activities.… The Young Lords started in 1959 as a Puerto Rican street gang … in 1968 the gang changed from street fighting to a political organization.  Fred Hampton, Chairman of the Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party invited them to form a partnership which would become the “Original Rainbow Coalition.” The Lords (Puerto Rican Group) led demonstrations against police brutality, for women’s rights, welfare rights, economic and social equality, as well as self-determination.
 
The Young Patriots officially entered into the national radical movement in April 1968.  We were welcomed into the coalition due to our anti-racist politics, and because we were a group that had proven that many members had evolved from street gang members and poor oppressed Southern whites into community organizers.
 
Pacifism and compromise with the power structure had been a failure for the poor.… Private property needed to be abolished. Not private property of homes, cars, clothing, etc., but the abolition of the private ownership of factories, utilities, communication and transportation services, natural resources, and educational and medical services.
 
The COINTELPRO program of the FBI used fraud, false news articles, letters and surveillance to categorize us as a subversive group along with other groups and individuals such as Martin Luther King, NAACP, American Indian Movement, women’s rights groups, SDS, and even Albert Einstein.  On December 4, 1969, head of the Chicago Chapter of the Black Panther Party Fred Hampton and Black Panther party member Mark Clark were murdered by the Chicago Police Department in the early hours of the morning while they were sleeping. Fred Hampton was a visionary and believed that street gangs should stop waging war against each other.… His belief was that gangs needed to channel their energy into serving their  community.
 
The Young Patriots saw the need to address the Confederate flag.… We had grown in our knowledge of the Civil War, and it had become clear to us that the South was the counterrevolutionary and reactionary side of the conflict. Truman College opened its doors in 1976, taking up a quarter of Uptown’s residential area. The Young Patriots organizing base was literally wiped out in a matter of a few months. The Southern migrant was once again sent out on the migrant trail. Many went back to the South to eke out whatever living they can. Some moved on to other cities, while others turned to alcohol and stayed in Chicago.

​We also discussed --

The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? By Michael J. Sandel, 2020. Summarized by Rob Katz.

Meritocracy means a society where leaders are chosen solely on the basis of merit or ability. More broadly, it describes a society that is organized around the principle that people should be able to rise in the world as far as their talent and hard work takes them. What are the Benefits of Meritocracy? Sandel focuses on three: An economic system that rewards effort in combination with talent is likely to be more productive, less discriminatory on the basis of race, sex, and other invidious characteristics, and affirming of human freedom and human agency.
 
What’s Wrong with Meritocracy?

First, in the USA, meritocracy is more myth than reality. “Of those born poor in America, few make it to the top. In fact, most do not even make it to the middle class. Studies of upward mobility typically divide the income ladder into five rungs. Of those born on the bottom rung, only around 4 to 7% rise to the top, and only about 1/3 reach the middle rung or higher. Although the exact numbers vary from one study to the next, very few Americans live out the ‘rags to riches’ story celebrated in the American dream. In fact there is less economic mobility in the United States than in many other countries [like Germany, Spain Japan, Australia, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark].”
 
Second, even when it functions properly, meritocracy has a dark and destructive side: “The notion that your fate is in your hands, that ‘you can make it if you try,’ is a double edge sword, inspiring in one-way but invidious in another. It congratulates the winners but denigrates the losers, even in their own eyes. For those who can’t find work or make ends meet, it is hard to escape the demoralizing thought that their failure is their undoing, that they simply lack the talent and drive to succeed.”
 
“The tyranny of merit … consists in a cluster of attitudes and circumstances that, taken together, make meritocracy toxic. First, under conditions of rampant inequality and stalled mobility, reiterating the message that we are responsible for our fate and deserve what we get erodes solidarity and demoralizes those left behind by globalization. Second, insisting that a college degree is the primary route to a respectable job and a decent life creates a credentialist prejudice that undermines the dignity of work and demeans those who have not been to college; and third, insisting that social and political problems are best solved by highly educated, value neutral experts is a technocratic conceit that corrupts democracy and disempowers ordinary citizens.”
 
What Is To Be Done?
​Shifting Focus from Markets to Debating the Common Good

“Thinking about pay, most would agree that what people make for this or that job often overstates or understates the true social value of the work they do. Only an ardent libertarian would insist that the wealthy casino magnate’s contribution to society is a thousand times more valuable than a pediatrician’s. The pandemic of 2020 prompted many to reflect, at least fleetingly, on the importance of the work performed by grocery store clerks, delivery workers, home care providers, and other essential but modestly paid workers.… In market-driven societies, interpreting material success as a sign of moral desert is a persisting temptation. It is a temptation we need repeatedly to resist. One way of doing so is to debate and enact measures that prompt us to reflect, deliberately and democratically, on what counts as truly valuable contributions to the common good and where market verdicts miss the mark.”

The Warmth of Other Suns (2010), by Isabel Wilkerson, chronicles the migration of blacks from the US South to the industrial North. After the Civil War, although slavery was outlawed, the condition of blacks was barely improved. They still were subservient to whites in employment and social status. They harvested cotton and other products for white owners and were barely paid for their efforts. If they were suspected of theft — even with no evidence — or of not being subservient enough they could be beaten or even lynched with impunity. What is called the Great Migration took place from about 1915 to 1970. Families escaped to northern cities primarily by train along three main routes that led to the Eastern Seaboard, to Chicago and California. “Over the course of six decades, some six million black southerners left the land of their forefathers and fanned out across the country for an uncertain existence in nearly every other corner of America. The Great Migration would become a turning point in history. It would transform urban America and recast the social and political order of every city it touched.” (Page 9)

Our March 1 discussion centered around the 2019 book We The Corporations, by Adam Winkler. The essential theme of the book is that over the years corporations gradually have gained more and more constitutional rights, and therefore greater power, posing a significant challenge to our democracy.
 
Corporations were originally stockholder monopolies granted exclusive rights by governments for specific public interest purposes. For example, the 13 colonies began as corporations. The corporations were authorized and regulated by charters that defined their scope and purpose and could be revoked if the corporation violated their terms. Business corporations, such as banks and insurance companies were rare. A corporation was considered a legal entity or “artificial person,” but not with the same rights as individuals: they only had the right to own property and enter into contracts.
 
In 1819, in the landmark case of Dartmouth College v. Woodword, the US Supreme Court ruled that states were prohibited from changing the charters of corporations, even when they purported to do so for the public good. After that, private corporations multiplied as investors gained greater confidence that corporate charters could not be revoked or altered by the government.
 
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (1868) was intended to give equal rights to newly freed slaves, but its provision that states cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” was successfully claimed by corporations to give them rights equal to individuals. In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause incorporated the principle of “liberty of contract,” which authorized courts to strike down a number of laws designed to protect workers on the theory that a statute couldn’t interfere with the right of workers and employers to enter into contracts, even though the bargaining power between the two were highly unequal.
 
Nonetheless, even the pro-business Supreme Court of the early 20th century distinguished between liberty rights and property rights, and held that corporations only had the latter. On that basis, the court concluded that corporations had no right to participate in politics, and upheld the Tillman Act enacted 1907, which prohibited corporations from contributing to candidates or political campaigns.
 
In 1916, in Dodge Brothers v Ford Motor Company, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the corporation’s primary duty is to its shareholders, and it was unlawful for the Ford Motor Company to withhold shareholder dividends for the sake of objectives unrelated to increasing corporate profit, such as maintaining a reserve fund for workers in case of a downturn.
 
In 1976, the court in Buckley v. Valeo declared that money is speech, and that the only valid restrictions on campaign contribution and spending are those that prevent corruption. In 1978, in First National Bank of Boston. v. Bellotti (1978) the court struck down a law that prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns related to certain ballot initiative, based on the theory that such contributions promoted the free flow of information protected by the First Amendment.

In the infamous Citizens United case of 2010 and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court struck down laws limiting donations of corporations to “independent” groups that try to influence elections. Donations were described by the court as “free speech,” and “corruption” was defined narrowly to include only quid pro quo contributions. Of course in reality there are no such independent groups, so this decision allowed almost unlimited corporate influence in elections. This ruling has led to huge increases in political spending groups trying to influence elections, growing corporate influence over politicians, and worsening economic inequality.
 
Nonetheless, there are a number of indications that some corporations are interested in promoting the public good. In 2019, the Business Roundtable issued a statement that that the “purpose of a corporation” should be not only to advance the interest of  its stockholders, but to invest in their employees, protect the environment, and deal fairly and ethically with other companies with which they interact. General Motors has pledged to stop manufacturing cars that run on gasoline within 15 years. In light of the recent events on January 6, a number of large corporations that see themselves as advocating corporate responsibility have pledged not to back politicians who voted to overturn the election results. Will corporate responsibility balance — or even exceed — corporate greed at some point? We will have to wait and see.

The topic of our February 1 meeting was Climate Change. We were honored to have the author of Brighter Climate Futures (2020), Dr. Hari Lamba, join us for our discussion. His book is highly recommended, as it gets into the details of how we can address this urgent problem. The essential theme of Dr. Lamba’s book is to provide a plan for how we can combat all aspects of climate change.
 
1)  Causes of Global Warming
 
Greenhouse gases concentrate in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun. There are three primary types of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and wood are the primary source of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. We pump 55 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. Human-caused sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for about 64%. Some of the sources are cement production, cows raised for dairy and meat. Food trash that is not composted also is a source. Sources of nitrous oxide are primarily the application of fertilizers in agriculture. Nitrous oxide has 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

3)  Ways to Mitigate the Problem
 
Solar energy is the most viable solution because it can be produced locally and cheaply and is non-polluting. Nuclear power is extremely expensive and results in dangerous waste. Geothermal energy sources can be viable for areas that are close to them. Hydrogen fuels cells already are being used for public transportation in many areas. Forests can be designed with fire breaks to prevent the spread of wildfires. As we move from fossil fuels, we need to include job training in these new industries for those who are threatened to lose their jobs. Because the US is only 5% of the world’s population, it is essential to support the rest of the world, especially developing nations, to get on board with converting to sustainable energy. Carbon sinks are natural areas that absorb carbon dioxide such as forests and coastal marshes. However many of these sinks have been affected by deforestation and other land use changes. Massive fires due to our warming atmosphere are destroying large areas and contributing more carbon into the atmosphere in areas such as California, Colorado, Australia, Siberia, Greece and Brazil. Such deforestation results in destructive mudslides when heavy rains come, further destabilizing natural areas that used to absorb carbon.
 
What we can do as individuals:

1. Install solar panels on our roofs.
2. Purchase energy-efficient appliances.
3. Compost our organic waste which otherwise would give off methane.
4. Travel in energy-efficient ways, like using trains in place of driving where possible.

 
For more information go to Dr. Lamba’s website www.brighterclimatefutures.com, or to 350.org.

Climate change image by Pete Linforth via Pixabay

On January 4, our discussion topic was “Democracy’s Dilemma.” We didn’t know, of course, about the events a couple of day later in DC that would punctuate that theme.
 
We started with a discussion of the book Unfree Speech, by Joshua Wong, a 25-year-old Hong Kong activist who has been imprisoned three times under the incrementally more oppressive pressure from China. Since our meeting, 50 additional democracy activists were arrested in a sweep. The “handover” between Britain and China for the administration of Hong Kong occurred in 1997, with assurances from China that Hong Kong would be allowed to continue functioning democratically. Anyone familiar with China’s record of systematic oppression would not have believed that, but it did take about 20 years for China to begin systematically removing democratic guarantees. As the book recounts, China’s “Great Leap Forward” resulted in the death of 30 million peasants from mass starvation, similar to Stalin’s program that imposed great hardship and mass death in the Soviet Union. We also can expect a gradually more aggressive stance from China toward its neighbors. The grand plan of Xi Jinping, who recently declared himself president for life, is to divide the world into two realms of influence, with him at the head of one hemisphere. Here is the headline from South China News on January 5:
 
In his first order of the new year to the country’s armed forces, Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed the need for “full-time combat readiness” and said the People’s Liberation Army must use frontline frictions to polish troop capabilities.
 
Michael Wong, and many others who still dare press for democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, like Jimmy Lai, who recently was seen in US newspapers being led to prison in shackles, have developed a courage and commitment to freedom. That comes from an understanding of what is required to keep one’s mind free despite having one’s future and life being at stake for not submitting to oppressive authority. It is similar to the commitment of a Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King to decide that maintaining human dignity is worth sacrificing one’s freedom. Most of us take our freedoms for granted as we go about our everyday lives, bothered only by our rather minor inconveniences. Imagine having every major aspect of your life determined by the loyalty you show to a government that you have no role in choosing.
 
Joe Biden has committed to “No More Coddling Dictators,” according to a December 7 New York Times article. Numerous countries have regressed from an original commitment to democracy over the last twenty years. These includes Russia, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, for only a partial list. Over the last four years, the US has lost its position as the main advocate for democracy by ignoring abuses in these and many other countries. We have chosen to leave alliances with other democratic countries which put pressure on dictators and would-be dictators who have, for the most part, been given free reign. In Egypt, human rights advocates recently were arrested while US aid in the billions continues. China, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries now know that they can engage in human rights abuses because of the US hands off policy. Finding the right type of pressure to apply is a challenge, but using economic sanctions, isolation, and other measures has been shown to work. We can hope that the Biden/Harris administration will return to working with our allies to pressure nations that violate human rights to begin respecting the rights of their own people.
 
Recently the Western members of the European Union have been withholding aid from Hungary and Poland due to reversals in their democratic direction. A compromise was reached to restore aid depending on the level of democratic reforms, but the current leaders of those countries are resistant to human rights initiatives, so the outcome still is to be seen. If a coalition is newly formed between the US and its allies it will be a signal to the leaders of countries that have been backtracking on democracy — and perhaps more importantly to their citizens — that the democratic nations of the world are on their side.
 
Reflections on a week like no other
 
We might look at those who invaded the US Capitol on January 6 as true believers who follow the directions of their leader without question. Lemmings will march in any direction they are told to go. But there’s a difference between protesting to express your concerns and rioting to oppress the views of others. Some of the rioters carried the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag of the American Revolution. But that revolution ultimately led to the right of people to choose their own leaders through elections; the recent riots aimed to subvert that right. This incident requires the strongest and quickest response possible to make clear that insurrection is no more acceptable now than it was during the American Civil War.
 
But we might also ask ourselves about our own roles in standing up for democracy. Do we give over our ideas about right and wrong to leaders we have decided to trust and therefore no longer question, or do we subject them to scrutiny? Do we let our politicians do our thinking for us, or work to come up with our own views about what makes democracy work? Do we believe what we are told by one source, or do we seek out multiple perspectives? Are we open to reexamining our views in light of new evidence? Democracy is endangered when independent thinking falls by the wayside.

On December 7, we discussed a proposal by Martin McIntyre titled: “One Human(e) Society.” The group had a mixed reaction to the ideas in the plan.

The essential idea behind this proposal is not to replace the governments of the world, but to establish direct communication about major issues by people over the Internet. Anyone over 15 could join but would need to agree to vote on two-thirds of the ideas proposed.

This proposal was at first created 50 years ago and then updated over the years when the Internet became widely available. Its intent is to enfranchise people around the world who otherwise believe they have no voice in the direction of their countries and the world.

Ideas for action would be brought by members and then voted on. Membership would be anonymous. The issues considered could be any that currently are affected — or neglected — by our governments. These might include areas such as human rights, environmental issues, health benefits, education, water rights, nuclear weapons, etc.

The hope is that if enough people would be willing to communicate in an international communication format like this it would have a number of benefits:
​

1. The society would encourage expression of views by many who now consider themselves disenfranchised, including minorities and young people.
2. It would allow those most disaffected by their domestic and foreign governments to directly state their views about possible solutions to their issues and the direction of their countries.
3. It would have the potential to lessen the likelihood of war by substituting communication among those most likely to be affected.
4. It would encourage those of different political backgrounds to communicate about issues directly rather than dwelling on partisanship or ideology.

Although the results would not be legally binding, they likely would have considerable influence on democratic governments who would have access to the views of a large group of individuals. Moral suasion — along with economic suasion such as boycotts — has worked to change policies such as apartheid in South Africa and poor treatment of farm workers in California.

Ideally, such a system would be conducted over its own dedicated internet network, but that would be expensive to set up, so the regular internet would probably have to suffice at the beginning. That could be subject to hackers, so a stable, hacker-free network could, it is hoped, be established.