informage

shouldnt you be criticising the S African government, who from what i understand have denied HIV causes AIDS, totally failed to adress the issue, failed to buy and dsirtibute retroviral drugs, and generally swept it under the carpet? thats nothing to do with british govt.

I do indeed have deep criticisms of the ill-advised stance taken by the South African government and their abject neglect of the problem. I believe one of the underlying causes of the crazy positions they’ve taken is that the kind of state spending required to address the problem (with education, alleviation of poverty, and where necessary drugs) would be looked upon extremely poorly by the likes of the IMF and the World Bank.

My biggest criticism of the current South African government is they’ve decided to try and play the game of global capitalism and in doing so have tied their own hands in repairing the damage of colonialism and apartheid. Responsibility for this must lie both within South Africa and with the institutions of global capitalism that have effectively coerced our government with threats of withdrawn investment, even harsher loan repayment terms and reductions in aid.

You believe that global capitalism can be tweaked and improved to address the world’s problems. I do not.

What would you suggest replace capitalism?

In the sentence you quoted I specifically pointed at ‘global capitalism’ which I see as a specific recent form of capitalism that is moving (to a certain extent) away from class separation within Western nations, and towards a class separation that spans nations. If you look at those fulfilling the roles classically fulfilled by the “working class” in the UK, many of them are now either fufilled by recent immigrants, or in the further, somewhat hidden, reaches of the nation (call centres in Wales etc) or even more commonly just elsewhere in the world (the “third world sweat shop” phenomenon).

This also goes towards answering the question “who are the british oppressing now?”. It may not be as explicit as under colonialism, but the wealth of the UK is largely predicated on the favourable, and I would argue exploitative, trade relationships that were developed with the ex-colonies. That much of Africa suffers under both the legacy of colonial damage (both infrastructural and psychological), and the continuing harmful intervention of global capitalism, goes a long way towards explaining the ravages of HIV/AIDS in that continent compared with its comparatively mild impact in the West.

(Of course the UK is also complicit in the murder of tens of thousands in the middle east, although that is a somewhat different - though fundamentally linked - discussion: it is partly because economic exploitation is backed by the threat of force that the exploited nations generally accede to the demands of the West).

Is Capitalism fair? Of course not. But it works - and we all know it does.

I understand that being unfair is not in itself an indictment of capitalism. If your assertion is correct - that capitalism is the only system that works - then fairness is somewhat academic. However, I do not know this, and in fact I take serious issue with both elements of your assertion.

On the one hand, for me capitalism simply does not ‘work’. It may work for now for a privileged minority (which possibly includes a much larger proportion of the British population than in the past, but I’m thinking globally here). It is in many ways an admirable system, given that it allows essentially ‘dumb’ actors (dumb in the sense of having a worldview that extends little further than their immediate interests) to en masse enact a system of production and distribution that is at least basically functional.

However capitalism requires continual expansion and overproduction (what’s called ‘economic growth’). The rise of consumer credit is an adaptive mechanism so that growth can continue whilst the owners of capital continue to siphon large chunks of created value into profit. This is not something that can continue indefinitely. Either some catastrophe like climate change will kill us all, or we will deplete our natural resources to the point where our civilisation cannot continue in the same form. We can now in this era see very clear and scientific evidence for this assertion, more so than ever before in human history.

The oppressed masses of the world (remembering that the ‘richest and most powerful nations’ comprise a minority of the world’s population) will not suffer quietly forever. What’s called terrorism in the West is an early warning sign of the backlash that will only grow and continue unless this oppression ceases. Recognition of this is taboo for us; instead we are told “they want to destroy our way of life, it’s irrational hatred, any other opinion gives succour to the terrorists”. This is a taboo we maintain at our own peril.

Secondly capitalism is not the only system that works. Capitalism has a relatively brief role in the history of humankind; a few hundred years against hundreds of thousands of years of human existence. Every non-civilised society that we have encountered, we have destroyed. They did not destroy themselves by exceeding the carrying capacity of their surrounds, a fate we seem to be blindly speeding towards. To believe that our own system is not only the best, but the only workable system, is an amazing piece of arrogance and observer bias. It’s simply not scientific. (This isn’t meant personally by the way Marcus, you are by no means alone!)

None of this goes to fully answer the question “what would you suggest replace capitalism?”. It is far easier to defend an existing system than argue for a speculative non-existent system. I would point to countries like Venezuela and Brazil as undertaking brave experiments in alternate systems.

In truth I am suspicious of those who say they know with certainty of another system that works, is socially just and does not deplete and destroy the planet, just as I am suspicious of Marcus’s claim about capitalism.

New structures for society are created in action, through the living experimentation of open-minded and passionately motivated collectives of humans.

At the same time we must begin the task of dismantling this brutal, destructive and ultimately suicidal system that permits no competitors and tramples all alternatives. Marcus quite rightly states that “it is no coincidence that the world's richest and most powerful nations are capitalist”. On that we agree, on the conclusion drawn we differ.

Why don’t they donate the money they are spending on promoting this card (they spend $550 million annually on marketing)?

The answer is that that would be illegal. Companies exist to make profits for their shareholders, and directors are bound to act in their best interests. They go to jail otherwise.

You won’t be surprised that I find that particular law to be a very serious problem, and particularly so for our planet’s health. A Guardian blogger called Tony Juniper has written a good post about this. (Also, I’ll add that corporate donations to charitable causes are common, and can be justified as profitable by virtue of being good PR. I’m not necessarily endorsing that, but it is an alternative).

And actually, the 1% of the card that people donate would go to their pockets anyway, so are you suggesting that they keep that and they’ll still get your custom?

They certainly don’t get my custom, but if they want to give 1% of credit card spending to charitable causes I don’t have a big problem with that. What I do particularly have a problem with is their profiteering and objectionable ad campaign, especially when they’ve yet to give anything more than what is small change for a corporation that makes several billions of dollars in annual profits.

Surely the product red campaign does 2 things. It raises awareness by creating a product that advertises the issue…

Raised awareness cuts both ways. There is already reasonably high awareness of the African AIDS epidemic in the West. This campaign serves to suggest that the problem is being solved when it is clearly not, and to create the false notion that more capitalism is the answer when I believe that precisely the opposite is the case. Take Gisele’s recent interview in the Sunday Times for a striking example: “We can all start shopping more, and feel good about it. No more guilt!”.

…and it creates a precedent for ethical consumers to force big corporations to create products with an ethical spin. In effect this creates a tax on the very profits (which as I pointed out earlier they are obliged to create) which you find so abhorent.

You believe that global capitalism can be tweaked and improved to address the world’s problems. I do not. You believe that consumerism can be part of the solution, I believe it is a fundamental part of the problem.

I’m sure you’d like all multinationals to curl up and die. It won’t happen, swallow the pill, pay your money and make your choice.

As a South African I am deeply offended and upset that American Express and their directors seek to profit so crassly from the misery of HIV/AIDS in my country. The problem is huge. It is no solution to have British consumers believe that by purchasing some extra stuff with their credit card they can rest their consciences, whilst the West continues to extort debt repayments and impose neoliberal policies, both of which restrict the scope for wealth redistribution that might start to really address underlying causes. If British people want to make a difference to AIDS in Africa then they must address the legacy of colonialism and stop oppressing other countries. Then, maybe, they can start to feel “no more guilt”.

As a caring denizen of this planet I do not believe that seeking to increase consumer spending, particularly in the UK - one of the richest and most profligate consumer cultures in the world - is a solution to any of our immense problems. What is bought is often produced in sweat shops in the Majority World and transported between continents by a fuel that is fast running out; the burning of which is changing our climate and killing our fellow earth-dwellers. In the UK there are 67 million credit cards in circulation for a population of 59 million, creating misery for individuals, and enabling the overproduction that is a hallmark of civilisation and that is literally destroying our planet.

(Disclaimers: I’ve phrased these posts as though I am a South African and not British. In truth I am both, and I was actually born and raised in the UK. I now live in South Africa, hold South African citizenship, and have a father who spent decades of his life in exile from South Africa fighting to free it from oppression. It was the South African in me who reacted to the AmEx ad so vehemently, and so it feels authentic - and somewhat simpler - for that part of me to write these posts.

I am also a participant in this civilisation: I do use banks and credit cards, I do work for capitalist corporations, I do behave in environmentally destructive ways. I am in many ways a hypocrite. This will not stop me from saying what I see. I regularly reevaluate my choices and my life, and there are no easy answers or obvious paths. Right now writing this stuff is something that I can do, and I participate in various ways in trying to change this world. Is it enough? Never, but not doing enough won’t stop me doing what I can).

The profiteering nature of this venture is made explicit in an article by the Global Business Coalition:

AmEx believes the number of conscience consumers in Britain will grow from its present level of 1.5 million to more than four million by 2009…

…each of the partner companies will return a share of the profits from the sale of Red products to the Global Fund in return for the opportunity to increase their own revenue - and profits - by attracting ethical consumers.

One imagines that this large and growing group of British “conscience” consumers is not the traditional customer base for American Express, and they must be hoping the backing of Bono and the oh-so-fashionable “we fight AIDS in Africa” message will reverse their fortunes with the fairtrade crowd.

Of course this is aside from the potential kickbacks for the fatcats running the joint. A cursory examination of the American Express Board of Directors reveals that there may be a few profits coming to some of its members through any purchases of pharmaceuticals or medical supplies that get funded by the scheme:

• Robert D. Walter, also Chairman of Cardinal Health “focused on the high-growth healthcare market” (Cardinal Health website) whose product line includes the Reveal HIV test

• Jan Leschly, former CEO and Director of GlaxoSmithKline who produce three anti-HIV medications

• William G. Bowen, also on the board of Merck & Co., Inc. “a global research-driven pharmaceutical company” (Merck & Co. website) described by Wikipedia as “one of the top 5 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world” and as the manufacturer of Crixivan a “protease inhibitor HIV medication”. (Although Bowen is not listed on the AmEx page, he is cited as a director by Forbes, and searches on an SEC database demonstrate at the very least a significant ongoing relationship)

• Peter R. Dolan, former CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb “a leading provider of medicines to fight…infectious diseases -- including HIV/AIDS” (Bristol-Myers website), was recently fired from BMS over a patent dispute and was also until recently on the board of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

• Daniel F. Akerson, also MD of The Carlyle Group “one of the world’s largest private equity firms…focuses on sectors…[including]…healthcare” (The Carlyle Group website)

Of course all this assumes that any real money will make its way out of AmEx coffers: after all “less than 1 per cent of the income received by Global Fund…comes from private corporate sources, rather than individual donations.” (the aforementioned GBC article).

Bono anticipated criticism like mine when he launched his “Red” campaign with a rather patronising and simplistic metaphor (and by the way thanks for wrecking my enjoyment of those amazing songs you performed back when you weren’t a shameful corporate marketing tool!):

“We’re working with big business. But the problem just has to be sorted and we can’t do it with governments alone. We’re fighting a fire. The house is burning down. Let’s get the water. You end up beside somebody who lives up the road who you don’t really like. Do you care if he’s polishing up his image by putting the fire out?” (Independent Online)

Well before that makes any sense let’s see AmEx do some significant firefighting instead of trumpeting their worthiness in advertising. A few million dollars doesn't douse many flames when 25 million are suffering. Why don’t they donate the money they are spending on promoting this card (they spend $550 million annually on marketing)? Why? Because profiteers don't operate that way.

Even if they do end up giving any significant amount to The Global Fund, I’m still left wondering about the overall economic structure of the relationship of Western big business to Africa. If most of that money ends up back in the pockets of AmEx directors and others like them, whilst Africans suffer from the straitjacket of imposed neoliberal trade policies, who are the real beneficiaries?