informage: On Capitalism

On Capitalism

Sean — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:37:31 +0100

Once again I’m moved by a thoughtful critique of my posts to offer a follow-up, and once again I’m grateful for the generous time given in reading and responding to my writing - this time to Marcus. I’m going to try and address some of his points, this time just offering opinions in response. There’s a whole wealth of material out there discussing these things in more detail and with more in the way of hard evidence (see my politics links for some pointers).

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Africa and with the institutions of global capitalism that have effectively coerced our government with threats of withdrawn investment, even harsher loan repayment terms and reductions in aid.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.

"On Capitalism" by RTL

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:24:40 +0000

yeesh! is there any solution to all of this???

"On Capitalism" by Ryan

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:59:57 +0000

As (Product) Red just recently landed stateside, I have started keeping up with your well reasoned critique and some of the blow-back it is receiving.

Thank you for taking the time to articulate your misgivings, as much more attention needs to be paid towards a growing number of "ethical" choices presented to consumers. There is nothing ethical about GAP's products (with perhaps the exception of a single t-shirt made in Lesotho), and there is sure as hell nothing ethical about the mining of coltan in the DRC for use in RED phones.

I'm not advocating the Amish lifestyle (as was mentioned), but I do take issue with touting our exploitative-purchases as a way to buy our way out of trouble and guilt. We can do better! Thanks again.

"On Capitalism" by http://www.myspace.com/27761990

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:02:00 +0100

Hey Sean, thank you!

It is so much easier to defend the status quo, the “unquestionable truths” of what everyone knows and has always known. It doesn’t take much imagination to assert that our currently dominant system, of which few people can even imagine an alternative, “works”. Yes it does “work” but so does Fidel Castro’s and Kim Jong Il’s brand of totalitarian communism. Does “it works” mean that it is good? I, for one, don’t think so. And regarding wealthy and powerful nations, I wonder if Russ would be so enthusiastic if China and India were to beat the West at their own capitalist game (its already begun), thereby relieving Russ (and you and me) of “his” wealth and power?

It does take a lot of courage and imagination to dream and speak of a better way. I imagine that the people living under a monarchy 500 years ago scoffed at the notions of democracy and human rights. The king, after all, derived his power divinely so how could there ever be a change? Some of Russ’ arguments show the kind of down home logic as people who say, “a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government”. Maybe it is, SO WHAT?!

To be fair though, I don’t agree completely with everything that you say and I have to admit that Russ did make some fair points. None the less, you have hit upon the conclusions that has been dawning on me for some time now: 1) Capitalism will not last forever, as no system will 2) Capitalism is not the best that humans can do 3) Communism is not the ONLY alternative to capitalism 4) I believe that we are seeing the early signs of global “system” change. I just hope that our future will be an “evolution” towards global harmony, equality, happiness and justice.

I would like to add that I am not an anarchist or even a an activist. I work unapologetically for the capitalist system that we speak of. I support my family with the proceeds and do what I can for those less fortunate than myself. I don’t do too bad financially and should the “system” crash during my lifetime I will definately be the worse off for it. Regardless, I refuse to pretend that we live under a divine system that will last forever. I also refuse to believe that we have reached the apex of human social development and this is as far as people can go towards a Utopia. Yes I said Utopia because if we are not striving for perfection we can never hope to even come close to it!

Ironically, I think a Bono quote is in order, “Greatness waits around in back until really good gets tired and quits”. Thanks for for sharing your dreams Sean because that is where greatness begins.

"On Capitalism" by www.corneilius.net

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:47:50 +0100

Regards a system that might work, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that pre-industrial human culture, in terms of happy families and healthy communities and rich cultural diversity has worked and is working very well for indigenous and aboriginal peoples for hundreds of thousands of years.

Bear in mind also that the natural environment is itself an incredibly fine-tuned and sophisticated sustainable self-balancing system, one that recycles all materials within in it, ranging from mountains to micro-organisms:

It would be prudent therefore, to examine those systems where they still exist to look for the underlying principles of their success.

Those principles, applied to our world today, would go some way to alleviate the serious all-life threatening problems we now face.

All natural production is founded upon recycling, insofar that recycling is a core part of production in nature.
Indigenous belief and knowledge systems held, and do hold a profound emphasis upon stewardship of the environment as a guarantee of the welfare of children, for generations into their forseeable future, above and beyond the desires of the adults. Thus respect for children was a fundamental meme in these cultures.
Conflict was, and is, for the most part ritualised if and when those conflicts became dangerously out of control, and resolution of conflict was the primary concern rather than continued punishment or conquest.
Community existed and exists, in these systems, as a set of inclusive relationships, incorporating humans, animals, plants and geography…..

compare that to feudalism, merchantilism, empirism, capitalism, communism etc…….

Production is founded upon exclusive exploitation of resources.
Children have no real voice or advocates in our current systems, and are seen as incomplete, incompetent and are often the subject of extreme conditioning - the imposition of religions upon children, child labour, ‘compulsory education’, advertising aimed directly at children as a’market to exploit’ are a few examples.

Sadly there are more - for example, the Judeo Christian Religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are founded upon the psychologically damaging concept of Original Sin - ‘we are all unworthy’ and The Work Ethic - ‘man shall earn his living by the sweat of his brow’ ….. not to mention their approaches towards sexuality ……..

Continued conflict, with conquest in mind, is chosen, time and time again over conflict resolution.
Community is defined in exclusive terms.

There you have it.

If there is anyone who can substantially disprove the general thrust of these points, I would like to hear from them ….. yet 28 years of learning, psychology, healing, research and experience on my part, following on from 17 years of applied physical, sexual and psychological abuse, at school and at home, as a child growing up in a Christian Country tells me I am correct. And beyond that, my heart-intelligence tells me it is so.

"On Capitalism" by biobot

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:11:01 +0100

When capitalism and politics blur, the results are tragic. But is that inevitable?