At 10:54 AM 2/6/98 -0500, Ed Weick wrote:
>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?
>
Hmmmm. Ok, I'll take a deep breath, and be more precise. Consumerism is
probably the wrong word, if you're thinking of Ralph Nader style consumer
activism. I was thinking of the ideology of consumption, which then tends to
favour policies that enhance the ability of the dominant elite to purchase
imported goods over the protection of jobs at home. I don't think you'd
disagree with that.
>>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.
Of course, capitalism tends toward monopolies. That's why we have
legislation to regulate it. Free trade is a manouevre to get around such
legislation, forcing the level of competiton up a notch or ten. It's the
same ideology, with many of the same players, but without any controls. But
there's a contradiction there. Capitalism contains the seeds of its own
distruction, whether carried out on a national or transnational level --
because capitalism is unsustainable without controls, however much
individual capitalists may rail against them. Current GATT and MAI
negotiations are probably an attempt to do this, but without any global,
popular political movement, the result is horribly distorted.
>
>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?
>
I assume that all humans are capable of great good and great evil;
corruption, like poverty, will always be with us. However much I agree that
we must aspire to higher ideals, I don't think aspiration by itself is
enough. I do think that social relationships and the structural conditions
that result from those relationships will determine the expression of good
or evil in a given society. I don't think the people who inhabit societies
which descend into genocide or corruption are inherently any different from
those which flourish. But political and economic decisions were made in
those societies that created the conditions wherein the state of dynamic
equilibrium is tipped toward the expression of either development or
destructiveness. I think there is great danger in attributing social
conditions to the presence or absense of good or bad people. That lets the
rest of us off the hook too easily, although it is easy to see why popular
culture is encouraged to indulge in this thinking.
>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.
Again, I'm not suggesting closing or opening borders to goods and services.
Nor am I advocating doing away with national currencies in favour of
LETSystems. Since you brought it up, national currencies are very good at
trading on a national or international level. But they are very clumsy at
catering to local needs when there is a net outflow of resources from the
local to the centre, from poor to rich. The scarcity of national currency
reinforces this trend which has always existed ("them what has gets," "the
rich get richer," etc are not only proverbial sayings, but reflections of
how a scarce-commodity currency works, i.e. without political controls, the
structure of money dictates that wealth must flow from poor to rich).
The experience of the town of Worgl in Austria during the 30's shows that
local currency can create prosperity when global conditions are working
against it (for a good description of that process, see Tom Greco's, "New
Money for Healthy Communities." 200 Austrian and German towns were on the
verge of issuing their own currencies before the Austrian central bank
stepped in and killed it.
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.
There is a direct relationship between personal control over one's
environment and stress. Similarly local control over decision making about
the use of resources leads to increased social cohesion, which Wilkinson
shows very convincingly is also related to reduced stress and improved
health. Indeed he points out that the wealthiest Briton is less healthy than
the least wealthy Swede, BECAUSE of the relatively greater gap in incomes in
those two countries. The gap itself is a measure of control of resources,
and is related to differences in social cohesion, over and above all other
mitigating factors, like immigration, for example.
Does narrowing the income gap do away with elites? Obviously not. Even the
most egalitarian societies have ways of rewarding merit or social class. But
it does reduce the amount of coercive power one group has over another.
There's no going back on the global economy either, as there was no going
back on the industrial revolution. But to say that we should therefore sit
back and take whatever damage is meted out to us is like asking the early
19th century workers in the black satanic mills of northern England to quit
complaining and be thankful they have a job.
But the current (non)system is terribly unstable (no secret there). I have
no doubt that some form of viable, centrally administered controls over the
global economy (by whom?) will emerge in order to save the international
banking and trading system from itself (Tobin tax etc.) But that in itself
will not stem the flow of resources out of communities (witness the
downloading of responsibilities to municipalities, along with cutbacks in
funding in our dear province of Ontario). In order for local communities to
survive these conditions, local economies will have to be fostered, nurtured
and expanded. Why shouldn't municipalities issue their own currencies,
accept local taxes in local and pay for services in same, to save hard won
"hard" currency for "imports?" Experience indicates that those which
followed that route would prosper indeed.
I hope I've made my thinking a little more clear on this.
respectfully,
David Burman
