← Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:20]
A
Welcome friends to another edition of Economic Update, a weekly program devoted to the economic dimensions of of our lives and those of our children. I'm your host, Richard Wolff. A few quick announcements at the beginning. Our every other month presentation called Global Capitalism will take place on Wednesday, November 12th at Women Building up in Brooklyn, New York. You are cordially invited and if you'd like to attend and find out more about it, please go to our website www.democracyatwork.infoglobalcap and you'll find out all you need there. Secondly, if you have not yet checked the material we keep posting every day up on our substack, please make that information available to yourself. It's very easy. You go to democracyatwork substack and it'll be all available to you there. I want to remind you of the book Understanding Capitalism that is also available at our website. That is a good companion to this program by giving you much more in depth arguments about capitalism than we have time for here. And finally, Charlie Fabian, our wonderful volunteer who takes your comments, suggestions and criticisms@charlie.info 438gmail.com I also have a sad duty to tell you that there are lots of fake videos of me making presentations of various kinds all over the Internet. I am not alone in this situation. It is happening to other people. I was recently talking to Jeffrey Sachs, whose work many of you I know follow, a professor at Columbia University. He is having exactly the same problems. We are working with Google and lawyers to try to control and stop this process. But look for the Democracy at Work logo. It'll be your way of knowing that what you're viewing is genuinely us and not some AI produced fake video. There are lots of them out there. Okay, today's program. I want to begin by talking about a remarkable event in Italy, remarkable for all of us to understand. On September 22nd and again on October 3rd of this year, Italian workers, trade unions and their supporters engaged in one day general strikes across Italy. But the important thing, because this happens occasionally in Italy, the important thing is not only that they were able to mobilize, organize and pull off a general strike. And by general strike I mean pretty much everything stops. It's a way for the working class to show the world, we make it happen, that without workers doing the work, all the rest of it stops. But beyond that, it had an enormous extra importance, which is why I'm bringing it to your attention now. The issue was not the kind of issue that unions normally focus on. Wages, working conditions, the immediate and necessary Concerns of working people and their families. No, these general strikes had a political purpose that was made crystal clear. The issue of the strikes were was opposition to the Italian government's support of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. That was the issue. The dock workers unions in Genoa and other parts of Italy port cities had already shown their opposition on this political issue by refusing to load and unload cargo going to or from Israel having to do with Israel's war activities. But now the dock workers appealed to and were responded to their fellow workers across the economy of the whole country of Italy, saying, let's make it clear to the government, it's not just the dock workers, it's not just this union or that one, or for that matter, unions as a whole, it's the whole country. So the unions appealed to Everybody. And on October 3rd, Italy ground to a halt as millions of people, members of unions, but many, many of their politics, public supporters, shut everything down. Now, here's the lesson of all of this. The working class is not only what keeps the economy humming, it's what keeps the whole society functioning. And union members can say something about that, can make their willingness to continue business as usual not happen, because there's something terribly wrong going on. And they, at the very least, don't want their government, the entity to whom they pay their taxes, the entity that has so much power over them, to be aiding and abetting something that their morality teaches them is wrong. As most people's morality has been expressed against terrorism, against killing of innocent people, and especially against the enormous now nearly two years, or is it, it is two years of the Israeli pounding of the people of Gaza, civilians and military and Hamas alike. The whole world has turned against them, as the votes in the UN show. It is extraordinary that working people got together and did what they did in Italy, in its way as impressive as the yellow vests or the other mass movements that the French are famous for. And I wanted you to know about it. And in light of what happened on the 18th of October across the United States, we see that unions and millions of their supporters also got the message and went out and they weren't there to fight this or that economic issue, although we have plenty of those in the United States, they went out and said, we don't want a monarchy in this country, we don't want kings. We never did. That's part of why we made a revolution against the king in England who ruled over us. Yeah. That was not a general strike, not yet, but it was a good rehearsal for one in the United States. And it too took sustenance from the pioneering activity of the Italians. And I wanted to make sure we were all aware of and appreciative of what our Italian brothers and sisters provided for us. The second topic I want to go into in this first half of our program has to do with socialism. Socialism is now on the agenda in a way that it has not been in the United States for a very long time, about 80 years, if you want to be precise, since the end of World War II. Bernie Sanders brought it back. In his two efforts running for president. He broke it open as an issue to be confronted the bizarre, weird exclusion of socialism in after 1945, because it hadn't been treated that way before 1945 in the United States. And then Alexandria Ocasio Cortez took it another step. And we saw this last year, Bernie and Alexandra working together in their anti billionaire tour. But now we have it in yet another incarnation. The race for the mayoralty of New York City, in which the leading candidate, who has already won the Democratic primary and is therefore the official Democratic Party candidate, Zoran Mamdani, who if he wins, as the polling suggests at this point, when I'm giving you this talk, is what's likely to happen. But even if it didn't happen, his achievement is already another milestone in the return of socialism to American politics, because that's what's underway. And it's partly linked, of course, to the decline of the American empire, to the growing difficulties of American capitalism, to the growing global importance of China, whose self definition is socialism with Chinese characteristics. Why is it a return? Because after 1945, socialism became a bad word and a bad idea and a bad, bad bad in the United States. Kind of funny because just before 1945, it was super good. During the 1930s, millions of people joined two socialist parties in this country and the Communist Party. Many of the people who joined those parties had also joined the cio. The greatest surge of labor organizing in American history. Millions of those people were socialists and said so. And nobody, nobody spoke bitterly against that. Oh yes, a few, always. But it wasn't serious. As if to prove the point, World War II, the greatest war we've ever had, saw the United States enmity with Germany and Italy, but allied with the Soviet Union for that war, working together. There used to be posters in the post offices of the United States of an Uncle Sam arm in arm with an Uncle Joe. You know who that was? Joseph Stalin, the leader of the ussr, which stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We were allied with them. Socialism was not a bad word. It was our bosom buddy fighting the Nazis. After the war, when Germany and Japan were defeated, when all the major countries had blown themselves apart except for the United States, we became the dominant country and we declared everybody else lesser than us, and especially the Soviet Union and the countries that were allied with it who were called socialists and became the new enemy overnight. In the later 1940s, literally in a few weeks and months, they went from our closest ally to our worst enemy. And for the next 80 years, right up till now, socialism was a bad word. Politicians ran from it, the media demonized everything having to do with it. All of that's over now. All of that is being pushed aside as a new generation decides in the United States to do what every other major country, and for that matter, almost every other country, does, which is to recognize that socialism is part of the political process. The leader of Spain today is a socialist. Mayors of half the country, cities of Europe are socialists. Hasn't destroyed those societies. It's not going to destroy ours. It's going to open us up to a much more interesting and diverse politics than the last 80 years made possible. We've come to the end of the first half of today's show. Stay with us. I think you'll find the second half equally, if not more interesting. Before we jump into the second half of today's show, I wanted to thank you for your very generous response to our fundraising efforts this year and in particular in the last couple of months. And in part responding to that, we are extending the availability of our limited edition, linen covered hardcover version of Understanding Capitalism, the book I wrote and that we have been making available now for quite a while. If you are interested, I will be signing copies of that hardcover and they will be available to you as they have been over the last few weeks. Just simply send an email to us@infoomocracyatwork.info and put in the subject line limited edition. We will send you all the information you need to order and receive your copy signed copy of Understanding Capitalism in its hardback. And thank you again for your kind attention to the fundraising dimension of what we do. Welcome back, friends, to the second half of today's Economic update. I am very proud and pleased to bring to my cameras and our microphones a very special guest. His name is Balakrishnan Rajagopal. He is an Associate professor of Law and Development at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at mit. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on on the Right to adequate housing. He founded the Program on Human Rights and Justice at MIT and the Displacement Research and Action Network. So, first of all, Professor Rajagopal, thank you very much for giving us a few minutes of your time. Let me begin by asking you to explain to me and to the audience what exactly is a United Nations Special Rapporteur in general, and on housing in particular.
- [18:04]
B
Thank you. Thank you for having me. I'm really glad to join you for this conversation. UN Special Rapporteurs are independent experts who are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council that sits in Geneva. The UN Human Rights Council is an interstate body of states, and the states essentially shortlist candidates who apply for positions when they open up. And then they interview certain candidates and they select these individuals. The special rabbiters are unpaid volunteer appointments, and the term is for three years, initially extendable by another three years. And the Special Rapporteurs submit two reports per year, one report to the UN Human Rights Council, another one to the UN General assembly on major human rights issues that touches their area of concern. And they visit countries officially, and also they receive complaints from people whose rights are violated. So in my case, I do all of that with regard to the right to adequate housing.
- [19:17]
A
Okay, wonderful. Let me ask you perhaps the single most important question. Is it your understanding, given that you're immersed in this activity, is it correct to say that in the world we live in, there is in existence a genuine, quote, unquote, right to housing? In other words, do we live in a world that acknowledges that the human being's need for food, clothing and shelter is met at least as far as shelter goes?
- [19:54]
B
Well, the unfortunate reality is that there is really no right to adequate housing that is enjoyed on a factual basis. So in reality, there is no right to housing for most of the people in the world. But on the other hand, it would not be correct to say that therefore there is no right to adequate housing. That would be like saying that there are no rights whatsoever for any human, whether it's freedom of speech or assembly or association or food or housing or anything that people require to live in, simply because too many people lack it. In fact, it's precisely because so many people lack it that there is a determination to declare those things as rights. So rights are always aspirational in that sense. They're a horizon. People struggle towards achieving them. Sometimes there is progress, sometimes there is regression. But rights are always a project in the making and unmaking. And I would say the question that you asked is extremely important because the reality is captured by your question unfortunately, rights are not real yet in practice, but they exist as aspirations for all the social majorities in the world.
- [21:11]
A
You traveled. You mentioned that your work as rapporteur entails traveling. I know we don't have much time, but can you give us a sense of where housing is and where it isn't being provided in a way that it ought to be?
- [21:29]
B
Well, housing needs to be treated as a human right. And unfortunately there are not too many countries where this happens, either in terms of law or in terms of actual practice. So there are some good examples of countries like South Africa, for example, after apartheid ended, where housing is treated in fact as a constitutionally enforceable right. Their citizens take it seriously, the courts treat them seriously. So you can go to the courts and actually adjudicate many issues concerning housing. Unfortunately, that's only half the picture though, because in reality, too many people in South Africa still lack housing. So I'm just mentioning this as an example. So there are many places around the world where housing has been increasingly recognized legally and countries are in various stages of progress and backward sliding in terms of achievement of these rights. Then there are countries that have never quite managed to even recognize housing as a human right, starting with the country that we live in, the United States. It never recognizes any rights that matter for those who are least well off. Whether it's housing or food or shelter or any other issues, any other rights that they require to subsist as human beings. They are never treated seriously as constitutional legal rights.
- [22:54]
A
No. I know from living in the United States that if anything, we seem to have the problem of a tendency to criminalize the absence of housing. Not only not making it a right, but holding individuals responsible in a criminal sense if they don't have adequate housing.
- [23:19]
B
That is very true, very true. In fact, last year Supreme Court decision in The Grants Pass vs. Johnson case has opened the floodgates for many, many more municipalities who are more and more aggressively jailing homeless people because simply because they don't have a place to live. This to me is like a double criminal act.
- [23:38]
A
Yes. And the whole country is still reeling from that Supreme Court decision because it empowers any mayor or city government that wants to get rid of the tense communities and the housing people who are homeless put up for themselves, shaky as it is. And it seems to many of us to be a punishment for people who are already being punished by that which they are then more punished for. It's a very bizarre notion of, of how to deal with a social problem, especially if you're a rich country, and especially if the statistics show you that there are more vacant housing units than there are homeless people who need them, and the two exist side by side with apparently no social mechanism to have the other one solve the other. Have you found anywhere that you could share with us a program or programs that are effectively addressing this problem? Where is it being, as you have shown us, where it's recognized as a right? Where is there activity going on that seems to work to solve the problem?
- [24:58]
B
There are some good examples, for example, with regard to homelessness. We have the inspiring example of Finland, which used to have per capita very high rates of homelessness in the late 80s, for example. But they actually aggressively engaged in what is known as a housing first program for dealing with homelessness, which involves basically providing housing to who? To those who lack homes, who are homeless persons, and then to sort of help them find their. To stand up on their own feet. Whereas the approach, to quote unquote, dealing with homelessness in countries like the United States has been to insist on those people meeting various conditions and qualifying. Whereas housing first puts literally housing as an entitlement in front of any other eligibility issues. By2010, Finland had reduced the rate of homelessness by over 89% in two and a half year, two and a half decades. That, to me is a success story. We also have in terms of affordability crisis, which is a huge global crisis experienced most acutely of course, in the United States, where city after city is going through a massive affordability crisis, including in New York City, where UN is headquartered. Unfortunately, affordability is not being dealt with in a proper way. I have submitted a whole report about this to the UN General Assembly. But as a great example of a city that has managed to hold the prices in check, I would mention Vienna. Vienna has had a program of controlling housing prices for over 100 years and it is still working. You can still rent a two bedroom apartment in a very nice area of Vienna for less than €700. You can do that in Amsterdam, you can do that in London, you can do that in New York City, but you can do it in Vienna. And the reasons are many, complex. But one essential requirement has been that they've been able to hold the price of land in check through a public nonprofit corporation that actually controls the land. In Vietnam, if land prices can be controlled and speculation avoided, there is a lot that can be accomplished in terms of ensuring affordable housing.
- [27:26]
A
So there would have to be an agency or there'd have to be a political commitment, I assume, to do that. The little bit I know about housing in Vienna and I have seen it, I've been there and I've seen it, is that it started a century ago. It was a product of, of particularly socialist political authorities who built the housing, and that once you got a certain percentage of the Viennese in that kind of housing, they became the political force to prevent it from being done away with. It's a remarkable history. The affordability strikes me. I'm an economist by profession and it always struck me as a very easy story to tell my students. Homelessness happens when either the price of the housing is too high or the income of the human being is too low. And the combination of one or the other or both of these produces then the solution, if you like, of homelessness, and if that's reasonable, then the solution has to either raise the income of those who have no home or lower the price of the homes. One or the other or both will get you the problem solved. And it strikes me as, since I do in my own head think of it as a right, that somehow that affordability has to be focused on. Is that happening, would you say, either in your travels or at the un there's an appreciation of that.
- [29:10]
B
There is certainly a greater appreciation of that. But you know, the way in which affordability is being recognized is by poisoning it with the whole issue of xenophobia and migration. So in country after country, especially in the global North European countries and in the United States, in Canada, when housing crisis manifests itself, there is a tendency to blame the housing crisis on migrants and refugees. And I wrote a separate report about this. In fact, saying that is totally wrong. This doesn't get at the facts at all. And I had an opportunity to in fact express this view when I was in Netherlands doing a country visit just after the far right party had won the election in late 2023. So in a sense, what I want to say is this, that affordability is increasingly recognized as an issue. But the way in which this recognition is playing out, particularly if it is politicized in this way, by blaming outsiders for your own homegrown and failures of housing crisis, is really quite a tragedy and should be avoided. But there are ways in which there are countries and cities that have managed to address it. Vienna is not the only one. If you take Singapore, over 85% of the people who live in that country are actually living in apartments and units that they don't own. They're living in long term leases, essentially. So, oddly enough, in one of the most capitalistic cities in the world, Singapore. In fact, land is not a freely tradable commodity. So it's quite an amazing, interesting story. For example, hyper capitalistic cities. Cities and states like the United States, where, when I visited San Diego on the invitation of local housing groups facing an acute crisis of homelessness and affordability, I found that over 70% of the land in San Diego is zoned for single family home use. And that takes land entirely out of the hands of any publicly oriented housing effort. So that's one of the problems that we have, that the reason why San Diego cannot be Vienna is because, you know, the city doesn't control the land. Simple as that.
- [31:24]
A
Yeah. And that's, you know, the irony is we have that eminent domain law on the books in this country that would allow cities, if they were politically so minded, to do something. I wish we had more time. We don't. But you have helped us understand at least a little more about this crisis, which seems to get worse here in the United States with each passing, literally with each passing day. So thank you very much for your time and for your work, and I hope that you would consider coming back and talking to us again in the future.
- [31:59]
B
Thank you very much for having me. I'd be delighted to come back and.
- [32:02]
A
To my audience, I look forward, as always, to speaking with you again next week.