A Look at Life Under a Capitalist Democracy: A Passage and A Breakdown

"'Democracy with its motto of equality of all citizens before the law and Liberalism with its right of man over his own person both were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economy,' [Rudolf] Rocker correctly observed.  Those who are compelled to rent themselves to owners of capital in order to survive are deprived of one of the most fundamental rights: the right to productive, creative and fulfilling work under one's own control, in solidarity with others.  And under the ideological constraints on capitalist democracy, the prime necessity is to satisfy the needs of those in a position to make investment decisions; if their demands are not satisfied, there will be no production, no work, no social services, no means for survival.  All necessarily subordinate themselves and their interests to the overriding need to serve the interests of the owners and managers of society, who, furthermore, with their control over resources are easily able to shape the ideological system (the media, schools, universities, and so on) in the interests, to determine the basic conditions within which the political process will function, its parameters and basic agenda, and to call upon the resources of state violence, when need be, to suppress any challenge to entrenched power.  The point was formulated succinctly in the early days of the liberal democratic revolution by John Jay, the President of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: 'The people who own the country ought to govern it.'  And, of course, they do, whatever political faction may be in power.  Matters could hardly be otherwise when economic power is narrowly concentrated and the basic decisions over the nature and character of life, the investment decisions, are in principle removed from democratic control." (From Chomsky on Anarchism, 2005)


In other words:

"Democracy believes in the equality of all citizens.  Liberalism (the intellectual idea) believes human beings were entitled the right to their own person (i.e., they could not be slaves).  Both of these ideals do not hold true under capitalism."  If a person is forced to (or else starve/lose their home) work for a minimum wage (sell their labor/time) they are deprived of the right to live (or to work in) a productive and creative job that makes them happy, and makes the people they collaborate with happy as well.  Under capitalist democracy (this is what we experience in 2019), the main motive is to make sure that the bosses and owners are happy.  If the bosses and owners are not happy, there is no work, no support for people who need it, essentially no survival.  With this being the case, everyone who is not a boss must submit to the whims of the rich and powerful, and since the rich and powerful have so much wealth they can shape what the media, schools, and universities teach and don't teach.  (Where are the classes in labor organizing?  In making sure that the thing you do for a living is well-paid, meaningful, and not subject to dumb rules?)  Because the rich literally own the media, they get to determine what is talked about and not talked about in political discourse.  And remember, because the rich control so much wealth they also control the police, prison, court systems, and armies and will use them to make sure they are not threatened by people who do not have money.  John Jay, an influential person in the foundation of this country, said, "The people who own the country should rule it."  And, of course, this is true, no matter if a Democrat or Republican is in office.  When wealth and power are held in the hands of the few the basic decisions of how society should function is removed from democratic control.  When wealth and power are held in the hands of the few, some lives matter more than others.  When wealth and power are held in the hands of the few, most of the people struggle to survive.  When wealth and power are held in the hands of the few, it's okay, no, it's important that we begin to ask if and how another world could become possible.

To Serve or Not to Serve

I thought about not serving him.  I thought about asking him politely to leave.  I thought about calling in the comrades to disrupt his entire afternoon.  Instead, I provided excellent service – refilling his diet coke twice and bringing out his fish sandwich with a smile. 

               Former interim President of Michigan State University (MSU), John Engler, came into the restaurant where I worked in the fall of 2018.  I was having a slow-paced and fine Saturday afternoon when the giant man strolled in and took a table in my section.  My stomach dropped and I began to see red.  I texted my dad because I knew he could talk me down.

               I worked at the kind of establishment that serves the rich – a haven for those with enough wealth to segregate themselves from the general public.  I used to tell myself I was researching the lives of the rich or I was a radical spy gathering intel, but the truth is the paychecks were large and they fed me great food.

               I served Engler and his two guests, but behind the bar I was writing down a statement, “As a hospitality professional I am obligated to give you excellent service.  As an MSU student I am obligated to tell you I do not support your treatment of survivors or your continued presence in the MSU community.”  I went into the service area and practiced it under my breath.  If I had had the courage to go say those words I would’ve been chewed out, possibly fired, or at worst, endangered my teaching certification if Engler wanted to retaliate.

               “Everyone is someone…if he was a Nazi, then you could tell your boss you can’t serve him on principle.”  My dad’s words calmed me down as I expected, or possibly hoped– they reminded me that Engler is not a Nazi and therefore is worthy of human dignity.  Regardless, I would be false if I didn’t admit that I wasn’t ready to risk my teaching certification.

               I faced riot cops and Nazis at the MSU Pavilion earlier that year when Richard Spencer tried to speak.  I had posted #FireEngler on Twitter and even hung a few posters on campus, but when I faced Engler in my bar that Saturday I chose not to resist.

               Perhaps I should have - he certainly has done enough to warrant his afternoon lunches to be disrupted.  His slandering of survivors has finally brought about his firing – the chickens have come home to roost.

               Everyone is someone, but not everyone deserves a quiet meal in public.  Nonetheless, I caved under the risk of confronting the interim president of my university as he ate lunch.  I served John Engler better than he served the MSU community.

               So what is the threshold for confronting evil?  To what extent are we willing to risk our positions and our careers in order to challenge injustice?  What social and institutional norms enforce complacency, if not corroboration, in an unjust world?  How do we preserve our integrity when working in these alienating environments?

               This past year at MSU taught me first hand that the rich and powerful serve themselves and those that can benefit them in the pyramid scheme of American politics.  In order to make this world a more just, peaceful, and equitable place we will need to confront those in power vigilantly and strategically; but more importantly we must be prepared to take the risks required of us when acting in solidarity.