Gabriel Kolko R.I.P.

[boneyard bill]

There are people, like myself, who graduated from Kent State University with a B. A. history but also went on to make a name for themselves by writing books about history. One of them was Gabriel Kolko. Kolko's most famous book was The Triumph of Conservatism. But for the socialist Kolko, when he uses the term "conservatism" he does not mean that movement of Republicans, disaffected Democrats, classical liberals, and America Firsters who rallied around Robert Taft following the Second World War. Nor does he mean those more cautious Presidents like Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge.

For Kolko, the "conservatism" that triumphed was the progressive movement which he argued was promoted and urged on by the large corporate interests in the US who were anxious to use government regulation to eliminate competition. It is the progressivism that still governs in the US today, and his later life Kolko dedicated himself to writing books about US foreign policy and its irrational drive to dominate the world. He was also a frequent contributor to CounterPunch online magazine.

http://wn.com/gabriel_kolko

Click above for an online obituary and various interviews.

 

[boneyard bill]

There are people, like myself, who graduated from Kent State University with a B. A. history but also went on to make a name for themselves by writing books about history. One of them was Gabriel Kolko. Kolko's most famous book was The Triumph of Conservatism. But for the socialist Kolko, when he uses the term "conservatism" he does not mean that movement of Republicans, disaffected Democrats, classical liberals, and America Firsters who rallied around Robert Taft following the Second World War. Nor does he mean those more cautious Presidents like Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge.

For Kolko, the "conservatism" that triumphed was the progressive movement which he argued was promoted and urged on by the large corporate interests in the US who were anxious to use government regulation to eliminate competition. It is the progressivism that still governs in the US today, and his later life Kolko dedicated himself to writing books about US foreign policy and its irrational drive to dominate the world. He was also a frequent contributor to CounterPunch online magazine.

http://wn.com/gabriel_kolko

Click above for an online obituary and various interviews.

We've had 56 views on this thread but no responses. I posted it as an obituary but perhaps that was a mistake as I intended for it to be more controversial than that. Kolko was a socialist but also a historian. When he began to study the Progressive Era, he concluded that the primary force behind the progressive movement was big business itself. Corporate America was behind the demands that corporate America be regulated. Kolko concluded that the real point of regulation was not to protect the consumer but to protect big business from unregulated competition. By increasing the cost of entry into a particular enterprise, small competitors could be kept out.

This isn't an issue I haven't raised before. Teddy Roosevelt, after all, was a Long Island aristocrat with very close ties to J.P. Morgan. Taft was TR's hand-picked successor. Woodrow Wilson was recruited by Wall Street figures to run for Governor of New Jersey and was being groomed for a presidential run. TR didn't think Taft was progressive enough so he ran a third-party campaign against him allowing Wilson to run. Harding and Coolidge are a little more ambiguous due to the brokered convention in 1920, but Hoover was proud to proclaim the progressive label and openly advocated the cartelization of industry. FDR was a Wall Street lawyer from the very beginning, and while he spouted the same anti-business rhetoric as his Republican cousin, his policies were not anti-big business however much they may have impeded small business.

But Kolko's point, if I understand it correctly, isn't that the progressive movement was co-opted by the big business and financial interests. His point was they those interests created the movement. Those people interested in promoting income equality and helping the plight of poor people have simply been exploited by big business through the progressive movement.

Of course, in his later life Kolko abandoned socialism as well. Marxism didn't work and the soft socialism of a Tony Blair was little more than the progressive delusion all over again. Still, he remained a man of the Left so he was left with an idea but without a program.

Is that why Americans of the left continue to support progressivism? Are they left with no where to go?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't think this is that controversial. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world¹. The main error you make is citing it as a wholly progressive issue. It's a power issue that runs deep within our system. Anyone who wants to win a powerful position must cozy up with corporate interests. I mean look at Mitt Romney and tell me he was an outsider to this system. Isn't this what Ayn Rand's novels are about: big business using government for it's own purposes? Even House of Cards uses this as a plot device.

You are also making the mistake of equating the historical progressive movement with socialism. Granted they did share some platforms that were radical in their day: women voting, collective ownership of natural resources (such as forests and parks), opposition to child labor, workplace safety but the progressives were not socialists (although they were labeled socialists by their opponents). They also supported many th not so controversial platforms that are controversial today: the gold standard, universal healthcare, a strong navy, balanced budget, and imperialism.

Also, beware of modern punditry. they use they term "progressivist" as derogatory label as most conservative viewers have no idea of what the progressivists actually stand for (Hint: there have been no post WWII Democratic progressivists elected to the presidency. Obama could best be described as a New Democrat, but I suspect he is somewhat of a Blue Dog.)

None of this is controversial, and if you are shocked by how much corporate interests influence government, I recommend you take a more objective non-partisan look at the influence of people like the Koch Bros. David Koch does do a lot of good in this world, but it is overshadowed by his dark room political influence. Remember when the Tea Party started and many were duped into believing it was a grassroots libertarian movement? Surely you've noticed that the Tea Party often opposes libertarian ideals when it displeases their masters? Have you not noticed how they change their tune quickly after making statements that might undermine their support from these individuals? Have you noticed that they rant about small government but are willing to give these interests billions of dollars in corporate welfare? Why deny climate change when we could encourage new industries in solar and wind? Could it be that embracing climate change hurts profits or may provide these industries with competition? No look across the aisle.

So in conclusion, the ideas put out are not new or controversial. It is the way business gets done. The dirty, sickening way business gets done in America.


__________________
¹Plagiarized from Cool Cal.

 

[boneyard bill]

Nice Squirrel writes:

I don't think this is that controversial. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world¹. The main error you make is citing it as a wholly progressive issue. It's a power issue that runs deep within our system. Anyone who wants to win a powerful position must cozy up with corporate interests. I mean look at Mitt Romney and tell me he was an outsider to this system. Isn't this what Ayn Rand's novels are about: big business using government for it's own purposes? Even House of Cards uses this as a plot device.

Business is one thing and free enterprise is quite another. Fascism advocated business, but it was opposed to free enterprise. The same is true of progressivism. It exists to promote the interests of big business against the interests of the people. In a free enterprise system the government is neutral. So progressives demanded regulation of business, supposedly in the interests of protecting consumers. But big business knew very well that they would be able to control the regulators so they pushed for the creation of regulatory state, not to protect consumers, but to protect themselves against up and coming competitors.

As for Ayn Rand's novels, it was VILLAINS who were using government to aid their businesses. It was the truly creative people who didn't seek government protection who chose to drop out and bring the system to a halt.

You are also making the mistake of equating the historical progressive movement with socialism. Granted they did share some platforms that were radical in their day: women voting, collective ownership of natural resources (such as forests and parks), opposition to child labor, workplace safety but the progressives were not socialists (although they were labeled socialists by their opponents). They also supported many th not so controversial platforms that are controversial today: the gold standard, universal healthcare, a strong navy, balanced budget, and imperialism.

There is both a broad and a loose definition of socialism. Most "socialist" parties of Europe today, for example, do not argue for socialization, or even government ownership, of industry. Kolko classified himself as a socialist. I don't know if he was using the broad or the strict definition of the term. Most likely he's speaking broadly since he includes both Lenin and Tony Blair in his classification. But my point is that Kolko is a man of the left, and he studied progressivism from the point of view of the left and concluded that there was nothing leftist about it, and that included nothing leftist about its origins. It was, and still is, a scam. It claims to be a movement for the common people when, in fact, it is system designed by the elites for the elites.

Also, beware of modern punditry. they use they term "progressivist" as derogatory label as most conservative viewers have no idea of what the progressivists actually stand for (Hint: there have been no post WWII Democratic progressivists elected to the presidency. Obama could best be described as a New Democrat, but I suspect he is somewhat of a Blue Dog.)

I don't think you're claim can be justified by any reasonable reference to the historical record. LBJ's Great Society clearly fit within the progressive agenda as does Obamacare. Big business supported all of these things. They also supported environmentalism and feminism and are aggressively pushing for immigration reform including amnesty for illegal aliens.

None of this is controversial, and if you are shocked by how much corporate interests influence government, I recommend you take a more objective non-partisan look at the influence of people like the Koch Bros. David Koch does do a lot of good in this world, but it is overshadowed by his dark room political influence. Remember when the Tea Party started and many were duped into believing it was a grassroots libertarian movement? Surely you've noticed that the Tea Party often opposes libertarian ideals when it displeases their masters? Have you not noticed how they change their tune quickly after making statements that might undermine their support from these individuals? Have you noticed that they rant about small government but are willing to give these interests billions of dollars in corporate welfare? Why deny climate change when we could encourage new industries in solar and wind? Could it be that embracing climate change hurts profits or may provide these industries with competition? No look across the aisle.

The Koch brothers are two rich people among a hoard of rich people, and they aren't doing anything different that what many politically-involved rich people do. Look at Tom Steyer. He's promising to raise $100 million for the Democratic Party. Half of it will come from his own pocket. Look at George Soros and Warren Buffet. They also contribute and help raise big money for Democrats.

Sheldon Adelson spent $90 million in the last election. Most of it went to Republicans but only people he deemed to be sufficient pro-Israel so he gets little criticism from the media.

The idea that libertarians were somehow duped into supported Tea Party candidates is nonsense. Libertarians are well aware of who is libertarian and who is not. If they supported a Tea Party candidate, it was because that candidate satisfied them on non-Tea Party issues.

Have you actually looked into how Tea Party members of Congress have voted on corporate welfare? Have you checked out how ANY congressmen have voted on corporate welfare? It was mostly Republicans who voted against TARP and Democrats overwhelming supported it., although the Tea Party hadn't been created then. I think if you actually check out the votes, you'll find that Democrats are pretty solidly behind corporate welfare, and Tea Partiers are the ones leading the fight against it.

Al Gore was one of the guys who had a ton of money invested in carbon credits. So he stood to gain as much as anyone from passage of carbon credits, but I imagine that there were lots of big business who had similar investments. As for solar power, check out Solyndra and tell me how much money was to be made there. Even with their subsidies, they couldn't begin to make solar panels for less than we can import them from China.

But the big reason Tea Partiers, and Republicans, and Libertarians, and anyone else who has bothered to study the facts, don't support global warming legislation is because the whole thing is a scam. And its a scam by oil company people! Al Gore only divested himself of his interest in Occidental Petroleum shortly before he ran for president. The creator of the IPCC, Maurice Strong, was an oil company executive. The current head of the IPCC, Pachauri, is a former oil company executive.

So in conclusion, the ideas put out are not new or controversial. It is the way business gets done. The dirty, sickening way business gets done in America.

So why would anyone want to be a progressive under those circumstances? The last thing you should want is for big business to be writing the regulations that are supposed to restrain big business. The first thing you should want to do is repeal those regulations that they have written.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Business is one thing and free enterprise is quite another. Fascism advocated business, but it was opposed to free enterprise. The same is true of progressivism.

Really? You wanted people to respond seriously?

As for Ayn Rand's novels, it was VILLAINS who were using government to aid their businesses. It was the truly creative people who didn't seek government protection who chose to drop out and bring the system to a halt.

No shit Sherlock. It was a common Russian theme: she just adapted novels she read as a youngster of the hero bureaucrat fighting corruption in the Czarist government. They were quite popular. She just adapted them to the United States.

I'm not going to address the rest.

 

[ksen]

The first thing you should want to do is repeal those regulations that they have written.

Like which ones? Anything specific?

Should we start by repealing child labor or workplace safety regulations? How about food safety regulations? Maybe remove some more financial regulations since that's worked out pretty good so far?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ksen: Only those ones opposed by big business and the irony meter industry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Getting rid of net neutrality was the best thing ever. Since that regulation was x'd by SCOTUS, competition has increased, prices have dropped, and quality has increased.

 

[boneyard bill]

Really? You wanted people to respond seriously?

As for Ayn Rand's novels, it was VILLAINS who were using government to aid their businesses. It was the truly creative people who didn't seek government protection who chose to drop out and bring the system to a halt.

No shit Sherlock. It was a common Russian theme: she just adapted novels she read as a youngster of the hero bureaucrat fighting corruption in the Czarist government. They were quite popular. She just adapted them to the United States.

I'm not going to address the rest.

It was Kolko who claimed that big business was behind the progressive movement not me. (Although I have made the point elsewhere). He's the guy who researched the subject enough to write a book about it, but there was a good deal of more superficial evidence all along. It's never been a secret that the National Recovery Administration was modeled on Mussolini's fascism, and that big business was in support of it.

Ayn Rand's novels were hardly about bureaucrats fighting the government.

 

[boneyard bill]

The first thing you should want to do is repeal those regulations that they have written.

Like which ones? Anything specific?

Should we start by repealing child labor or workplace safety regulations? How about food safety regulations? Maybe remove some more financial regulations since that's worked out pretty good so far?

Personally, I would begin with regulations that give the government the continuing power to regulate the economy since they have shown little ability to do so and there is no reason, even in theory, why they should be able to do so even if you could take the politics out of it which, of course, you would never be able to do.

Then I would attack those regulations which most inhibit competition since competition IS a regulator and much more efficient and less politicized on that you get from Washington. Then I would look at others that are just stupid like the ones that tell us how large are flush toilets can be or that require us to use fluorescent light bulbs. Although this latter one is clearly special interest regulation intended to benefit General Electric. So all of those types need to be looked into.

So that's where I'd start. I'm not sure where I'd finish.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Based on the logic presented here, our interstate highways were based on Nazi designs. Republicans supported building these highways therefore Conservatives are all HITLER LOVERS!!!!!

Ayn Rand's novels were hardly about bureaucrats fighting the government.

No, her work was based off those novels. That is what "adapted" means.

 

[ksen]

The first thing you should want to do is repeal those regulations that they have written.

Like which ones? Anything specific?

Should we start by repealing child labor or workplace safety regulations? How about food safety regulations? Maybe remove some more financial regulations since that's worked out pretty good so far?

Personally, I would begin with regulations that give the government the continuing power to regulate the economy since they have shown little ability to do so and there is no reason, even in theory, why they should be able to do so even if you could take the politics out of it which, of course, you would never be able to do.

Then I would attack those regulations which most inhibit competition since competition IS a regulator and much more efficient and less politicized on that you get from Washington. Then I would look at others that are just stupid like the ones that tell us how large are flush toilets can be or that require us to use fluorescent light bulbs. Although this latter one is clearly special interest regulation intended to benefit General Electric. So all of those types need to be looked into.

So that's where I'd start. I'm not sure where I'd finish.

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Of course he has been following these issues with great intent. Can you feel the oppression of lower utility bills!!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The first thing you should want to do is repeal those regulations that they have written.

Like which ones? Anything specific?

Should we start by repealing child labor or workplace safety regulations? How about food safety regulations? Maybe remove some more financial regulations since that's worked out pretty good so far?

Personally, I would begin with regulations that give the government the continuing power to regulate the economy since they have shown little ability to do so and there is no reason, even in theory, why they should be able to do so even if you could take the politics out of it which, of course, you would never be able to do.

Could you please point out the swell economic times between 1860 and 1930 when regulations didn't much exist at all?

Then I would attack those regulations which most inhibit competition since competition IS a regulator and much more efficient and less politicized on that you get from Washington.

That just sounds so bullish to me. SCOTUS killed Net Neutrality and in libertarian theory, the world is right, yet Comcast immediately sought to squash their competition.

Then I would look at others that are just stupid like the ones that tell us how large are flush toilets can be or that require us to use fluorescent light bulbs.

You do realize parts of the nation are in a severe drought, right? You do also realize it costs money to process wastewater. If toilets can work with 1/4 the water, they probably should. People like you think sustainability is a four letter word.

So that's where I'd start. I'm not sure where I'd finish.

Probably economic ruin.

 

[Jarhyn]

So he doesn't like having regulations that reduce our social opportunity cost... We have a budget, and if we ever want to get out of here, particularly before our planet is wrecked by things out of our control, we need to have the resources to accomplish it. Burning all our high energy density primary fuels is a good way to get stuck here. Using all our easily available fresh water to flush massive amounts of shit that are generally the basis for complaints over flush capacity means having less to DRINK, and we need more people because more brains with more time means more solutions to problems.

 

[boneyard bill]

Based on the logic presented here, our interstate highways were based on Nazi designs. Republicans supported building these highways therefore Conservatives are all HITLER LOVERS!!!!!

Ayn Rand's novels were hardly about bureaucrats fighting the government.

No, her work was based off those novels. That is what "adapted" means.

Designing a highway is hardly the same thing as designing an economy. In fact, the real problem is that an economy cannot be designed which is something that statists the world over and for all time have never figured out. Often they have actually wound up killing a lot of people in their vain efforts to force it to work.

 

[boneyard bill]

The first thing you should want to do is repeal those regulations that they have written.

Like which ones? Anything specific?

Should we start by repealing child labor or workplace safety regulations? How about food safety regulations? Maybe remove some more financial regulations since that's worked out pretty good so far?

Personally, I would begin with regulations that give the government the continuing power to regulate the economy since they have shown little ability to do so and there is no reason, even in theory, why they should be able to do so even if you could take the politics out of it which, of course, you would never be able to do.

Then I would attack those regulations which most inhibit competition since competition IS a regulator and much more efficient and less politicized on that you get from Washington. Then I would look at others that are just stupid like the ones that tell us how large are flush toilets can be or that require us to use fluorescent light bulbs. Although this latter one is clearly special interest regulation intended to benefit General Electric. So all of those types need to be looked into.

So that's where I'd start. I'm not sure where I'd finish.

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

It is quite obvious that the inference you have drawn here is not valid from the content of my post. So why do you waste my time and yours forcing me to point out the obvious?

 

[boneyard bill]

Jimmy Higgins writes:

Could you please point out the swell economic times between 1860 and 1930 when regulations didn't much exist at all?

You mean it has to be pointed out to you? How about electricity, the light bulb, moving pictures, the internal combustion engine that led to automobiles and airplanes, the rise of the petroleum industry, radios, telephones. There just isn't enough room in cyberspace to write it all down. Meanwhile, how many people were dying of food poisoning from drinking raw milk or eating uninspected vegetables. Somehow we survived without all those government inspectors and we didn't even have much refrigeration in those days. The refrigerator has probably saved more lives than all those government inspectors put together. Are the inspectors even better than nothing. They make mistakes all the time. Who inspects the inspectors?

 

[boneyard bill]

So he doesn't like having regulations that reduce our social opportunity cost... We have a budget, and if we ever want to get out of here, particularly before our planet is wrecked by things out of our control, we need to have the resources to accomplish it. Burning all our high energy density primary fuels is a good way to get stuck here. Using all our easily available fresh water to flush massive amounts of shit that are generally the basis for complaints over flush capacity means having less to DRINK, and we need more people because more brains with more time means more solutions to problems.

If there's one shortage I would agree on, it's that we don't, and never will, have enough fossil fuels to evacuate the planet. So I think we're stuck here in any case if we expect to depend upon fossil fuels. The problem with flush toilets is that the DON'T flush! You have to flush them three times to get them to empty. I see plungers in restaurants and other public rest rooms these days. You never saw them in the past because there was rarely a need for them. These small tanks don't save water at all. They make you use more. Gee, could that be why the manufacturers designed the larger tanks to begin with?

 

[ksen]

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

It is quite obvious that the inference you have drawn here is not valid from the content of my post. So why do you waste my time and yours forcing me to point out the obvious?

Probably because I asked you for specific regulations you'd do away with and the only specific things you mentioned had to do with toilets and light bulbs. Everything else you mentioned was the usual, generic, right-wing pap. And honestly the toilet and light bulb things are favorite bugaboos always talked about by the Right as well.

I guess I can ask you again: What specific regulations would you do away with?