The Best Propaganda Is Subtle And DeepSHORT TAKES: Amazon Makes “The Dirty Dozen” Again; Oh, Yeah: Bernie Re-Ups Biden's Bezos Promise
[Perhaps obvious: I’m running behind on keeping a regular newsletter schedule. Too many irons in the fire, friends, and the bills need to be paid] LONG TAKEIf you are, with my condolences, a consumer of social media and a full menu of traditional media blather (The New York Times and cable news, for example), you get a daily big dose of propaganda. A big slice of propaganda is the obvious: loud sloganeering, name-calling and the “both sides” dutiful transcribing of press releases that ninety percent of of “journalists” engage in. To my mind, most of that garbage is more entertainment and amusing in its shallowness—and it is much less effective propaganda. The most effective propaganda is subtle and fulfills the definition of “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” It’s information that is passed along as if it is as true as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It becomes part of the background, accepted as part of the dialogue without challenge. And it is this propaganda that shapes the public debate and is the foundation for the more unvarnished obvious propaganda. Here, in one classic example a few days ago, is the entire picture to today’s rumination: “Progressive and export-dependent: Oregon is a test for Democrats on trade”. The first two paragraphs and a third one just a bit later are all you need to read in this bad piece of journalism:
And:
This is very effective propaganda. The reason it’s effective propaganda is not simply that it asserts false ideas as if they were true. It’s that this is propaganda that has been embedded in the national conversation for well over four decades and it has shaped bad economic policy precisely because the words used are rarely challenged, the words and concepts are accepted as reality by a very wide spectrum and, most harmful, the words, then, filter down and influence political views and political alliances. Here’s what I mean. Take this sentence: “The state’s economy is highly dependent on free trade and yet its progressive-leaning voters are typically skeptical of its benefits.” The point of the sentence is (a) to tell the reader how important free trade is and (b) that free trade’s “obvious” benefits are not apparent to progressives. Where do I begin? There is no such thing as “free trade”. And my readers will note that I assiduously always refer to “so-called ‘free trade’”. Free trade may never have existed in the real world, in the way that the 19th Century economic David Ricardo conceived of it—I’ve actually read his theory, which obviously the writer of this piece did not or he simply does not understand Ricardo. Ricardo’s world of “free trade”, and its underlying concept of “comparative advantage”, existed at a time when capital could not move around the globe in the way it can today in the blink of an eye. A true free trade agreement could be written in one page—drop all tariffs. Period. Instead, every single “so-called” free trade agreement stretching back decades are huge documents, filled with exceptions and protections (protections! I’ll come back to that) for capital, most notably, rigid rules over patens and copyrights. Rather than “so-called free trade”, every trade deal is a very carefully MANAGED trade agreement. Not “free” at all. “Free trade” is a marketing phrase. Who doesn’t like something that is “free” and who doesn’t like to “trade”. It all sounds nice and tidy. Except that “so-called” free trade is an underpinning of the very supply chain global economy that, at heart, is simply about one thing, and one thing only: empowering corporations to exploit people by paying the lowest wage possible anywhere in the world. Which leads me to the other propaganda elements: “progressive-leaning voters are typically skeptical of its benefits” and “they will begin to reconcile House Democrats’ more protectionist trade measures”. You see, once you’ve set up the idea that “free trade is a wonderful thing”, then, anyone who isn’t enamored with the idea—which, doesn’t exist, remember—is just backward, a loser, not serious and, god forbid, “protectionist”. By tarring people who oppose something that doesn’t exist (yes, that is as absurd as it sounds) the entire conversation, then, blocks out, deletes, and obfuscates the actual deep harm to tens of millions of people around the globe. This has been the entire dynamic of the conversation harkening back to the debate over the original North American Free Trade Agreement—the people who were for NAFTA (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Robert Reich, liberals, corporate executives) were “forwarding-looking” people unafraid of the future versus the unwashed “protectionist” masses (represented by unions, among others) who were cowards. This is the principle reason I often say Bill Clinton gave us Donald Trump, and Clinton was a disaster for the working class supporters of the Democratic Party who, understandably, over time, abandoned the party—and I would argue you can trace that dam breaking with the passage of NAFTA. To be sure, there’s plenty of racism at play here as well and it is deeply toxic to wrap “Make America Great Again” in the same sentence as an anti-NAFTA critique. But, it explains very clearly why people feel they have no home in the Democratic Party. SHORT TAKESAmazon Makes “The Dirty Dozen” Again Three words tell you a core story about the so-called “free market”: “Workers Memorial Week”. In a moral world, people would make enough money to live a decent life, billionaires would not exist and profits wouldn’t be drenched in the blood of workers who are killed and injured at work because of the insatiable pursuit of profits to line the pockets of greedy CEOs. But, we don’t live in that world. So, each year, at the end of April, Workers Memorial Week is a moment to observe the lives lost, and the even bigger toll of injury and illness that is, in the corporate suites, just a cost of doing business. Each year, the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (NATIONAL COSH) unveils its annual Dirty Dozen—the employers who stand out in their ruthlessness and callousness when it comes to safety on the job. And, drumroll, please: not surprisingly, Amazon is at the top of the list—making its third appearance. Because one key way for the immoral Jeff Bezos to own a $500- million, 417-foot mega-yacht, a $175-million estate in Beverly Hills, a $78-million, 14-acre estate in Maui, a $23-million mansion in Washington, DC with 25 bathrooms and, of course, a rocket ship is to exploit workers. Even if he kills them along the way. Details:
The rest of the list of despicable companies:
Bernie Re-Ups Biden’s Bezos Promise Speaking of Amazon. Perhaps having the benefit of an elephant-like memory, Bernie Sanders reminded Joe Biden that as a candidate for president, he, Biden:
So, Sanders wants to hold Biden to his promise when it comes to Amazon. Per a floor speech Sanders made on April 26th, he called on Biden to deny any federal contracts to Amazon because of the company’s virulent anti-union behavior, particularly during the recent successful organizing effort at Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse. The key pieces of the argument:
AND:
Alas, that promise is probably sitting alongside the commitment to cancel student debt… |
