It’s pretty late now and probably a bad time to write something. That’s life, though. The days go by so quickly, I hardly manage to get the most important stuff done, get distracted by stuff like emails and Facebook posts, and then I don’t get around to doing what I had planned. So it’s almost 10 pm and I went through all the steps of distraction and now am doing what I had planned to do. Writing.
Before I get to the actual task of writing I would like to dwell on this issue of distractions for a bit. What are my favorite distractions: my MacBook, that’s a big one. Not only is the actual box distractive because it simply looks so elegant. It’s all those pictures and words that keep appearing on the screen when I keep clicking on those colorful buttons all over the place. Email, news, iPhoto, Flex programming, you name it. On my last vacation in France for two weeks I didn’t have access to a computer and, amazingly enough, I survived.
Other big distractions include the refrigerator, the cupboard with chips and chocolate or the television. I guess a distraction is a distraction when it’s something I didn’t plan to do, keeps me from doing what I had wanted to do (or should have done) and is generally not particularly healthy. If the assumed distraction is healthy then, perhaps, it’s not a distraction at all. What if the distraction actually makes me happy? Can that be considered a distraction?
These are all very complicated and deeply philosophical questions. This span of this article will not allow for a comprehensive look at the phenomenon of distraction. I must say, though, that simply writing these few sentences have helped me discover yet another form of distraction. Writing. Yes writing about distractions is seriously distracting me from what I had planned to write about. More than that. It has even served to make me forget what I wanted to write about.
Think. Think.
Yes, that was it, I had wanted to write about the global repercussions of thirty years of disaster capitalism on the life of the average American. No wonder I let myself so easily be distracted.
Hm, the clock is ticking and it’s approaching 10pm. My eye lids are getting heavy. The dark red Italian wine is taking its toll and the warmth of my bed is lulling me in.
So, back to the main topic - capitalism. Yes, capitalism sucks. Well, to more precise, “free-market”, laissez-faire, neoliberal, deregulated, friedmanian capitalism is a real pain in the ass. And no, I did not just start thinking about that after watching Michael Moore’s new movie. I haven’t even seen his new movie. I haven’t even seen his not so new movie before this one - you know about the health industry. I’ve been questioning the virtue of capitalism for a while longer. I think the first time was when I was about 7 and my Dad was telling me about his rich father. I don’t think my Dad liked his Dad too much. But anyway, he was saying that he doesn’t believe it takes real brains to get rich. The “real brains” think is paraphrasing. My Dad rather frowned upon such no-nonsense colloquial language. He thought it was important to try to maintain a rather sophisticated level of speech. I don’t mean to say he was stuck up or anything. He just thought it was important to use proper English and to not sound like an idiot.
Anyways, he did say that about getting rich. I interpret this statement of his to come from his general criticism of the unequal and unjust accumulation of wealth. How I dealt with those words when I was seven is hard to say. They did stick with me though and, in some way, at some point in my life, made me think twice about capitalism.
Capitalism - that’s such a mouth full. I almost feel awkward saying it (I mean writing it). It sounds almost silly saying “I think capitalism is very problematic”. When I say it in German it sounds much better. Perhaps when I say it in English I’m reminded of the total lack of critique in the system I grew up in.
Have any of you read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”. If not, please do. Very recommendable.
6 comments:
I think there is a place to critisize the market system, but your lament doesn't have much in the way of concrete examples. Are there particular contradictions that bother you? I am thinking, perhaps, of things like the capitalist/conservative idea that we should plan our lives, be self-reliant and build local communities and not rely on big government while, at the same time, telling us to be constantly mobile and flexible. I cannot build my local community and be self reliant if my well-being depends on the decisions made by distant CEOs who decide the fate of the town's major employer or the buffeting of the global market over which I have no control. I cannot build local relationships or a strong, stable family if I have to move to follow jobs every several years. Or the mainstream insistance on international mobility for money, capital and goods but consistent conservative resistance to mobility for labor. Those are real problems.
On the other hand, I don't see any historical examples of societies reaching any great level of affluence without a strong market factor in their system. Your post doesn't bash all markets, however, so perhaps we have more common ground there than I sense.
The relationship between markets and globalization on the one hand and issues of war and peace on the other is still disputed.
I guess in questioning the virtue of markets I would limit it to our present system of "free markets". Certainly we can't get rid of markets all together. Even in some utopian social society I would like to go downtown I buy some apples at the farmer's market.
Today we have a system of military force, corporate greed cold-blooded violence and propaganda being utilized to force so-called free market structures down peoples throats. In Shock Doctrine Naomi Klein looks at multiple cases of this. Pinochet Chile is her first example. A violent coup and brutal dictatorship are used to install a deregulated, privatized economy. The economic results were devastating: drastic rise in poverty, shrinking (or disappearing) middle class, foreign corporations taking over the country, etc.
You mention not seeing societies historically who haven't become affluent without strong markets. That's a very problematic statement. If any governments that try to develop an alternative system are overthrown then of course you will not see them reaching any level of affluence. They are all dead or in prison.
We can look at countries like Germany or, better yet, Norway, to see that justice, freedom and a high standard of living are possible in a society of market capitalism. You just need to make sure the powerful elite doesn't take over the place.
The US seems to be moving toward a form of oligarchy, or perhaps is already there.. The mantra of "free market" capitalism has certainly aided in the country reaching this state.
Finally you say that the relationship between war and markets/globalization is still disputed. By whom? Glenn Beck? If you haven't read Shock Doctrine you should. I see a very definite and clear relationship.
"Finally you say that the relationship between war and markets/globalization is still disputed. By whom? Glenn Beck? If you haven't read Shock Doctrine you should. I see a very definite and clear relationship."
Well, have wars become more common now in the era of globalization? According to something I just read, extreme poverty has fallen worldwide from 29% to 18% since 1990 and the proportion of people living in slums has fallen from 47% to 37% during the same period. In 1990, there were almost 50 wars going on in the world. In 2005 there were 31 and the number of deaths was lower than in half a century. During the same period, the number of democracies has increased as well. This is the period we usually associate with "globalization."
Another relationship important to Klein is the supposed link between non-democratic states and economic liberalization. I would be interested in seeing an impirical relationship. There will always be exceptions, but what is the trend? One could take the ratings of "economic freedom" provided by a source like the EFW at the Cato institute (a conservative source measuring its view of what it considers "economic freedom") as one axis of a table and some numerical rating of political freedom on the other and see if authoritarianism really does correspond historically to "free markets". I found a critique of Klein's book, for example, that does not do so systematically, but does show that her examples are off the mark by using such measures. She rates Argentina in the 1980s as being an example of "neoliberalism" and Sweden and Malaysia as being "socialist." But in fact Sweden and Malaysia had significantly a more liberal economies than Argentina did during that period. In fact, Argentina was rated with a _less_ liberal economy than several countries in the Soviet bloc! So in the cases she presents, authoritarian government corresponded with _less_ liberal economies, but Klein's descriptions imply the opposite. Latin American generals tend to oppose free market reforms - and Pinochet's generals were no different, putting off any changes in social policy until 1979. Was a six-year delay a "shock" treatment? I have not read Klein and not checked the data myself, so my point remains provisional. But the dispute is real, not just Glenn Beck ranting.
"You mention not seeing societies historically who haven't become affluent without strong markets. That's a very problematic statement. If any governments that try to develop an alternative system are overthrown then of course you will not see them reaching any level of affluence."
Two things on this.
1) Of course. If and when we interfere to depose democratically legitimated alternatives, we are wrong. Indeed, militarily conquering non-democratic alternatives is problematic.
2) I suspect socialism isn't as popular as we sometimes think. Allende was a minority leader, for example, far more popular among the European left since his death than he ever was in Chile. Also, polls show general support for globalization just about everywhere. Look at the numbers here: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258. There is some skepticism, but generally, people are for it - even in places like Venezuela. Indeed, globalization is more popular in Venezuela than in the country that is supposedly trying to force them into it. What do the people in Venezuela know that we don't?
Boy, I'm not used to such rigorous academia. I'm starting to sweat.
I would put on my academia hat for a minute, though, to respond to your second point:
You said: " I suspect socialism isn't as popular as we sometimes think. ....... Also, polls show general support for globalization just about everywhere."
I looked shortly at the link you sent and would say that one could not generalize and say globalization is popular all over the world. As far as I see the questions were something like "positive views of trade, foreign companies and free markets". I mean, that's totally not scientific and the empirical evidence more than shaky. If I say I like foreign companies, trade and free markets does that mean I like globalization? A better question would be "do I want my government privatizing hospitals and selling them to foreign governments?" or "Do I want jobs exported oversees?"
If I say I like foreign companies, trade and free markets does that mean I like globalization?
I think it makes sense to break it down into component parts, but not parts which are negative or positive by defenition...
A better question would be "do I want my government privatizing hospitals and selling them to foreign governments?"
I am not aware of that happening, so I won't comment.
... or "Do I want jobs exported oversees?"
Or: "Do you like it when foreign companies bring jobs to your country?" These are not a neutral questions. We shouldn't assume that the people in these countries don't realize the implications of "free markets" on their own lives and frame the question for them.
For every job exported overseas, at least one job appears somewhere overseas - if the motivation to move is indeed cheaper labor. If those jobs end up in Chinese prisons where a corrupt regime is locking countless people up, we have state-run slavery - not a free market. If the factory moves at a whim (ignoring stakeholders to satisfy only stockholders) to get better subsidies somewhere - that is state subsidies for business at the expense of taxpayers and some workers, not a free market. If those kinds of things are where the chain of job exporting ends, then that is problematic. To the extent that such things are driving "globalization," I'll sign on that it is a problem. But I am not certain that building a factory somewhere else is wrong in principle.
I am not saying that markets work best for everything, but I am finding it more and more difficult to find such injustices that are traceable to free markets as someone like Milton Friedman or Ron Paul would define them.
Post a Comment