David Burnam (much of the original material cut):
>How does this tie into free trade? I think free, autonomous populations are
>anathema to global, monopoly capitalism. The rhetoric of democracy is used
>only to reinforce the ideology of individualism. It rarely is invoked
>against right wing dictators, for example, who are supportive of consumerism.
I'm a little unclear of what you mean here. I believe that the rhetoric of
democracy is frequently used against right wing dictators - but whether such
right wing dictators are or are not supportive of consumerism is something
that escapes me. I believe that, in general, they are supportive of their
own interests and the interests of the dominant elite. But consumerism?
>I think you oversimplify the global economy if all it is to you is the
>ability to get something you want. The issue is not trade, but tariffs. It
>is the right of corporations to export cheap products to any country and
>overwhelm whatever indigenous industry they think will be profitable. It is
>also a means to make sure that the Asian and African nations never rise to
>dominate the West.
I recognize that the global economy is not there simply to give me what I
want. I know that trade is monopolized, subjected to tariff and non-tariff
barriers, and used as a tool to keep colonial populations in their place. I
wish it were not so, but I have to concede that it is. But is this the
result of a flaw in the concept of free trade or is it a case of people
simply behaving toward one another as they always have? Domestic trade is
also monopolized, subject to barriers and used to keep populations in their
place.
It would seem that we have never really escaped our reptilian roots. In our
economic and political behavior we are often more reptile than human.
However, this does not mean that we do not also aspire to higher purposes.
The free exchange of goods and services, unhampered by monopolists and
governments, is a higher purpose to which I subscribe. I recognize, alas,
that it is unlikely to happen. But is it unlikely because of a flaw in the
ideal or because of our ability to espouse ideals but promote their corruption?
By all means, let us close our boundaries to foreign goods and services and
immobilize capital flows. Let us, as some on this list have suggested,
shrink the span of our economies to a radius of a few hundred miles. Let us
do away with national currencies and institute LETS systems. Will we be
happier? Will it end domination by some of the many? Will it do away with
elites knowing what is best for all and insisting on conformance to their
goals? I seriously doubt it.
Ed Weick
