Michael Parenti, \'Wealth and Want

¶ … Michael Parenti, 'Wealth and Want in the United States', begins with a reminder that when most people talk about the political system in the U.S., few of them mention the word "capitalism." At least not in public, and Parenti is on target in that observation. Many people today, young and old, have forgotten that the premise of the United States, of the U.S. Constitution, is to ensure that people have the right to conduct free enterprise in the United States. Those people who today complain about the "corporate greed" of America, would do well to be reminded of the original American war cry, "No taxation without representation." One of interpretation, and one in keeping with the tone of Parenti's article, is -leave us alone to make money, as much money as we can, so that we can acquire wealth - and enjoy it (the pursuit of happiness) - through free enterprise. and, for person who overlooks that America is indeed the capitalist capital of the world, Parenti continues on make the distinction between "the owing class" and the working class. The distinction, for Parenti, is quite simple: The owning class is comprised of the wealthy Americans who run business and industry, and the others are those who labor under the direction of the owning class to bring the merchant ship into port, so to speak.

Parenti gives mention to those corporate shareholders, but distinguishes them from the owning class; and he briefly explores the other class levels; the sports millionaires, the entertainment moguls and stars, and top business executives, who make the decisions for the day-to-day tedium associated with the "owning class'" merchant ships; nothing that these class levels often times have surplus wealth; again, an astute observation. In keeping with the merchant ship concept, Parenti notes that members of the owning class are defined when they either have enough wealth that it excludes them from the hands on labor involved to generate that wealth on behalf of the business that they own; or when your labor generates the wealth, or income, of someone who does not perform the labor such that they are financially benefiting from your labor (never mind that the owning class has to cut what are called paychecks). "Hard work," Parenti notes, "seldom makes anyone rich."

Donald Trump would no doubt send Parenti out as having failed at learning the fine art of becoming a millionaire, because it does indeed require hard work. The many class levels that Parenti cites as having acquired wealth through sports and the arts, would probably beg to differ with Parenti on the suggestion that hard work does not lead to wealth. That is, of course, the second thing that America is about, is that which draws millions - not thousands - but millions of applications to immigrate to the United States each month - not year, but month.

The secret of wealth," Parenti continues, "is to have others work for you." He espouses this idea as if though he is kicking it around to see how it fits him personally. At this early point in the essay one is really wondering where he's going with these observation, especially since his thesis was vague. There is, the thought comes up for this reader, the possibility that he going to begin a socialist or communist rant at some point. It will, in fact, be difficult to read further if he invokes the names of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx (everyone knows how that story turned out).

Parenti continues on, quoting Adam Smith, who in 1776 said:

Labor... is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only."

This is important, because it was crediting the American working class with for the wealth of the owning class; though not quite sharing it with them, as Parenti goes on to note. He says that the value paid to the worker - do we hear socialism? - is but a fraction of that profited by the owner. This is true, if you think in terms, as Pareti apparently does, of the economy of the product by way of the labor investment, sans the accounting processes. That is, sans the cost of materials purchased to be labored upon; the cost of the performance of the labor by way of tools, electricity, and, of course, water cooler time, lunch and beaks; and the other costs that the manufacturer must invest in and pay inn order for the working class to be employed in his craft or skill.

Workers employed by Intel and Exxon," Parenti informs us, "received only about one ninth of the value they created." This is probably true, and although Parenti does not offer or present the formula by which he made this astounding calculation, it sounds, off the top of one's head, that he is close if you consider the profit value of the product vs. The pay incentive made to the employee who created the product. Parenti does not even mention expensing, accrual, or penalties and offsets. He does go on to clarify this as the "value going to the owner," whatever that means.

It was the simplicity of this kind of economics - bad economics - that gave rise to the socialist revolution in Russia. Take a people during an economic hardship, when their "value" fails to keep pace with inflation and the other free enterprise that lives off their value; and you have the socialism that Parenti is no doubt heading for in his discussion in this article.

Before he get there, suffice to say that he is not altogether wrong; but he is very wrong nonetheless, and if any part of statement is false, logic dictates, then the entire statement is false.

He goes on to discuss the exploitation of workers - but fails to mention, too, health care benefits - and the cost of drug and alcohol in the benefit is an enormous cost to the employer, and often a carve-out these days that is nearly 100% employer contribution; vacations, sick days, family planning days, and state and federal holidays. He fails to realize, too that opportunity is what America is about. Each of these workers he complains of being exploited, have the opportunity, the right, to rise above their level of class, their level of exploitedness, and to pursue the requirements, socially, academically or otherwise, that would provide them the knowledge, credibility, and skills to either perform work where they can be the level of class that allows them to exploit those who do not rise above that circumstance; or they can choose to remain in that level of exploitation.