On Fri, 23 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >I must agree with those whose opinion is that capitalism has created the
> >perceived "need" of many, many extravagant and extraneous material (as well as
> >service) objects. As to H. Ellis' experience in socialist countries where
> >citizens yearned for VCRs and microwaves. . .who do you think introduced this
> >"need" to them? Capitalistic societies such as our very own America. ...We
> >need to look at who has been responsible for instigating the consumerist
> >values (as people have already posted on the list). Give up? Okay: white,
> >upper-class males. Yes, in non-capitalistic countries as well, but in nearly
> >every case, *we* have forced so-called third world countries into a position
> >where they must exploit their resources in order to survive. Maybe they
> >wouldn't have air pollution if we hadn't told them cars were great.
>
> The problem with blaming capitalism for creating needs is that there is no way
> to objectively draw the line between needs and *mere* wants. Do I need a
> computer? Only if I want to do my job efficiently. I could live without it.
> Do I need an automobile? Only if I want to live more than walking distance
> from my job, and occasionally go somewhere else. Do I need books? Only if I
> want to know something. If we are talking about mere survival, than needs are
> few. I don't even need a clean environment or much biodiversity. Just enough
> to get by. I don't even need to be concerned about the survival of humanity,
> so long as I survive as long as possible. But if we are talking about a good
> life, then the concept of needs expands. It begins to include education; not
> just food, but good food; a safe neighborhood; antibiotics; insurance; and
> many other things. Do we need a new VCR? If it makes one's life better, than
> yes, we do. I have two in my house, so that my children can watch something
> while I watch something else. They become less subject to my tyranny, and
> vice-versa. So the additional VCR becomes a vehicle for one of humanity's
> greatest needs, freedom. This is not as trivial as it sounds, as anyone with
> children or roommates knows.
>
> White men don't deserve blame for showing the world that life can be more than
> subsistence. In so far as they are responsible for modernity, they deserve
> credit. But I believe that the modern world is a collective effort. People of
> all races and both genders have contributed to advancement. It is very
> convenient to trumpet the achievements of people of color and women to show how
> talented they are and then deny those same contributions when we feel like
> lambasting white men for creating the world as we know it.
>
> Third worlders are not children. They see what the west has created, and they
> want it. No one is forcing them to adopt western values and western
> materialism. The trick is to find balance between materialism, preserving the
> environment, and spiritualism. Hungry and bored people in a pristine
> environment are still hungry and bored.
>
> What is capitalism anyway? It is merely the notion that individuals should be
> entitled to keep what they have produced (property) and should be allowed to
> enter into voluntary transactions to buy and sell what they have, including
> their labor. The alternative is tyranny of one sort or another. Why would we
> want to adopt a system that offers less freedom and less productivity? What is
> to be gained? It is empirically obvious that only countries that are
> democratic and productive can afford to care about the environment.
>
How can you maintain that no one forced the third world to adopt
capitalism as their economic structure? What happened, for example, when
peasants in Nicaragua banded together to protest their exploitation by a
government that sold their land out from under them to North American
investors? We're told they pose a "threat" to Mexico and thus to the US,
and we send in military troops to wipe these people out. This happened
twice in this century! The story is the same in lots of countries--it
was the US that forced Haiti to change its constitution during our last
military occupation there, removing the clause that prohibited foreigners
from owning Haitian land, and we were also in there supporting the coup
that ousted Aristide--his liberation theology was just too dangerous for
our business interests there, apparently. So we go in and wipe out
popular, collectivist
movements and then we can make the grand gesture of supporting these
countries with good trading status so that they can get loans from the
world bank which then demands that they restructure their economy
according to guess which system, privatizing their "public services" and
cutting out social welfare programs entirely. I wouldn't call this the
"alternative to tyranny".
--valeria jephson
