Overselling Capitalism with Consumerism
The crisis in subprime mortgages betrays a deeper predicament facing consumer capitalism triumphant: The "Protestant ethos" of hard work and deferred gratification has been replaced by an infantilist ethos of easy credit and impulsive consumption that puts democracy and the market system at risk.Capitalism's core virtue is that it marries altruism and self-interest. In producing goods and services that answer real consumer needs, it secures a profit for producers. Doing good for others turns out to entail doing well for yourself.
Capitalism's success, however, has meant that core wants in the developed world are now mostly met and that too many goods are chasing too few needs. Yet capitalism requires us to "need" all that it produces in order to survive. So it busies itself manufacturing needs for the wealthy while ignoring the wants of the truly needy. Global inequality means that while the wealthy have too few needs, the needy have too little wealth.
Capitalism is stymied, courting long-term disaster. We still work hard, but only so that we can pay and play. In order to turn reluctant consumers with few unsatisfied core needs into permanent shoppers, producers must dumb down consumers, shape their wants, take over their life worlds, encourage impulse buying, cultivate shopoholism and invent new needs.
At the same time, they empower kids as shoppers by legitimizing their unformed tastes and mercurial wants and detaching them from their gatekeeper mothers and fathers and teachers and pastors. The kids include toddlers who recognize brand logos before they can talk and commodity-minded baby Einsteins who learn to shop before they can walk.
Consumerism needs this infantilist ethos because it favors laxity and leisure over discipline and denial, values childish impetuosity and juvenile narcissism over adult order and enlightened self-interest, and prefers consumption-directed play to spontaneous recreation. The ethos feeds a private-market logic and combats the public logic fashioned by democracy.
This is capitalism's all-too-logical way of solving the problem of too many goods chasing too few needs. It makes consuming ubiquitous and omnipresent, turning shopping into an addiction facilitated by easy credit.
Compare a traditional town square with a modern suburban mall. In the square, you'll likely find a school, town hall, library, general store, park, movie house, church, art gallery and homes - a true neighborhood exhibiting our human diversity as beings who do more than simply consume. But our new town malls are all shopping, all the time.
When we see politics permeate every sector of life, we call it totalitarianism. When religion rules all, we call it theocracy. But when commerce dominates everything, we call it liberty. Can we redirect capitalism to its proper end: the satisfaction of real human needs? Well, why not?
The world teems with elemental wants and is peopled by billions who are needy. They do not need iPods, but they do need potable water, not colas but inexpensive medicines, not MTV but their ABCs. They need mortgages they can afford, not funny-money easy credit.
To serve such needs, however, capitalism must once again learn to defer profits and empower the needy as customers. With microcredit, villagers can construct hand pumps and water filters from the clay under their feet. Pharmaceutical companies ought to be thinking about how to sell inexpensive retrovirals to Africans with HIV instead of pushing Botox to the "forever young" customers they are trying to manufacture here. And parents can refuse to relinquish their gatekeeping roles and let marketers know they won't allow their kids to be targeted anymore.
To do this, we will require the assistance of democratic institutions and an adult ethos. Public citizens must be restored to their proper place as masters of their private choices.
To sustain itself, capitalism once again will have to respond to real needs instead of trying to fabricate synthetic ones - or risk consuming itself.
Benjamin R. Barber is a professor at the University of Maryland and the author of "Jihad vs. McWorld" and "Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults and Swallow Citizens Whole." This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
116 Comments so far
Show AllHere is what Wikipedia has to say about social-democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy.
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement. Unlike socialism in the Marxist sense, which aims to replace the capitalist system entirely, social democracy aims to reform capitalism in order to remove its perceived injustices. Social democracy once meant socialism in the strict sense achieved by democratic means. This definition rather than the modern one still appears in many dictionaries. The term in this sense has been generally replaced by democratic socialism, especially in the thinking of those who consider modern social democracy simply a moderate form of capitalism rather than a moderate form of socialism.
One way to delineate between social democratic parties and movements and democratic socialist ones is to think of social democracy as moving left from capitalism and democratic socialism as moving right from Marxism: A moderate, mainstream leftist party in a state with a market economy and a mostly middle class voting base might be described as a social democratic party, whereas a party with a more radical agenda and an intellectual or working class voting base that has a history of involvement with harder left movements might be described as a democratic socialist party.
The Socialist International (SI)—the worldwide organization of social democratic and democratic socialist parties—defines social democracy as an ideal form of democracy that can solve the problems found in unregulated capitalism. The SI emphasizes the following principles: First, freedom—not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Second, equality and social justice—not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. See The SI's Declaration of Principles.
Social democratic parties originally included both democratic socialists and revolutionary socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin. After World War I and the Russian Revolution, social democracy became exclusively associated with the non-revolutionary path.
The term "social democracy" can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. Paleoconservatives and other opponents use the term managerial state to describe such an order.
Bernice, perhaps the book you're looking for is The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith.
I know that American sociology textbooks don't use the word Social-Democracy, but why can't we here now?
Well, you are clearly as arrogant and ignorant as I suspected.
Why would you go beyond idiotic: "let's all get along, let's function on the level of slogans and declarations" as our Dale Carnegie culture prescribes. Smile, smile, smile and don't argue. You'll succeed, the others will pay.
euroblle - You are correct, some people prove through their actions and words that they are not worthy of my honest respect. You for example seem to be a troll, looking for an argument rather than a discussion. you have no clue as to what I do or do not no about. So if you can not address me in a respectful manner I will ignore you.
This "honest respect" "feel good" sloganeering has been here for a while with a devastating result, and the world and the local victims (the non-insurance dead, the homeless etc.) are grateful. Maybe it's time to build a civilized society.
Correction (didn't remove the draft words)
Are you going to order me to honestly respect ..
ArtRod
"Only through truly honest respect of each others opinions and rights will we ever progress beyond the violent culture we see today."
Oh well, once again I read about honest respect.
How do you see it. Are you going to order me the honestly respect KKK, for example? Or honestly respect an arrogant, illiterate, criminal a-s.
Oh sacred ignorance.
Societies are not built on "honest respect," but on more or less sensible systems. None is perfect, but actually quite sensible are around, you just don't know about them, and, frankly, about anything else.
MtnGoat -
I want to say I appreciate that you have conducted a respectful discussion as much as possible while sticking to your position. I actually don't think we are to far off, except in our definition of capitalism. Perhaps I should go back and re-read Adam Smith and some of those he plagiarized, er, um, elaborated on. Regardless of that I object to the idea of ownership of what I defined in my earlier post as the "common wealth". I do however agree whole heartedly that each individual should have complete control over that which is uniquely theirs, and has a right to personal property(things of their own creation or the result of their own labor, efforts or creativity). I also believe that one of the roles of government to protect the rights of each individual from those that would seek to infringe upon those rights. This would include my right to clean water and clean air and the responsibility of government to prevent others from fouling the air and water. I am a strong believer in democracy as the best form of government, however a truly functional democracy requires a well educated and engaged population, so I would add that empowerment is an equal responsibility of government.
I will also say that as much as I am sure I am not a "capitalist" I am also not a "socialist" and I get tired of the duality of the capitalism vs. socialism debate, as if there are no other alternatives. There is no panacea of socio-political or economic systems, and only through truly honest respect of each others opinions and rights will we ever progress beyond the violent culture we see today.
I will say that most people I meet who call themselves capitalist, both on the internet and in person seem to think that capitalism is consumerism, is conservatism, or libertarianism, and that we live in a capitalist society that is the greatest thing since slice bread, global warming, dying oceans, illegal wars, and all. There are few that I come across that would be able to practice the social system that MtnGoat has described, since coercion and force are so dominant in our world.
None the less I am hopeful that we humans can progress toward a fair distribution of the bounty provided by this bright blue ball we call home.
Picture a bright blue ball just spinin' spinin' free, dizzy with the possibilities.
Regression to childhood sounds more like it...
Sorry, Goat.
I have no desire to read your stuff, or discuss anything with you. Personally I despise libertarians and similar garbage,
and I am here for progressive talk.
Bye, bye
MtnGoat -
You will have to direct me to some credible material other than the website you have shown or books by Ayn Rand. I have seen quite a bit of material stating your point, none of it seems to be much more than apologetics aimed at convincing us that an economic system can somehow be turned into a socio-political system, and since I know nothing about you I am afraid your stated opinion won't cut it either.
I would still like to hear your response to my question of the ownership of land.
As to your assertion that my statements were intended to imply that I believe that because something has never been implemented it somehow can not work is inaccurate. I have my own ideas about socio-political and economic systems that have never been implemented.
You seem to be putting forth that the libertarian like socio-political system you call capitalism is a good alternative to the current system. But your system does not seem to address the fact that some things are not the result of human effort, things like land, air, water, petroleum, minerals, the radio spectrum, chemical compounds, etc. I would point you to the work of Henry George as a way to deal with how to fairly distribute the "common wealth".
eurobelle, i'm wondering just how it is capitalism denies the personal control of ones labor, when that is precisely what it rests upon, and other systems deny.
if you find my statements concerning capitalism absurd, that is because what you have learned about it, is not correct.
artrod, i'm sorry but your comments are incorrect. capitalism is a social system upon which an economic system is based, and if you are not aware of this, you have been misinformed.
no one would ever claim any form of any perfect system has ever been implemented. humans are not perfect, thus no perfect systems have been realized. no one I am aware of will ever claim a perfect system CAN be realized.
however, system ideals can be used as goals and the principles which describe them as guidelines. socialism pursues one such set of unreachables, communism another, capitalism another, and so forth. that they have never been perfectly realized is no reason they cannot be pursued, as we can see as each group works using the principles they choose.
if we are to take at face value your complaint that what has never been done is some kind of argument it should not be done, then as a principle and presumably a valid one it must be applied everywhere. the US has never had socialized medicine, hence it should not be done because it has not been proven here. all the programs you support implementation of, should not be done here because they have not been done here and proven.
that other nations have done these things is likewise problematic, since at some point whatever was started, had not been proven. hence your principle results in the obviously false claim that something must be proven before it is tried...which would result in nothing new ever being tried, since it can't be proven beforehand, and in first cases, is therefore a disastrous and insupportable move.
in short, the idea that something that has never been implemented means it will not work, or cannot be tried, holds up poorly when closely examined.
Yes.
Very simple.
I just found Goat's statements "describing" capitalism absurd.
In a country where most people are wage slaves, his statement is really comical.
I think that one should have the right to control one labor.
I also think that it's not possible in unrestricted capitalism, for obvious reasons.
Your post is really perfect. I was serious.
eurobelle - please elaborate. Are you saying one does not have the right to control one labor, or should not have that right?
ArtRod
A perfect response. Brilliant.
MtnGoat -
There is a fundamental flaw with your version of capitalism. It is not real. Capitalism is an economic system, calling it a social system does not make it so even with books and a cool website. You can call a pig an eagle but, no matter how you dress it up, the pig will never soar like an eagle!
The socio-political system that the likes of Ayn Rand are alluding to, and trying to convince us is capitalism, is more a form of libertarianism. Anyway it has never been implemented any where and has no more basis in reality than a pure communist system which has also never been implemented. The dominant system in place today in the USA, the one spreading about as "globalism" is a mercantilist system that subjugates the masses to the will of powerful business interests called corporations. It is an evil greedy system designed to insure that wealth and power stay concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite.
Goat
"The right to control ones labor"
Are you an entertainer?
I knew that. Nobody can respect everyone, one has to choose
(Although it's sooooo good to make proclamations - Orwellian?)
I most certainly respect your choice of KKK, the Nazis, white supremacists, Larouchmen etc., and not me.
MtnGoat - What about land? No person creates land, yet it is the fundamental basis of all wealth. How can land be owned by one individual to the exclusion of all others without that individual paying a compensation for the right to exclusive use.
capitalism is quite simple. it is merely the pattern of what occurs when following a system of negative rights, in which the goal is to protect each person from others removing their right to self ownership and everything that flows from self ownership. The right to control ones labor.
The right to own property one earns or creates with ones labor. The right to trade goods with others for reasons one finds sufficient using the capital they have created or own. The right to act upon one's own ideas and values without being beholden to someone elses values, all within the same framework of the protection of everyone's rights to these same values.
There is nothing about permanent growth. Nothing preventing altruism (except forced altruism where one person or group uses another person or group). Nothing preventing making changes as long as they do not infringe the rights mentioned.
check out the tutorial I posted a few posts back, it contains the basic elements and you will see none of the criticisms concerning what capitalism "needs" or forces people to do contained in this thread.
Theres got to simplifying way to describe what economics currently is annnnnnnd.......what it could be? Capitalism is this and capitalism is that leaves me floating around in abstractions.
Here's a go:
A system of put and take- you put something in and take something out
A pattern of exchanging needed and wanted items
The social pattern which emerges from: the ownership of land and the monetary system
any suggestions?
Eveningland, I note you are forming negative sentences with regard to my comments. If it shows something wrong with my arguments when I do it, why is it a legitimate argument when you use this method?
This has been a great thread to follow with some great debate. I like that. Have we come to any conclusions? I don't know. But everything must begin with a question and then testing the answer.
The words of John Stuart Mill keep running through my head. I papaphrase: Communisim as a form of society and economy has been seen to work, but only in small groups of highly educated people. I'm not arguing for or against communism. What strikes me are the words that we, as a people, aren't mature enough to live together. I think those words speak volumes.
Here is a compendium of Mtn Goat's pronouncements about capitalism, as they occur in the above entries of this. How can one have a conversation with a person who produces so many ill-formed sentences? His most felicitous issuances, I note, are negative sentences, such as 'capitalism does not require unending growth'. He has clearly learned how to formulate negative versions of the sentences produced by others.
Goat dixit: "there is no expectation of altruism in markets. capitalism does nothing it's [sic] customers do not vet."
Goat: "It is not predicated on permanent growth. It is not predicated on consumerism. It does not include the idea that for people to be rich others must be poor. It does not result in zero sum economics, and it does not maintain that you cannot support others if you wish to. Read up on what you actually are critiquing before presenting strawmen."
Goat: "odd, it seems to me those danged capitalists can't make a penny without someone buying the stuff they make. how is it only those mean capitalists profit without the people buying their stuff getting anything in return?"
Goat: "capitalism does not require unending growth, that is not in the construction. it's an add on by people attacking the choices other people make..which capitalism merely permits. capitalisms [sic] ideals are continually attacked on a basis of ideas which capitalism itself does not actually contain."
Goat: "all capitalism does is maintain that each person owns themselves [sic], their labor, choice, and minds. thus the right to enter contracts, build capital, and trade. that's about it. there is *nothing* about 'permanent growth' except in the minds and statements of it's [sic] attackers"
Goat: "likewise for capitalism. I approach it for the basis I apply..not backing the criminals who use other means, such as your example of Shell's abuses, which by all means are atrocious and should be punished"
EveningLand: "Most people living under capitalism are not and cannot be capitalists: the overwhelming majority of people consists of wage laborers. This is so even if they own a couple of shares of stock: to be a capitalist, one must be at least a majority owner of a profit-making entreprise."
Goat's response to EveningLand: "you clearly do not understand capitalism which has no such requirements. you are fighting a straw man."
EveningLand: "Most people who say they are capitalists do not really know what they are talking about, or else they labor under an illusion, both of these conditions being understandably not discouraged by the (very small) capitalist elites."
Goat's response to Evening Land: "I contend you are showing you don't know what you are talking about."
Goat citing a "definition" of capitalism:
"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market."
Goat commenting upon the foregoing definition: "Note that the free market is a necessary component of capitalism, but it is in and of itself, capitalism. It is a result of capitalism."
What capitalism is…
http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble1.htm
MtnGoat April 16th, 2007 4:02 pm
"We're never going to agree on what trade is.
BTW, your form of so called trade has been responsible for;
At least in part with putting us 9 trillion dollars in debt. With a trade deficit that is quickly approaching a trillion dollars a year. Stagnant and/or declining wages for American workers over the last decade, and a current account deficit that is up to 225 billion per quarter
And you are still trying to sell it as though it is the best thing to happen since sliced bread.
Lobo Gris
Capitalism is acceptable for some aspects of the human existence but should not be worshipped. That is; the main goal of government. I suggest that democracy and captialism do not share the same end goals. I think Grover Norquist's theory about drowning government in a bathtub, is an attempt to elevate unregulated captitalism to the guilded age of the late 1800s. We have more in our souls than trading, but that is part of our culture too. Proper use of government is to protect the regular people from having their lives ruined by a few greedy rich people,in this discussion realm. It should consider a larger perspective and less biased viewpoint ideally than the greedy rich people have. Government shouldn't crush the greedy rich people but should regulate them enough to keep them from getting all of the goodies in life at the expense of the planet in more ways than one.
#
MtnGoat April 16th, 2007 4:02 pm
"We're never going to agree on what trade is. I suggest you refuse to buy foreign goods or offshore sources or labor for your company, and restrain yourself from attempting to interfere with others who wish to do so. This way we can each pursue what we believe is correct. However, I suspect this is not acceptable to you, since you may in fact think your views are more important than those of someone else."
So under your definition what is being traded? Trade is after all the exchange of goods and services.
As for foreign goods it is impossible to not buy them since we have been deindustrialized here in the U.S.
And as for not offshoring your brand of trade has made that impossible also if someone wants to remain in business. If company A is a direct competitor to Company B and moves production to China where it pays 10 cents an hour for labor then Company B has to move also because if the don't then company A will be able to undercut Company B and run it out of business.
But I bet you knew that already.
"and restrain yourself from attempting to interfere with others who wish to do so"
And restrain myself? All I'm doing is telling the about what you are doing. And I will never restrain myself from telling the truth.
Lobo Gris
ArtRod,
Good last point.
MtnGoat, please excuse the length
I very much appreciate the non-aggressive dialogue. I think I wasn't clear. It's not physical force or threat of harm I was referring to, but rather the transformation of society and of the physical world which comes about through individual decision making. Through transactions, everyone has the freedom to affect the health and lifestyle of others. This affect is proportional to the size of the transaction. Those who consume more make greater demands on human activity and natural resources, and have more effect on the lives of others. I'm glad direct harm is punishable. Indirect harm, however, (such as respiratory illness or contaminated drinking water) is simply considered a cost of business. Even if it is factored into the dollar cost of an item/service, the victim need not be compensated. This may simply be the way a capitalistic transaction is universally carried out, rather than the way it theoretically ought to be.
With the example of attempting to remove oneself from society, I meant that even a willing and deliberate effort to live by one's own work, and rules, affecting no one and being affected by no one, is not possible. One can no longer separate oneself from the effects of others' transactions (effects on air, water, earth).
We, the consumers, are supposed to have perfect knowledge. We don't. The world is not the same after a transaction has been made, and we never know before-hand how it will be changed. When few people have cars, you may buy one to shorten the duration of your commute. After everyone has come to the same conclusion, and the commute is now bumper to bumper traffic, you may wish you bought a bus pass instead. Except the bus will have to contend with the increased traffic, and will likely be less frequent, as there are less car-less commuters than before. I'm not necessarily saying that we would be better off without the freedom to buy cars (and we'll never know), only demonstrating that our preferences are not based on perfect knowledge, as they ideally should be.
Regarding the "every dollar is a vote" thing, the market "corrects itself" by receiving feedback: Those who buy more provide more feedback. Whether or not their preferences correspond to those of the majority, the fact remains: They vote more.
You express good ideas and I'm glad to have read them, and your misgivings about certain systems are similar to ones I've recently developed. I'm not convinced that actions guided by structures haven't also demonstrated their potential to be dangerous. Everything (capitalism, communism, etc.) seems to fall apart on a large scale, so maybe small scale is where our aims ought to be. We'd have to live with less, but we don't seem to be better off with more anyway.
Good night people
Capitalism is an economic system. Here is the definition from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&-"liz-&m, 'kap-t&-, Brit also k&-'pi-t&-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
I actually believe capitalism is a darn fine economic system in it's purest form. But capitalists, see above definition, try to convince us that capitalism is actually "Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights." they create a smoke screen while at the same time these capitalists institute the doctrine of corporate personhood, see the link http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/, to disenfranchise the rights of, well you know, actual persons. Capitalism is not a socio-political system, and trying to use it as such is the primary problem I see with our society.
As an experiment, try to eavesdrop on as many conversations as you can for a day. You'll be astounded at how much time and passion we spend discussing our STUFF. Be it the latest in entertainment systems, how to fix the garage door opener, or the comparative advantages of vista over xp, we are devoted to our stuff. Humans have not always been thus -- we know this from what previous generations have left behind in their artifacts and in their writings. If you think we are all autonomous agents just acting for our own unfettered wants and desires, think again.
MtnGoat, et al.
re: Capitalism and the growth imperative
There seems to be a bit of disagreement over the need for continual growth in a capitalist system. When you have a little time, check out the following link. It is the best explanation I have seen of why capitalism needs to grow continually. Please don't be put off by the length or judge it too hastily. This is NOT some communist or socialist screed, it is written by someone who understands economics. Judge for your self. Also, ask yourself why all executives that run publicly traded companies sing the growth mantra daily.
http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberjournal/msg00542.html
MtnGoat, your previous comment..."the posters here want to end 'overconsumption' and 'overproduction' and this means ending many if not most jobs. it will mean providing placeholding make work consuming more than necessary to get back less ON PURPOSE." I think you're right, it will probably come to that. If you have a keen interest in that topic check out Jeremy Rifkin's, The End Of Work.
However, don't ask a stock holder or corporate executive to help with "make work" projects. They will quickly inform you that they have no responsibility other than to the stockholder to provide growth, i.e. shareholder value. If they don't, investors will go elsewhere to find greater returns. In a nutshell, this is why a capitalist enterprise needs continual growth. Without growth your market capitalization declines and share holders go elsewhere for better returns, then the executive goes looking for a new job. Unfortunately the executive's severance package (Golden Parachute)is a lot better than yours or mine.
Just refreshed these thoughts from the previous posting of this article:
Yes, things are very bleak with the fangs of the soulless, godless corporate monsters devouring everything in their globalized path. We are no longer looked on as human beings, not even as citizens but only as consumers on a treadmill to oblivion.
Competition is drummed in our heads from day one here in the west and is now spreading via Japan, Korea and Taiwan to China, India and beyond. Everything and everyone is subjugated to an artificial hierarchy and gradation. Have you noticed there's a to 10 or top 100 for everything now. Who's the winner…. the champ…top dog… the idol…king of the hill….. the last standing…. the survivor…. on and on (christ these all sound like t.v. shows - unbelievable). It's so pandemic we don't even question it. I truly believe we could wake up one day and be informed by the media that some singular individual, be him Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or the ghost of Rudy Walberg, now owns the entire world. Some of us would say he/she is such a hard worker, others that he/she is such a genius, still others would offer that said person is so good looking and charismatic… and thus deserved his/her good fortune. Gee if only we could be like HIM…then we could do what we really want. When will it be my turn to be one of the 'masters of the universe?' Maybe if I just buy enough lottery tickets!
Only plausible solution I see on the horizon is that the ecological threat will become so pervasive and dramatic (i.e. global warming, peak oil… etc. with all their associated calamities) that people will be forced to embrace the whole "solartopia" solution. It will be something like the last page in Voltaire's Candid in which in answer to what we should do he answers "Cultivate are gardens."
This type of living could produce a radical democratization of the world both in income and input…. with most of us doing the basics of growing food locally, producing are own energy and just generally living a simpler, stronger and more rewarding life. Of course there would be a tremendous amount of sharing and communicating of ideas as to what works.
I'm getting a little old for this idealism stuff but this hippie still has a little mojo left and I'm thinking of selling my home in Honolulu and doing the whole sustainable living thing with some friends on the big island…..
Yes, we can get off the treadmill to oblivion but it won't be just a single existential libertarian act, or some grand legislation in congress but (as mentioned earlier) some combination of individual and social relationships. We need individuals, groups and governments to set examples of how to live sustainably and peacefully and reintegrate the singular modern existential man back into the nurturing warm bosom of a group social context.
Think of individuals working together not just to clamber over one another in their mad rush to the top of the lonely pyramid but integration and cooperation for the benefit of the salvation of our little green outpost. We must free ourselves from the comic book fiction hero that one dynamic superman (politician, christ's return etc.) will save us from our own laziness and ignorance.
Simple steps: 1. Try and limit energy use and switch to more energy efficient systems such as smaller more fuel efficient cars, solar power, green lighting, walking and biking, etc.
2. seriously think about becoming a vegetarian and try to eat as much local and organic foods as possible. Buy it, barter for it, or grow it.
3. Political choices should emphasize cooperation and integration rather then competition, elitism and aggression that comes out of fear.
The chapters are yet to be written and were all the authors… good luck…
I work because I enjoy work. I enjoy hard manual labor and I enjoy teaching. Buy what I need and save for the things I want. I try to get along with the people around me. I try my best to do the least harm to the environment. And I enjoy being with people and interesting conversation. Sometimes I just want to watch a movie or read a book. Then I go to bed and do it all over again. It's not too complicated.
Yes, we are each affected by the actions of each other. Undeniably. And we each own the right to have an effect, or else we cannot live. And the line which should be drawn is that no person may threaten another with the initiation of physical violence or threat of harm. This protects everyone equally, and also allows action and effect.
None of this in any way removes oneself from society. We can each live by each other, work with each other, trade and cooperate with each other, etc...while not initiating threats against each other in order to get our way.
I submit that the idea one cannot be a part of society without engaging in the initiation of force to get one's way, shows what that viewpoint is predicated on...that society innately consists of people initiating threats against each other. After all, it appears the claim is being made that without this, one is 'withdrawing' from society, hence these actions must be viewed as a precondition for society, in order to make that call.
Every dollar is not a vote. Huge campaign expenditures often fail to yield wins. If every dollar is considered a vote, then the move should be to insure voters do not vote based on dollars, not further restrict them because they are not making the 'correct' choices. It helps if one considers that people not voting the way one would like may simply not agree with the observers positions, after all this will also yield election returns one may not like.
All in all your question about effect is a good one, and I think I've given you an system by which people can have an effect which is legitimately theirs without violating the rights of their fellow citizens. There is no need to view society as requiring the initiation of threats. The presumption that not agreeing with this means not being part of society merely shows the condition that viewer places on being in society..being willing to initiate threats against others who disagree.
It's too bad you have given up on ideologies, because action not guided by structured ideas is aimless at best and dangerous at worst. Everything we have ever done is the result of the implementation of ideas. Do not despair, simply search for a system of ideas which is self consistent and applies proper method for it's determinations.
We should live simply as you suggest, without the expectation for silver bullets, because a truly free people will have an incredibly diverse range of outcomes and choices, all based in freedom, which wind up being very, very messy. It's incumbent to recognize that respecting each person means you will not often get what you want for everyone if you choose aims that are self contradictory.
Your freedom to prosper or starve vs an imposed equality is one such case. After all, one is messy and the other is ordered, but the latter treats people as tools not individuals.
I submit that ordered equality treats everyone as chattel, denies them the use of their own minds and actions which are overridden by those of others, and winds up doing the very thing it is supposed to fix...transferring power to an elite who then makes all the important decisions as if they can know what any one person values or what they 'should' want.
The problem with the idea that we should limit our concern to our own preferences, and influence them with our own actions: "I suggest you ... restrain yourself from attempting to interfere with others who wish to do so." is that we are ourselves are affected by the preferences and actions of others. I love the idea of self-substistence, of food and energy independence, but removing oneself from a society does not remove the influence of that society upon oneself. The question is: Should we have power to affect that which affects us? If so, how?
As stated above, "Every dollar is a vote", meaning a small percentage of the population has majority voting power. Not so democratic.
Ultimately, it seems there's a trade-off. Freedom (to prosper or to starve) vs Imposed Equality. I don't have much faith in any set ideology anymore. Maybe we need to live simply, without pretending there are silver bullets.
um guys, we dont want corporations financing political agendas as protected speech, as an individual is certainly free to do.
thats why corporate free speech is wrong and easily done away with.
when every dollar is a voice then every dollar is a vote
We're never going to agree on what trade is. I suggest you refuse to buy foreign goods or offshore sources or labor for your company, and restrain yourself from attempting to interfere with others who wish to do so. This way we can each pursue what we believe is correct. However, I suspect this is not acceptable to you, since you may in fact think your views are more important than those of someone else.
I am not conferring a freedom on an object. I am specifically referring to the rights of the individuals in that company to speak as they so choose.
And to excercise their right to do so on behalf of anything they choose, in this case, using their right on the behalf of an organization of which they are a part.
How is recognizing an individuals right to speak on behalf of what they choose, conferring rights on an object ?
#
MtnGoat April 16th, 2007 3:11 pm
"You are trying to confer the rights of a living person on an inanimate entity."
How do you intend to limit the rights of the persons in the corporations to speak for it if they so choose, since they have the right to speak for any reason they desire?
I am not trying to limit any person from speaking for anything they choose. You are after all exercising that right on this board right now, are you not?
But you are trying to confer the right of free speech on an inanimate object, a corporation. And just like the busload of people, the bus cannot rise up and speak, although all of the people within the bus may say what they want.
Lobo Gris
MtnGoat April 16th, 2007 6:10 am
"Trade has already provided advantages for many previously poor or poorer nations, and raised living standards by pouring capital into these areas. Post war Japan was a place where wages used to be incredibly cheap…and as capital poured in from trade, this changed and production sought other nations…such as Indonesia and Thailand. Indonesia and Thailand and other locations have repeated this, with formerly very cheap production which is not now as cheap as it was as living standards again start to climb there also, now it's India and other nations seeking those outside dollars."
Japan has prospered because of exports and a highly protectionist policy on imports which protected their industries, and all of the other countries you mentioned are following that same method. It is the same way in fact that the U.S. created prosperity in it's own country. In fact up until the last century the U.S. government was funded by tarriffs on foreign goods entering the country. The income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure put in place to fund a war.
But where your argument really falls down is here. What is going on is not trade, trade is the exchange of goods and services, it is just greed.
Corporations have moved their production to low wage non regulated areas of the world so that they can sell the same product back to the same market they just took the jobs from at a greatly increased profit. This type of action, contrary to your belief that it will raise living standards, will end up lowering them because eventually you will have taken all the good paying jobs from the market you left and in your quest for maximum profits you will not create a new one in the geographic area you have moved to.
IE NAFTA; NAFTA was supposed to raise the living standards of the people of Mexico and also solve the illegal immigration problem. In fact it has done neither. Wages are lower than they were when NAFTA went into effect and we still have somewhere between one and three million people illegally entering the country every year.
To really see what is going on all you have to do is look at the latest corporate action in China. Even Google the so-called "do no evil" corporation is engaged with others in fighting the passage of a law that would raise labor standards there.
Loboo Gris
"You are trying to confer the rights of a living person on an inanimate entity."
How do you intend to limit the rights of the persons in the corporations to speak for it if they so choose, since they have the right to speak for any reason they desire?
"Most people living under capitalism are not and cannot be capitalists: the overwhelming majority of people consists of wage laborers. This is so even if they own a couple of shares of stock: to be a capitalist, one must be at least a majority owner of a profit-making entreprise."
you clearly do not understand capitalism which has no such requirements. you are fighting a straw man.
"Most people who say they are capitalists do not really know what they are talking about, or else they labor under an illusion, both of these conditions being understandably not discouraged by the (very small) capitalist elites."
I contend you are showing you don't know what you are talking about.
"To Mt Goat:
Just saying it does not make it so."
That is entirely correct. What is so, is so, regardless of who does or does not say something about it.
Capitalism:
"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market."
Note that the free market is a necessary component of capitalism, but it is in and of itself, capitalism. It is a result of capitalism.
What capitalism is...
http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble1.htm
It is not predicated on permanent growth. It is not predicated on consumerism. It does not include the idea that for people to be rich others must be poor. It does not result in zero sum economics, and it does not maintain that you cannot support others if you wish to. Read up on what you actually are critiquing before presenting strawmen.
MtnGoat April 16th, 2007 6:00 am
"How would you limit corporate speech when a corporation is composed of persons with the right to speak? How is it that corporate speech is not based in the rights of the people in the corporation, or the right of the advertising people hired by them to speak?"
Because something is composed of people does not make that something a person.
A busload of people is composed of persons. Do you think that gives the bus itself the right of free speach?
You are trying to confer the rights of a living person on an inanimate entity.
Lobo Gris
"All your examples are east asian countries which grew because of heavy government direction in promoting their high tech industry - something a libertarian like you is no doubt opposed to."
yes, i would oppose the promotion. however the promotion only worked because of the influx of external capital. a promotion which does attract this influx fails. the entire point of such promotion intrinsically recognizes the value of foreign capital, after all the promotions intent is to increase it.
"Lke I wrote elsewhere, the star pupils of capitalism are post-Sandinista Nicaragua, El-Salvador, or Honduras. Poverty is worse than it's ever been there. When Argentina followed the WB/IMF's program of libertarian capitalism to a T, they declined from reasonable affluence to poverty and a ruined economy."
These places didn't follow it to a T, they attempted follow a disastrous course of implementing half of what they needed to..then screwing it up by continuing other backwards practices which negated the gains. Privatizing services only to cartels favored by those in power instead of bids for sale on an open market. Not permitting private titles to land to transfer clearly and quickly. Requiring onerous liscensing approved by state functionaries taking bribes from competitors to inhibit competition, in order to quell upstart buisnesses. Using cartel practices to inhibit their nascent markets. Playing games with the value of fiat currencies to influence monetary exchange.
Markets don't work in these conditions wether or not a State has ceased inflationary spending practices, one of the key items of reform implemented.
"You seem to be in some kind of denial about the existence of this thing called CLASS. This idea of "everyone is a capitalist and is free to invest" is utter at odds wit the real world! Look around! Whay kind of guilded cave are you living in?"
I am not aware of laws limiting people by class. Which world are you living in? Is there someplace where class is limited from gaining wealth or investment based on class? If so, point them out. And fight to remove such laws.
If such legal limitations as you describe, exist, then we must remove them. Arguing to reduce the amount of control people have over their own lives because of the existence of laws which should not exist in the first place, makes no sense at all. it seems you are arguing that because it is not perfect, we must make it worse, using the 'everybody does it' ideal.
I appreciate reading the comments more then the article.....so Benjamin's apparently done his job. i think dismissing this economic system, whatever you want to call it, without trying to understand what works about it-is a mistake. The patterning of institutions and agreements we call our economy.....has some strength's and some glaring weaknesses and there's deeper reasons why this system has captured peoples imaginations.The never before achieved cornucopia of stuff we can easily take for granted is appealing to many if not most people......the technical brilliance.....the security which stems from the intense focus on order....the immense material rewards for playing the game-these are captivating to most people it seems. I'd like it if people wanted more than low prices and mountains of things and yet this is where many of our countrymen are at.
That being said the-economy which envelops us, is in the air we breathe,water we drink and consumes almost all the cultural space....is poorly designed in its most basic institutions and for rather obvious reasons.
When will we finally realize that a job is no longer a means to an end (survival) as it was until the late 19th Century, but instead, an end in itself?
The only sensible answer to this suicidal trend of consuming exhaustible resources, and poisoning our environment, is to reduce - drastically - the standard workweek in every industrial country.
but doesnt it seem like the smartest thing any could be doing right now is organizing to get out from under the collapsing tower - regardless of whether or not that tower was built by slaves or union steel
one of the tragedies of our education system is that too many people think of plato's story of atlantis as a mythical land whose fabled existence is a riddle, rather than as a cautionary tale of hubris and the tendency of technocratic humans to get hoisted by their own petard.
interesting--
all these comments and not yet a mention of capitalism's bugaboo, Karl Marx. Did not Marx postulate that capitalism contained the seeds of its own desruction? Even if we revile Marx, he seems to have made the right call about capitalism, and it would serve us well to remember that he beleived in democracy.
Maybe he's just one of the boughtpriesthood, but Professor Barber seems to be suggesting how capitalism needs to change in order to continue as a viable politico-economic system. But can it really? If we decide that capitalism is not the system for us, what can replace it?
We of the bewildered herd have many decisions to make and difficult times to face, the most difficult being to make it known that we are not so bewildered as Hamilton, Lippencott et. al. would have it.
Can we agree that any society that elevates greed to a virtute is absotively morally bankrupt?
To John Mulligan:
Yes, I am bothered by Barber's article, and I said so at length in my entry above, of 4-15, at 8:26 pm.
To Cosmic Irony:
Yes, we agree.
To Jaded Prole:
We agree on many things, although I am not sure that our assessment of socialism is the same.
Capitalism is unsustainable. It must make profits; such is its end; it must constantly maximize profits; and that can only be achieved by incessant growth; incessant growth can only be achieved by incessant plundering of the earth's ressources; and incessant plundering of the earth's requires cheap energy. For if the energy were not cheap, profit making would come to an end.
However, not only does incessant exploitation of the earth (its organic and inorganic components) erode its wealth and, most especially, its ability to regenerate itself, it is also exhausting the sources of cheap energy (the oil wells are being dried up). As such, capitalism is headed for total collapse.
Furthermore, the mode of life that has been fashioned by industrial capitalism is plainly not moral, for it is not universalisable: if the earth's more than six billion inhabitants lived as we do in the western capitalism-driven nations, five earth-like planets would be needed to support them.
In other words, the way of life of industrial capitalism must necessarily be the exclusive privilege of some nations (or of minority of a nation's population, as is the case in some third-world nations): it cannot be extended to all (some nations, or most of the people of some nations, will always have to live in misery, as long as industrial capital prevails), just as being a capitalist is a privilege that is alloted only (and necessarily so) to very, very few individuals. Most people living under capitalism are not and cannot be capitalists: the overwhelming majority of people consists of wage laborers. This is so even if they own a couple of shares of stock: to be a capitalist, one must be at least a majority owner of a profit-making entreprise.
Most people who say they are capitalists do not really know what they are talking about, or else they labor under an illusion, both of these conditions being understandably not discouraged by the (very small) capitalist elites.
To Mt Goat:
Just saying it does not make it so.
This sounds like a lot of Communist screeds against "Capitalist Overproduction". This was certainly never a problem in Communist countries, where overproduction was the absolute least of their problems.
The problem will take care of itself. I see people forming community sub corporations. People will start buying more on-line and snub the corporation the way it is turning them into slaves. What will the stockholders do?
All pricing is corporate controlled as all of the things you purchase.
Companies will keep the same product and change the labeling. When they err-they will change the company name.
Corporations are no better than a common thief. They require a huge amount of profit. Yet they expect their workers who they exploit to pay large amounts of money and even go into debt to buy their goods. The goods are not even durable enough to last a month. The consumer wants more.
If a product does not sell-it will only be discounted very little. That is because the stores will sell them in bulk or to a Second hand store. I often see their broken down goods for sale in second hand stores at high prices. I think they are marketing to people who do not have transportation or are mentally ill.
I think a lot of companies should be more ashamed than they are proud.
Mt. Goat:
All your examples are east asian countries which grew because of heavy government direction in promoting their high tech industry - something a libertarian like you is no doubt opposed to. If the corporations were running thing, they'd be making shirts in sweatshops. Lke I wrote elsewhere, the star pupils of capitalism are post-Sandinista Nicaragua, El-Salvador, or Honduras. Poverty is worse than it's ever been there. When Argentina followed the WB/IMF's program of libertarian capitalism to a T, they declined from reasonable affluence to poverty and a ruined economy.
You seem to be in some kind of denial about the existence of this thing called CLASS. This idea of "everyone is a capitalist and is free to invest" is utter at odds wit the real world! Look around! Whay kind of guilded cave are you living in? There is the minority who own the means of production and don't work at all beyond a occasional call to their stock broker The stockbroker demand ever-increasing capital accumulation, in the form of either more exploitation of natural resources, or by milking more labor out of the working class. Meanwhile, in contrast to this powerful minority, there are those billions who must work long hours every day to feed and shelter themselves with little or nothing left over. This is what the physical world looks like, so an economic theory that does not include the interactions of the classes is like a forest ecologist who ignores the trees.
Money begats power, power begats ability to accumulate more money, which begats more power, ad infinitum! Meanwhile, those without power are forced to sell their labor hat-in-hand for wahtever they can get. They need to eat and pay the rent tomorrow, and the system is rigged to keep them in this condition unless they can organize and collectvely bargain - but this right is now GONE.
As far as level playing fields, the analogy is of a football or soccer game in which a team is entitled to add two players for every touchdown or goal they score, the defending team must remove one of their players. After the first goal, would the outcome ever be in doubt, or fair, or would it end up looking like this:
http://www.lcurve.org/
Make sure you hit the zoom button....
The "invisible Hand of the Market" is indeed the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
The fundamental problem is that capitalism requires growth, in fact compound growth, in a finite world. Thus the inevitable consequence must be self-destruction as resources, both human and natural, are exhausted.
The elegant part is that this outcome does not require external intervention, it is inherent.
so nobody's bothered by the fact that this article doesn't actually say anything of substance, that it reads more like a ranting blogger than a legit. news story or even opinion column?
another sign of infantilism is the rabid defense of uninformed, unjustified beliefs.
LOTS OF INTERESTING THOUGHTS / OPINIONS HERE---perhaps a little historical perspective from one who has wittnesed it might be helpful --- where coapitalism in the 50 s was quite LOCALIZED --- many small INDEPENDENT --- FAMILY OWNED COMPANIES and CORPORATIONS ( or branches of large ones ) that were run by people one might describe as GENERALISTS --- people interested in and involved in their local communities with employees who were loyal and hard working and often spent a lifetime at the same company and whose wants were fairly simple and met with a paycheck of SILVER CERTIFICATE PAPER MONEY BACKED BY REAL SILVER DOLLARS ( that were in general ciculation at that time )---- the money had real purchasing power and the value of it was not continually DECLINING AS IT IS TODAY ---- and then the BEAN COUNTERS CAME ALONG AND WERE PERMITTED TO RUN THINGS ( BAD CALL ) ---- whose entire focus was on the BOTTOM LINE --- PROFIT WAS EVERYTHING ----( this --- along with the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few --- was correctly predicted by that ENGLISH SAGE --- G K CHESTERTON in his book OUTLINE OF SANITY written when capitalism was in the process of destoying the small family shopkeepers in england )---- which led to the CONGLOMERATE RAGE ---- WHICH HAS LED TO CORPORATIONS BUYING COMPANIES MERELY TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION ( they then close them up ) ---- which has led to the monster MULTI - NATIONALS OF TODAY and what might be described as " CARNIVEROUS CAPITALISM " that is bound to self - destruct --- along with the MEGA - BANKSTERS and their PHONY FED ONGOING DEFLATIONARY REVERSE PYRAMID MONETARY SCHEME that they are now trying to ram down the throat of the rest of the world --- litteraly at the point of a gun --- ( paulsons threat to china to cut off their major source of oil --- IRAN )---- and so we have a bunch of juveniles ( all members of various secret socities ) which is just an advanced stage of our youthful little " treehouse clubs" -- etc PLAYING ANOTHER YOUTHFUL GAME ( KING OF THE HILL ) ON THE WORLD STAGE WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ----- and is the CREATOR of all of these individuals who have totally abused their divine gift of FREE WILL going to permit them to send us all back into the void ? I dont think so ---- and the reason lies in discovering why christianity has failed to live up to its INTENDED POTENTENTIAL and how we are on the verge of a SHIFT TO A NEW ERA
( 2012 ? ) that will embody the true SPIRITUAL POTENTIAL OF MAN --- rather than just the physical and materialistic aspect -----( more on the failure of christianity latter------or write ) peace ken kennyk4@verizon.net
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. -Franklin Roosevelt.
"The other fallacy is that everyone competes on a level playing field which is far from the truth in a world where economies are highly disparate. IE; A worker in China may well be able to live on 10 cents an hour in a non market economy where bus fare is a penny, a 20lb bag of rice can be bought for 20 cents and an apartment can be rented for 30 dollars a month. In this country you cannot live in a carboard box on the corner for those wages"
Who expects a 'level playing field'? This never exists in the first place, anywhere. Someone has more talent, has more experience, lives closer to the job, will work for less, knows the boss, or any number of innumerable advantages. There is no expectation of a condition which doesn't exist to make valid trades for goods or labor.
In places where the wages are low this is one of their few advantages. By requiring the exact same conditions as apply in richer nations to make it 'fair', you eliminate their only leverage and leave all the drawbacks, the cost of shipping, of operation in two nations, etc.
Trade has already provided advantages for many previously poor or poorer nations, and raised living standards by pouring capital into these areas. Post war Japan was a place where wages used to be incredibly cheap...and as capital poured in from trade, this changed and production sought other nations...such as Indonesia and Thailand. Indonesia and Thailand and other locations have repeated this, with formerly very cheap production which is not now as cheap as it was as living standards again start to climb there also, now it's India and other nations seeking those outside dollars.
At some point this outcome will level everyone up, not down, and the labor price advantage will be minimized. Then via market action we'll have the more level playing field you seek, only not as a condition for trade but a result of it. This of course assumes these States do not siphon off so much of the invested capital it is not available to increase the workers standard of living directly by allowing workers to increase their own capital.
You guys really went at it tonight. Kept me up past my 11 p.m. deadline just reading all the comments so I don't really have the time or energy to get into the fray.
I will say however that there is no simple philosophy that will solve our problems and in fact rigid ideologies (communism/socialism; various competing religions; libertarianism; etc.) more often then not compound the problems because the social and individual pendulums swing to far to the destructive poles. What's needed is a loosely integrated combination of all these element along with old fashioned love and compassion for ourselves and others.
Undoubtedly it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better. In the Hindu religion they say there are four yugas (great ages) that rotate in the creation. Starting with the golden age which is the longest, then the silver which is slightly shorter, then the copper which is again shorter, and finally the Iron, which by necessity, is vastly shorter because it is so dark and destructive there would be nothing left if it was long lived.... Accordingly in the Iron age people do not know their true home or even recognize their brothers. Cannibalism and war make there appearance in the this age. Naturally they say we are now in the bowels of the Iron age. Once these ages have spun round for countless eons the whole process goes back into a dormant "seed" state called the grand dissolution in which the creation disappears until at some timeless moment it springs back into existence from the invisible hand of the infinite. The stage for this drama is probably not bound to this earth but probably set throughout the whole of creation
with all it's planets, worlds, and being in all their various expressions....
So sleep well tonight as we may have an 11th hour reprieve here in our little transitory speck of gravity ..... or we may be swept away as a passing trifle into the void of the absolute.
"And just how would you have to limit the right of Free Speech for persons?
There is nothing in the Constitution which grants the right of free speech to corporations. It is an individual right as are all the other rights in the Bill of Rights."
How would you limit corporate speech when a corporation is composed of persons with the right to speak? How is it that corporate speech is not based in the rights of the people in the corporation, or the right of the advertising people hired by them to speak?
Capitalism's core virtue is that it marries altruism and self-interest. These are the words I have been trying to find to define capitalism. The best I could do was use a negative definition: Capitalism without a conscience. That's what has been lost, and my guess is that it began to really take hold about 50 years ago.
When I was a child we never in our wildest dreams would have imagined going to a mall. What the hell can you do in a mall? Nothing, except buy stuff. And we weren't interested in stuff. We were interested in climbing trees and hopping trains or playing sports. On rainy days or in the winter we would draw or read books.
In the past half century, our culture has changed dramatically. I think it must have been about the time TVs became common place and hot rods ran the highways. After the social upheaveal during the sixties and the "sex and drugs and rock and roll" came Reagan and AIDS.
Since then, it's become a different America. A frightened, manipulated, dumbed down, non thinking, herd instinct nation. People can't even talk to each other any more. We just yell across the divide.
A very good article. A very good picture of what we have become.
MtnGoat April 16th, 2007 12:25 am
"that's probably a good idea. first postulate i will make is that no pure form of any ideology will be found, but this does not make pursuit of same a bad idea. every ideology has it's criminals. i don't argue that socialism details the abuses it has been used for, i argue against socialism on the details as described by it's proponents while not holding it's criminals against them. after all, acting outside it's bounds is not a valid criticism for where the stated bounds lie. if Stalin committed crimes even socialists say are crimes, I'm not arguing honestly to attribute those crimes to those who will not back them.
likewise for capitalism. I approach it for the basis I apply..not backing the criminals who use other means, such as your example of Shell's abuses, which by all means are atrocious and should be punished."
The fact is that your utopian view of capitalism doesn't exist in the real world, nor will it.
Corporations in the U.S. originally found themselves regulated because of the abuses they engaged in. Child labor, sweatshops etc. That went away with Government intervention and regulation at the turn of the last century, only to return on a global scale with the advent of globalization and the shifting of jobs to low wage unregulated areas of the world.
The other fallacy is that everyone competes on a level playing field which is far from the truth in a world where economies are highly disparate. IE; A worker in China may well be able to live on 10 cents an hour in a non market economy where bus fare is a penny, a 20lb bag of rice can be bought for 20 cents and an apartment can be rented for 30 dollars a month. In this country you cannot live in a carboard box on the corner for those wages.
In fact the way that capitalism works, in seeking maximum profit does not raise the standard of living for the workers of the world but in fact drags down those with more to the level of those with the least until there is nothing but a few rich surrounded by many poor. In other words it eventually creates nothing but third world countries.
Lobo Gris
Siouxrose....I would like to read your book.
One problem with US Capitalism is that it's not tempered with enough Democracy.
#
MtnGoat April 15th, 2007 9:39 pm
"The solution may be as simple as taking away the corporate right of free speech. No more advertising. No more influence on politics."
Good luck with that. You will then have to limit freedom of speech for persons, or else I will just make a lot of money hiring out my freedom of speech to speak for those danged corporations.
And just how would you have to limit the right of Free Speech for persons?
There is nothing in the Constitution which grants the right of free speech to corporations. It is an individual right as are all the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
If a corporation is to be considered a person then all of the other rights would have to apply as well. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to pick and choose which articles and amendments they will acknowledge and which they will ignore.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Case in point; If the Bill of Rights applies to corporations then corporations would have the right to own and bear arms under the second amendment. GM for example as a corporation cannot own and bear arms because it isn't a person.
Or how about;
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You'll notice that it doesn't say people and corporations, just people.
Or;
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Again no mention of Corporations, only the states and the people.
Lobo Gris
Fiat currency is actually the root of the problem wherein real wealth in terms of goods and services are subordinated to schemes which are mere phantoms. Unfortunately, at the end of this cycle of greed there will be many people in what they, themselves, consider to be comfortable positions who will be left holding the bag, so to speak. It could be that the end is coming rather quickly although only in cosmic time. Our greatest problem at the moment is our specio-centricity, a pathology which is most acute in the supposedly wealthy west. With global warming set on an inexorable path, the only members of the human family who have any real chance of survival are those who are practically invisible to us at the moment due to their non-participation in the global economy. I am not a traditionally religious person, but I do believe that THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH
well i agree with the notion that we shouldnt oughta hold thugs against good ideas - i am not a capitalist nor am i a socialist, - i basically am trying to figure out how to get as many people into a lifeboat as i can and in a way that meaning and dignity and autonomy are preserved - no point surviving in a death camp, unless you live to see its liberation. mostly i've had it with the relatively new idea of the city, the state, and the churches of various orientation that spring up with such. i doubt they have much time left to plead their case either. though i do like emily dickinson quite a bit
that's probably a good idea. first postulate i will make is that no pure form of any ideology will be found, but this does not make pursuit of same a bad idea. every ideology has it's criminals. i don't argue that socialism details the abuses it has been used for, i argue against socialism on the details as described by it's proponents while not holding it's criminals against them. after all, acting outside it's bounds is not a valid criticism for where the stated bounds lie. if Stalin committed crimes even socialists say are crimes, I'm not arguing honestly to attribute those crimes to those who will not back them.
likewise for capitalism. I approach it for the basis I apply..not backing the criminals who use other means, such as your example of Shell's abuses, which by all means are atrocious and should be punished.
i am not familiar with ken's case to any great degree, but he was also involved in efforts beyond the 'people's rights', extending to attacks and crimes, was he not? if so, his killing may have been justified. If it turns out he was using peaceful means I am perfectly willing to agree his death was a crime, it's just that i have my doubts on these things in many issues..especially when the 'human rights' desired are totally at odds with the negative rights capitalism is based on.
For now, let us fairly limit our discussion to only the ideals pursued, and not the criminal acts blamed on either side which that side already admits are criminal acts. without this, not even an honest discussion is possible because it becomes a battle of the strawmen.
mtn goat - i agree with your principles, but i believe that you ignore the huge effort that them with capital put out to influence the very type of people in the society - so much so that corporations are functionally in charge of education. and also the great effort that is employed by those corporations hired police force to crush by whatever means necessary any resistance it meets to its agenda. the fact that some, many in fact can speak with relatively no consequences in this country is exactly that - no consequences - meanwhile in nigeria ken saro-wiwa is executed by Shell for trying to organize the Ogoni people into a group that will demand their human rights - which capitalism, according to your definition, is the only idea to recognize these rights - but Shell owns them - i think also that your defense of capitalism fails to recognize slavery - if slavery not be capitalism meeting its responsibilities to its shareholders, then we better revisit the idea of what sort of capitalism we are discussing and where it may be found -
yea, it worked great for new coke and every other failed product out there. consumers are the final say. if your mind is not geared towards critical analysis..the correct response is to change this. not to limit everyone else because some can't. this way you wind up with more people in direct control of their own minds, not more people being treated as children
Not Lippman or Packard. Ayres Advertising: "We create your wants, we create your needs."
"Of course this is basically a failure of values. We don't want what's needed. There's plenty of work to be done and plenty of things that people need."
thank heavens someone sees the fundamental problem. unless people *choose* to change what they want, no shuffling of the deck chairs does anything meaningful. people only pursue what they want, regardless of what it is.
"Imagine what could happen if all nations were equally part of a global system where each nation's specialized goods were put into a giant pool, and then these goods were intelligently re-distributed in a more equal manner?"
what characterizes this 'more equal manner'?
How will the nations with the expertise and industry to create highly complex goods using intense effort at high capital cost be 'equally' rewarded when their output is fundamentally different?
Tell you what. Let's agree to end income taxation so no one is forced to submit to third parties skimming off the top. Let's further agree to return to a gold standard so neither nations nor banks can fake everyone out by using non backed paper at a declared value.
At this point, you can enter this giant barter system with your labor and products all on your own, with the zillions who agree, and we'll see how it works. If it looks fair and just, I'll toss my hat and my production in the ring too. If it doesn't, i'll just trade my work for gold and trade the gold for the work of others, just as I prefer to do in the first place.
this way, we can operate side by side and pick and choose the best of both worlds. Are you game for the actual freedom to allow choice...or just hoping for the power to compel everyone to play by your values?
Of course this is basically a failure of values. We don't want what's needed. There's plenty of work to be done and plenty of things that people need. One of the things we need for the world to work is for everyone to have a place in it and for everyone to have an opportunity to develop the full potential. If we want a world that works we should want to develop those institutions and services which will give all people an opportunity to participate and grow. There are plenty of people who would like and be willing to learn something new and then give something back. There are plenty of sick people who need healing, misinformed people who need to be informed, hungry people who need to be fed. If we wanted what we need, capitalism would work just fine. But that requires a bit of enlightenment. It would be great if we wanted that as well.
capitalism does not require unending growth, that is not in the construction. it's an add on by people attacking the choices other people make..which capitalism merely permits. capitalisms ideals are continually attacked on a basis of ideas which capitalism itself does not actually contain.
all capitalism does is maintain that each person owns themselves, their labor, choice, and minds. thus the right to enter contracts, build capital, and trade. that's about it. there is *nothing* about 'permanent growth' except in the minds and statements of it's attackers.
all the other behavior is merely how people use or abuse these rights. look at this thread. it's a continual litany of attack of...how those darned other people choose what the complainers don't want them to choose. that they can even make choices the complainers don't like is the very basis of the complaints. it's clear they are not comfortable with the choices because they want to direct them for their own reasons..hence the complaints about lack of 'control'.
but they won't even control their own choices in service of ideas they maintain they believe in, instead griping that no one will 'lead' by imposing their own ideas on them fast enough for them.
not getting that mexican lettuce is going to happen anyway since that is what is pushed for, why not stop using it today, without handing the power to someone else to do it for you and complaining about the delay? ditto for lacking cars, ditto for no imports, ditto for slashing travel and forcing trade localization.
people here are complaining about spending and consumerism and *want* to end it. this will necessarily collapse the economy because all those jobs will go away. there is simply no need for everyone to be making items not related to subsistence because farming and mining is already very efficient.
the posters here want to end 'overconsumption' and 'overproduction' and this means ending many if not most jobs. it will mean providing placeholding make work consuming more than necessary to get back less ON PURPOSE.
my point is that since the consumer holds the whip hand with their spending, they can collapse the pyramid at any time by simply not spending. but they don't actually want to....they want someone else to make it easier for them to do so, so those darned other people they are sure are 'wasting' are hurt, but not them so much.
great comments, though, thanks! fun to chat
I believe there is a viable solution to the rampant greed and distress caused by today's vastly unjust markets:
Nations need to learn to share the world's abundant resources, in the sense of a more equitable re-distribution of food, raw materials, energy, water, technology, etc...
We can all still profit, but not at the expense of others. There is a better way to live than the current mode.
A new global economic system, characterized by a sophisticated form of barter and trade, would eliminate the vast dicrepencies between rich and poor. Imagine what could happen if all nations were equally part of a global system where each nation's specialized goods were put into a giant pool, and then these goods were intelligently re-distributed in a more equal manner? It may sound like a pipe dream to some, but as I understand it there are already blueprints drawn up and ready to be implemented.
The Centre for Global Negotiations project was formed to carry on the original work of the Brandt Commission - begun by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt - which addresses a viable way to completely end all hunger and extreme poverty while at the same time establishing a truly sustainable global market and providing a means of greater environmental protection - http://www.global-negotiations.org/
MtnGoat
You're right, people can refrain from buying other than necessities. However, considering that something like two-thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending even a relatively small contraction in consumer spending would tank our economy.
We have a classic Catch Twenty-two here. Capitalism requires unending growth, without growth the system collapses. We live on a finite planet. Something has to give.
Combine that with my first observation and then add the comment by EveningLand about oil "wells drying up". Technically the wells don't need to dry up, oil merely needs to become expensive for things to collapse. Our civilization wasn't simply built on energy, it was build on cheap energy. When energy gets really expensive we will have massive inflation and declining productivity, aka stagflation.
How is it we're not toast?
people got leukemia long before farms used chemicals..they just died from it without knowing why.
I think mtnGoat may be onto something with buying boycotts and better regulation of advertising. But there is more to add as well.
I know someone who was able to feed themself largely off of the family farm many years ago. This person was definately not a consumer like today. I was in admiration that this person could live so well off of the land. Unfortunately, after all those years on the farm, this person has leukemia from farm chemical runoff. This person controlled what they could but the problem of rejecting consumerism was fought with naivety of the pervasiveness of the control the farm chemical companies had on this life.
So consumer advertising protection takes on more than just a more being a reasonable philosophy. It must be actively fought for on a large scale, relentlessly, passionately, and with long term tenacity. It must include more than buying boycotts. Here is where taking back our government could help. It is necessary. It is a long war. I'm material. so are you.
"The solution may be as simple as taking away the corporate right of free speech. No more advertising. No more influence on politics."
Good luck with that. You will then have to limit freedom of speech for persons, or else I will just make a lot of money hiring out my freedom of speech to speak for those danged corporations.
"There is no way for the consumer to make the decisions you expect them to make as both information and buying options are tightly controlled by the corporations."
Of course there is a way. There is no law against refusing to buy. You seem to think that choosing not to buy is not an option. It is this omission that is the problem here. Producers can of course choose what to offer. But there is not one thing they can do to control your choice not to buy if it doesn't meet your standards.
This is the option. You completely control their purse strings by your right to control your own purchases...but only if you want to make the choice to do so.
To the extent corporation can control what is offered via law, the problem there is allowing the state to use law to direct these choices in the first place. It get's used to direct what is offered..always to the benefit of the sellers and to the exclusion of other sellers who would offer different things..but are not permitted to.
One example is that transportation options in most cities are tightly limited by the collusion of taxi monopolies who use the city govt to limit competition for their own benefit..leaving only the bus or rail as competitors, and outlawing competing point to point competition. These taxi outfits work to limit competition and keep prices static for their own benefit, and use the city to outlaw competition.
Marketing is the problem here. The corporations take some of the money that necessarily flows through them and uses it to influence the public. The solution may be as simple as taking away the corporate right of free speech. No more advertising. No more influence on politics.
I find it difficult to believe that Benjamin Barber has nothing better to do with his time than to write apologetic literature for a mode of making a living that is unsustainable and that poses the most formidable threat to the continuation of life on earth after the nuclear weapons stockpiles and the present President of the United States.
While species are disappearing at an alarming rate, glaciers and the polar ice caps are melting, forests are being leveled, water tables are drying up, billions of people live below the poverty level, thousands of children are dying every day, Mr. Barber, from his university office, not only issues worn out falsehoods about capitalism's altruism and other alleged benefits, but also attempts to find correctives for a mode of making a living that is essentially doomed and has proven itself to be as unreformable and recidivist as a hardened criminal.
The heart of modernity lies in the threefold feed-back structure made of science, technology, and (the unlimited growth) economy (the triad, for short).
The three are inseparable: there is no modern science without technology, for modern science only believes what it can make, replicate, reproduce in experimental set-ups, which become ever more complex with the growth of science; and techno-science in turn teases and needs the growth economy (without technology and a certain economic organization, no giant telescopes or accelerators of particles, no satellites, no magnetic resonance imaging, etc.).
But the triad needs energy to perform its endless and measureless machinations (which, as we now know, include constant war making) and to exploit the earth and its creatures, which it treats as if they were stockpiles of stuffs that merely lie at its disposal and that it may use at its leisure.
In the first decades of the industrial era, coal quickly became the primary source of energy. It was replaced by petroleum and its derivatives at the beginning of the last century.
From the inception of the industrial era (late 1700s to 1800) to 1999, the world population has grown sixfold, increasing from one billion to six billion inhabitants. The bulk of this hypergrowth took place from 1927 onward, at which point the world population stood at two billion. In other words, as James Kunstler put it, "population hypergrowth was simply a side effect of the oil age" ("The Long Emergency" (2005), p. 8). To quote Kunstler again, "[f]ossil fuels had the effect of temporarily raising the carrying capacity of the earth" (12).
The modern economy or mode of production, whether of the capitalist or socialist variety, is a growth economy. It rests on the assumption that the planet is limitlessly endowed with the stuffs (organic or inorganic) needed by the triad and its ever expanding greedy hordes of consumers. Since the earth is clearly a finite body, the assumption of limitless growth is a piece of sheer ideology, a drug on which modern mankind has been leading its frenzied, novelty and entertainment seeking, distracted, murderous, and intoxicated existence.
For about a century now, we in the western world have been living in an artificial world of plenty, wherein we could wastefully produce and consume, as if there were no tomorrow to be worried about.
The Achilles' heel of the triad is plainly its inexhaustible thirst for energy. Once the oil wells dry up, the triad will mercilessly collapse, and the carrying capacity of the earth will ruthlessly return to being a solar carrying capacity only.
If we do not deal with our present predicament, our predicament will deal with us.
Mtn Goat,
The problem of your whole analysis is that we can only consume what is offered for sale. And the powerful corporations carefully engineer what is offered for sale in a specific direction, per the principles of "manufacturing consent" by Bernays and Lippman. You may say "then open your own shop an make it and sell it yourself!" But between the powerful media and the big-box dominated suburban infrastructure, where a small shop owner doesn't have a chance, the is no hope for a small inventor with a big idea. Even the Wright Brothers wouldn't have gotten anywhere in today's business environment.
When I decided to minimize my carbon footprint, yet my job also moved to suburbia. I realized that a battery-electric, vespa-style motor scooter would be just the thing - which I only learned existed through a lot of internet research. Then, through great effort and expense, I mail-ordered one, only to find that although the "technology" was perfectly sound, the workmanship was very poor due to an unscrupulous Chinese manufacturer. The importer was consequently financially ruined, and I and ended up having to self-educate myself in electrical technology so I could keep them running. But any average consumer would have been screwed.
Take the Toyota Prius - which most consumers think of the cutting edge in fuel efficiency technology. Well, do you know that 25 years ago, several regular, cheap, conventional IC engine cars, like the Honda Civic CRV, got even better gas mileage, and cost far less?
Of course, the best consumer decision is to not use a car at all - use public transit, but how available is that in most US communities?
There is no way for the consumer to make the decisions you expect them to make as both information and buying options are tightly controlled by the corporations.
Wealthy countries got rich in no small part beause of colonial exploitation. In other words they robbed the poor to pay the rich. If this were history we might not pay any attention to it. But it is still happening, and worse than ever.Because capitalists have so much capital and no shame, they can still operate the global economy to thtir personal advantage. This is one reason the rich countries get richer every year as the Global South starves. I mean dying of hunger. The other reason is the World Bank and IMF insisting the poorest countries owe them money. Billions more than they could ever pay. This money is owed, say the banks, by people who have nothing to eat, to fabulously rich people whose needs are a bigger boat, a third house, a $4,000 dress and loads of diamonds stolen from South Africa.
This is capitalism. It is manifestly not social justice.
The Hidden Persuaders,
by Vance Packard, perhaps
Wish I could remember the name of the 1950s / 1960s book that described how corporations used advertising to create phony "needs" in our minds. The process was to decide what to manufacture and how much and then to create the proper level and intensity of "need."
Walter Lippman?
why the heck should everyone's time be innately equal, when the services provided cannot be?
and why the heck should anyone else get to decide that their valuation of the worth of someones work should apply to someone elses decisions?
what i'm seeing here is a whole bunch of folks who are perfectly capable of simply choosing to value other things..complaining about the result of not doing so.