There is a surfeit of talking “heads” [amorphous], preposterous columnists and Orphic theorists — evident in Rothkopf’s “Capitalism’s Challenge” appearing in Sun-Sentinel’s2/24/02 Outlook — unable to grasp the undercurrents of their thinking. How can American Capitalism share its wealth with the world when it is unable to do so at home? Spreading wealth without priority of values is not the same as the fulfilment of needs. Inflating the value of entrepreneurism, sports and entertainment creates an aristocracy — let them eat cake — threatening the common intelligence and worth of the populous.

The glorification of the software, home run and film kings, the contortionist dancer, the diva of the navel, the mind-numbing cacophonous instrumentalists, and inarticulate lyric writer are products of sinister marketing, the game plan of which is to inspire fanaticism and authoritarianism. A million dollars per TV episode to each leading yet supporting actor is not only an affront to the millions in need but sustains the necessary myth that this is a land of opportunity that glamorizes greed. The outrageous gap between corporate executives and workers is an acceptable practice precisely because of the conservative trend in a nation that has long forgotten rules of law and fair play displaced blatantly by the rules of the mythology of the rich and powerful.

The problem is not as much the unwillingness of the United States to share its wealth with other nations as it is for other nations to share their own wealth and free their people from political and religious oppression in order to set sail toward modernity. Had the Soviets followed the Marxist guidelines in truly liberating labor for domestic enhancement, it could have been a viable alternative. Had dictators like Castro, Hussein and Abdullah relinquished power and greed they could have made strides toward enlightened governance. Had King George III not been a nut case the United States would not have been born.

As for the domestic front, had not cold-hot wars, resistance to civil-rights, and corporate influence, side-tracked the natural continuum of the New-Fair Deals and the War on Poverty, this nation could have been the role model for compassionate justice en route to a global golden age. For Rothkopf to lionize Thatcher as the champion of a “nation of shareholders,” is to play right into the greedy hands of the economic determinists of the current administration — privatize all but the military. Is it presumptuous to define citizenship as ownership of a nation? Is not the vote a share? And are not the owners of a nation entitled to fair shares? Are not all owners entitled to health care, a roof over their heads, public education, a decent wage well above some arcane poverty line? “Mañana,” indeed, when it comes to the distribution of justice in our own country. Mañana, indeed, when the next stadium is built for greedy owners, deterring a slum clearing project. Mañana, indeed, when the next $30 million to a film star nibbles away at Title I or lunch programs. Mañana, indeed, when the next corporate tax write-off keeps shut the starting gate for a high speed railway system. Mañana, indeed, when the next tax break for the rich increases child labor overseas and reduces employment here.

The “end of history” is not in seeking answers; rather, it is revitalizing enlightenment of what we already know is right. It is not the next Marx or Ayatollah we have to worry about but rather the planet’s billions kept in ignorance and want by the few obsessed with power and greed.

See author's other works on lulu storefront

Welcome

Index 2

Joan's Page

Intro