On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
Raghu writes:
...Somebody's got to tell
these people, that no, a standard of living that involves every
individual
owning a big SUV, vacationing in the Caribbean every year and
eating out 4
times a week, is not "rightfully theirs" and in fact is absurdly
unsustainable - unless it is reserved for a small privileged class.
The point is, true global justice will require the *average Western
citizen*- not just the top 1% super-rich - to "reduce" their
standard of living,
sothat the rest of the world can have more. (I say "reduce" in quotes
because a scaling back in GDP or consumption may very well turn out
to be a good
thing for everyone.) But in GDP terms, it really is, to some extent
at
least, a zero-sum game. How many people, even on the Left, are
prepared to
sacrifice a little for the sake of their ideals? That is, of
course, an
awkward question but does that mean we should avoid it?
===============================
The great majority of US workers, including the fastest growing
segment of
college-educated administrative, technical and professional
employees, don't
enjoy the extravagant lifestyle you complain of. They're highly
indebted,
their pay is stagnating, their assets and benefits are
deteriorating, and
essential health, education, food, and tranportation costs are rising
rapidly.
What assurance do you have that reducing their living standards
further
"will result in the rest of the world having more"?
Raghu offers the example of programmers. He is exactly right:
a) American programmers (anecdotally speaking, but they have recently
even attempted to form a union to air these grievances) are bitter at
"outsourcing".
b) Before "outsourcing" they enjoyed a lifestyle that was (i) lavish
by "third world" standards, (ii) unsustainable if extended universally.
c) After "outsourcing" a good number of them lost their jobs and faced
a threat to continuing their lifestyle. Hence the bitterness.
Programmers of course are not average Western citizens -- I would
guess that they are in the 80th and higher percentile of earnings.
Nonetheless, the median family enjoys a lifestyle that is luxurious
(again by "third world" standards) -- the very fact that there is no
mass agitation for affordable public transport (even in densely
populated regions like New Jersey) is testament to this, isn't it?
That their status is deteriorating is partly attributable to the fact
that from a time when they could derive benefit from capitalist
imperialist "third world" exploitation they have now switched ends and
found their manufacturing, programming and other jobs migrate to that
same "third world" (that is not the entire story of course, but I
don't see Raghu claiming it is).
And as for Marxist intellectuals not assuming the burden of guilt -- I
don't know about the whole lot, but Marx lived a fairly meagre
existence didn't he? The reason why acknowledging the inevitability of
some redistribution of "assets" is important is exactly the opposite,
it seems to me, of what you consider its consequences: rather than
setting worker against worker, it will educate the churlish Western
programmer to think beyond his immediate inability to afford the next
neat gadget from Apple. Other workers have more genuine troubles to
deal with, but such an acknowledgement will free them from "clinging"
to foreigner-worker-bashing as a response.
Concretely, what kind of sacrifices are you demanding of yourself and
others? Have you voluntary renounced future pay increases and asked
your
employer to direct a portion of your salary to agencies whose
objective is
the alleviation of poverty abroad?
This sort of questioning, is I think what constitutes guilt-tripping
at its worst. What one person does in such a situation does not make a
difference. Worse, it makes a loser and a fool of him. But an
awareness of these truths can possibly be the spark for broad change,
organisation, and dare I say, solidarity and revolution.
Jerry Monaco has written wonderfully on this idea on LBO -- in
discussions about Iran. I will hunt up the references and post them
here when I have a few seconds.
Carrol may (somewhat rightly, though I do not agree with him entirely)
point out that personal consumption choices and activism is fruitless
(and in his opinion, a negative). But I believe the issue here is not
that, but a basic acceptance of the relevant facts ... do we not
believe that the truth will set us on the right track?
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
