The 11 000-page Commodity Futures Modernisation Act was dumped on Congress just days before Christmas break on December 21 2000. Those who read it would have foreseen years in advance the black hole on page 262, forbidding government from regulating derivatives. That’s how things are done in the democracy that constitutes the United States. And what of global democracy?
According to the UN, just 2% of the population control 50% of the globe’s wealth, with 10% accounting for 80% of total wealth in circulation; over 80% of the world’s poor control less than 1%. [Bloody hell]
Does this democracy “of a few” and for the free depend on the exploitation of the Earth, and if so, whose democracy is it anyway?
In many ways we are faced with the paradox of a democracy imagined in a world fractured and mired in simmering wars and conflict resources; it exists because the word itself — a misnomer given current circumstances — has become apart of our language and thought-forms.
But is there truly freedom of choice when all options have been pre-determined, manufactured and propagated by a select group of people — fifteen different cereals composed of more or less the same ingredients, produced by one company, lining the shelves?
Does it matter then what you choose if choice itself is an illusion, limited to “ideas” already approved?
Does our democracy allow for us to influence economic methodologies that directly affect us, our human rights, our environment or does instead it “release” us — the politically empowered citizenry — from the right of responsibility with a simple vote?
Can democracy exist within the context of the free-market, given that the UN states “a small band of rich” — the beneficiaries of the free market — “controls global wealth?”
If this is “freedom”, what is it that represents the ideological opposite of democracy?
Perhaps in order to truly understand the phraseology of modern political traditions, a process of elimination is required. We could start with capitalism and communism — often bunched together, garnished by the either-or tribe who spoon-feed us with news the way fast-food companies feed their clients, heavy on stimulants and light on the nutrition.
Capitalism, the imperial incarnation of feudalism, developed in tandem to oceanic empires such as the United Province [Dutch], Spanish Hapsburg, Britain and others.
Whether “regulated” or “disastrous” in nature, capitalism primarily uses the same economic approach toward defining the narrative of life as broken into constituent elements; this translates to commodified labour and resources, relegating man to the status of consumer and producer, stripping him of his essential qualities.
If man is reduced to matter — to mechanics, to biology, devoid of his soul, which has since the dawn of time entreated him to act against profit, interest and self-preservation at the expense of others, in short, schooled to strip himself of his conscience — then it becomes possible to implement exploitative mechanism instituted as policy, convincing both consumer and producer that others who are suffering are nothing more than statistics.
The idea of man as the “perfect animal” has allowed for intelligence to be employed divorced from justice, lending to the policy profiteering that has raped both the Malian cotton farmer and the rural American cotton farmer. Both remain outside of the vertically integrated capital-intensive systems; these dehumanising systems are at ease with our version of democracy.
Capitalism justifies large-scale expropriation and rests on the moral imperative of a virtuous greed also packaged as rational self-interest, and this software of democratic capitalism is always structured along the “framework” of freedom — that vague misunderstood universe. What has been designated a democratic capitalism is essentially what Benito Mussolini classified as the cornerstone of fascism or corporate capitalism.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” [Mussolini].
Autocratic capitalism on the other hand, such as in the case of Red China etc, allows for the state to harness and control the economy through political narratives hinged on the commons. People are expected or physically and mentally coerced to live for the state as a power beyond the rights of man, of truth.
It is the converse of capitalism ,or so it seems, yet authoritarian capitalism is just capitalism in a different form, one that allows the corporates to sit on the board of government, formulating both business/private and social/public decisions.
There is nothing paradoxical then about China engaging in this type of system whilst still maintaining the fallacy of “common ownership or socialism”. In both cases, the commons represent not the people but a small, fixed group of interests, regularly recycling components who proclaim to uphold these very interests — and decide the interests of the public.
In fact, the core of capitalism can be defined as interest, who controls it, who doesn’t. The primary difference is that state-controlled forces do not use officially deniable arms/warrant agents such as Monsanto; the former marginalise the masses and control economic means, whilst the latter do the very same under brand names, facilitated by a revolving door.
Both negate the rights of the living using the same skeletal structure, manifest in different methods and propaganda tools.
Then there are those who state that the transnational corporation has overtaken the state as a reigning entity, additionally claiming that the corporate creature now functions as its own “state”, and that it is a synthesis of capitalism and modern technology.
The facts are correct, but the conclusion we are led to is fallacious. First World governments allow and encourage the creation, structure and intent of modern corporations; the latter can’t survive without the legal approval of the former. [Anti-Trust laws could masticate a company like De Beers, and for a long time the US threatened to do so.]
Far from independent operators, multinationals such as Halliburton and Chevron are the most fundamental components of the US as an empire, and this reality is routine in history.
‘Virtuous greed’
In the Spain of the 1600s and upwards, the practice of corporate capitalism was known as administration by asiento, or private contract, and was pivotal to the rise and development of the Spanish Empire, which required the “virtuous greed” of privateers [armed and licensed maritime mercenaries for hire] as a vehicle toward expansion and consolidation.
Yet Spain is portrayed as an example a “state-controlled” empire — though private banks kept the empire afloat by purchasing speculative “toxic” debt incurred through wars fought on various fronts, trade deficits and a shortage of silver as the currency.
[The decreto y medio real/bankruptcy was pushed off many times by private banks who superficially concealed insolvency, purchasing debt that contained massive potential profit.]
As with a house of cards, the people involved know not to poke.
Ports of old such as Sale, Algiers in North Africa and Trieste in Europe were “free zones” that engaged in free trade way back in 1600s.
Naomi Klein, a leading intellectual, activist and writer has classified another kind of capitalism that uses the vehicle of catastrophe to establish the no-holds-barred capitalism by force, titled “disaster” capitalism; she proposes that neoliberal conservatives manipulate crisis situations using economic shock therapy to implement free-market orientation.
Her book, the Shock Doctrine, intelligently and meticulously documents such examples using the metaphor of shock therapy. But if taken as a diet of its own — that the free market is most dangerous when occurring in an unobserved vacuum such as war, or when inserted into a crisis atmosphere, then it can also be assumed that crisis alone sets the precedent for the most lethal economic policies, whether present in the form of a war or natural disaster, and are not similarly attendant in those countries perceived as in a state of passivity but who are nonetheless experiencing similar policies — and consequences.
That crisis paves the way for the free market is a given, but could it also be said that the free market creates the fault-lines toward the same crisis, less easily identified because a big-bang doesn’t accompany it?
Certainly, the historiography of war has seen brutal control of any occupied region. But that is the nature of methodologies of hard force — none of which were specifically created by the “Chicago Boys”, nor Milton Friedman, though all were certainly guided by the already existing framework.
[At around the same time that Friedman was plaguing the world with his nasty little economic dictums, Ayn Rand was doing the same, swallowed up by disciples like Alan Greenspan and a whole host of others. Rand herself was influenced by Nietzsche, who proposed the concept of Übermensch or "super-human", saying that "man is something which ought to be overcome ..." -- meaning that "weak" characteristics (and perhaps people) ought to be stamped out in favour of what is perceived as the "strong": power and wealth, irrespective of the means.]
The concept of “privatisation, deregulation and cuts to social spending”‘ — attributed to Friedman by Klein — is pretty normal in the context of wars, empires and nations ruled by unwanted and corrupt regimes. I’ve never heard of an occupying force that did otherwise. What has been rightly been termed disaster capitalism is the timeless manna for warmongers, motivated by any region that is in a weakened state, or in other words, a state or nation that exudes colonisability.
The free market uses a combination of hard and soft force, a term phrased by intellectual Joseph Nye, the essence of which depends on a “business as usual” policy as can be seen in Botswana; it can also exist independent of hard force or tanks, never more effective than when in a state of forced peace.
At the far end of the spectrum, Botswana supplies around 23% of the global diamond market with high quality gems, yet one third of the citizens live on under $1 a day. It is one the “fastest” growing economies in the world — on paper.
If used as the sole platform, disaster capitalism may serve to diminish the potency and destructive power of “everyday” capitalism, implying that the processes of exploitation that have ensnared the majority of Africa via structural adjustment (SAP) are less dangerous.
Expropriation of resources
In 1960, Africa had around $6-billion of debt, imposed by the World Bank, accrued via loans taken out by colonial powers; by 2004, after years of SAP, African debt totalled $165-billion; 32 of the 33 “least developed countries” listed by the UN are major recipients of the World Bank. All were in Africa. It’s all done very quietly and without catastrophe. The World Bank’s 2005 Global Finance Report tells us that developing countries are now capital providers to developed countries. It’s the kind of debt that generates wealth for the jailor, taking up between 20% to 50% of annual revenue in some countries.
In short, nothing in our “free world” has changed save for the definition of “democracy”, but that doesn’t make it free or democratic, just warped.
Now that imperialism has seemingly come to an end, we assume that colonial nationalism has too.
But most Asian, African and other regimes have endorsed inherited forms of capitalist-colonialism that can be defined as male-dominated militarisation, expropriation of resources and the reduction of humans to the state of commodities.
They have done as former white colonialists: defined progress as independent of the living environment; monetised economic systems as dissociated from ecosystems and ecological life cycles, and inserted the clause of human rights as divorced from living environments.
But human rights cannot exist save within the context of ecological integrity that provides inalienable rights to the environment from which people derive their sustenance.
The president of Nigeria recently stated that annual economic losses due to environmental degradation totalled $5,1-billion. But the environment is still plundered; Nigeria has by rule of federal law allowed for ownership of land to be transferred to the government when oil is present or discovered. It is precisely the process of “discovery” used by colonialists.
Many African leaders have not only adopted the methodologies of colonialism [built on the preserve of nationalism], but have guaranteed the destruction of the natural environment — and the lives of millions who depend on it — by endorsing artificial boundaries between humans and the environment, conservation and “resources”.
Is this a democracy abated or one that never existed? Can democracy exist in a world where free trade reigns supreme?
Former boss of Archer Daniel Midland (ADM), known as the “supermarket’ to the world, said: “The competitor is our friend, the customer is our enemy. There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one.”
He should know — over 40% of ADM goods are subsidised by an unknowing American public; subsidisation is used to deliberately distort and by implication control markets by artificially lowering prices for Northern farmers, competing on the “free market” with farmers from impoverished countries, laden with debt.
Northern farmers are subsidised to the tune of $1-billion a day — farmers in the South get zilch. Their own government won’t protect them because structural adjustment prescriptions compounded by loans, interest and fungible aid have ensured that the means to keeping the country afloat is earned primarily by interchanging cash crops for hard currency, in order to pay off the debt.
Fungible aid allows for these governments to purchase arms by stealth trade; those regimes most favoured by corporate capital globalisers such as the World Bank are those who buy into the policy of virtuous greed or self-interest. In short, people like Mugabe have become the same thing that they proclaim to oppose.
The Grimmet Report states that 73% of arms manufactured by the G8 were delivered to developing countries in 2007, so it appears that many regimes in Africa, Asia and South America are being very virtuous indeed.
The intention of the free market is to pit one poor country against the other. To control or destabilise the price of a commodity, various mechanisms of applied power are used: the World Bank will use “soft power” to persuade Vietnam to grow coffee. The Vietnamese government will pitch in to curry favour. Soon, cheap coffee beans flood the market, crashing the commodity and those nations that depend overwhelmingly on coffee for revenue such as Ethiopia.
The story is true: Vietnam, producer of low grade coffee, is now one of the top three coffee producers in the world per tonnage, second to Brazil. Coffee is always one of the top five traded commodities in the world. Along the way, Vietnam’s forests have died. No big deal.
For cash croppers such as India, the highest suicide rate is that of the farmer; very often they kill themselves with the same pesticides actively promoted as “salvation”. “One-crop economies” fall the hardest and are most vulnerable to market fluctuations i.e. speculators who gamble on commodity and currency futures, delinking real value from commodities whilst enabling New York or London to artificially determine the price of stock.
In 2008, ADM recorded revenues of $69,8-billion; contrast this with the economy of South Africa — in 2007, our GDP was $467-billion. It is probable that ADM makes up the rule by sponsoring their politicians, but this reality is made possible by legislation that creates the “enabling” vacuum required by corporates. This reality is one, singular. The government does not oppose corporates — not in the empires of old, nor today.
The revolving door between governments and corporations has been widely and thoroughly analysed, whether the industry in question is agriculture such as that of Monsanto and the FDA, or “private soldiers” like Aegis, the private security company present in Iraq, categorised by the Guardian as the “second largest army”.
Alan Greenspan recently negated the concept of virtuous greed by stating that it was a “flaw” within the free-market narrative, that it left him in a state of “shocked disbelief”.
Greenspan, a Randian at heart though not always in policy, has managed to keep the US afloat by engaging in laws that are directly converse to the free market, as has the US in general.
Subsidies for e.g. have no place in the free market and constitute protectionism; the concept of “reciprocal trade” made mandatory by the WTO is another law that constitutes protectionism for wealthy countries and not free trade. If the latter is a form of economic colonialism — as it appears to be — can democracy exist in a free market?
Woodrow Wilson stated: “Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?”
By redefining the concept of war using contextual intelligence, the canvas of the modern world has clearly shown us that there is no such thing as democracy in the free market, no such thing as a monetised economy that does not lead to crisis, no such thing as freedom as long as the inalienable rights of the environment do not exist, and do not constitute the basis of human rights.
At the end of the day, those who catch the bus, change diapers, worry about rent always get hit the hardest, yet they are also the very people who will never get a chance to influence the decision-making processes.
Democracy or forced peace?
This is brilliant, carefully constructed and poignant.
However I choose to point out that Liberalism is opposed to Cartels, Monopolies, Oligopolies and all other manipulations of markets through fictitious crises.
Indeed the very complaints you have raised are the reasons that Liberalism does not endorse laissez faire capitalism (or the unbridled greed of material accumulation) but rather chooses to define economic liberty as being best realised through a system of free enterprise within the context of an Open, Competitive, Market Economy – which is predicated on a Liberal Democracy and Equal Opportunity for Every Individual and governed by universal human rights for each and every person and the rule of law; which itself must be defined by Open Democratic Civic Participation and Universal Franchise.
In fact none of the extortion committed by global capitalism is in any way commiserate with the Liberal belief in the protection of the rights of all – especially those who are “weak” – and as such Liberalism does not endorse such activities
Equal Opportunity for all is the premise of Liberalism… not the might of right and the power of the privileged… for that is (as you rightly state) the progeny of feudalism and conservative exploitation.
I agree that a few have exploited the many – for thousands of years; but i fear that we disagree on how to resolve this matter – consumer choice, within the policy framework of open competition and zero barriers to market entry would have prevented the emergence of megalithic monopolistic MNC’s in the first place – and even now it is not too late – to ensure that through the delivery of equal opportunities to every single individual and the protection of the rights of every single individual, we will be able to enable every persont to grow and develop to their full potential.
Once again, I thank you for writing what is the most informative and entertaining article I have read in a very long time.
‘Tis cack, and without a redeeming feature.
Once again you completely ignore the role of the Eastern and then Arabic role of the stripping of African resources, (And SE Asian), which, from your name, suggests a little bit of blind prejudice and racial bigotry.
http://www.zanzibarkawatours.com/history.html
And you manage to miss out the role of Fairtrade and consumer boycotts in trying to prevent humasn rights abuses and unfair working practices.
Probably beacuse they are western conventions that are almost totally unknown in Middle Eastern and Arabic countries. Notably that Slavery is stil a working institution in several Arabic Countries and Soadi Arabia and Middle Eastern Countries are notorious for their treatment of foreign workers.
(By the way, when were you planning on mentioning OPEC and its mainly arabic members and its effects on world trade, any time in your analysis of the problems of World Trade?)
Excellent article Miss Khadija —
Wall Street Journal published a front-page article Friday reporting that the nine biggest US banks, which have received a combined $125 billion in taxpayer funds as part of the $700 billion bailout authored by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and passed by the Democratic Congress, owed their executives more than $40 billion for recent years’ compensation and pensions as of the end of 2007.
This means that nearly a third of the public funds given to these banks will ultimately be used to increase the private fortunes of a handful of multimillionaire Wall Street executives.
Keep writing please. We must never give up hope that one day knowledge will be universal enough that lies will be harder and harder to sell.
Good I think. Really need an abstract version with elaborating links to keep the democractically marginalised engaged. It is generally the complexities of paper-work that drowns us out of ‘real’ representation.
Interesting and -sadly- oh so true. The “freedom of choice and movement” is largely available through the globalisation of corporate entities who -supposedly- bring jobs to the poor in far away places, keeping them poor in the process.
The poor and the not so rich cannot move to where the richness is or appears to be. The stories of “boat people” all over the world tells the sad tales of people who have the guts to leave their home ground for better lives but get stuck on the way. They drown or get send straight back to where they started their dangerous journey.
Try to migrate the legal way and one faces a barrier of regulations and paperwork at a cost to become eligible to move from one country to another. Countries all over the world are tightening their rules for entry into the country.
However, corporates are welcomed with open arms as they bring the “jobs” so needed by the poorly performing governments. Or is it the money they spread around the political fraternity who care as much about the poor as the corporates do.
Are we waiting for a world revolution of the poor?? Or should we just leave the poor to succumb in their own misery??
No easy solutions around, I am afraid.
Well said. While liberalism or any other -ism might look good on paper, reality says that vested interests will be protected.
Your blog is a good analysis of the ills of modern greed which is all pervasive at the expense of all. Expanding on the ills of communism would have completed the blog and raised it to an excellent analysis of the way systems on both sides of the spectrum is manipulated by humanity.
I agree that uncontrolled capitalism is a scourge to everybody but as shown by the recent financial turmoil everybody is at risk. But to blame Capitalism as a system would not be a fair stance to take rather the blame should fall on politicians using Capitalism as a weapon. There are many compounding factors at play. Let’s unbundle a few points:
The rich countries in the world, with the exception of the Middle East, are all freely and fairly elected Democratic systems with check and balances to prevent single wide spread corruption where as opposed is the poor underdeveloped countries with a corrupt and mostly weak governments. Funds are siphoned to private accounts and into armed conflict for personal gain, instead of investing in economic development and science. Corruption also allows for unscrupulous businessmen to exploit people. Again the blame should not go to Capitalism but rather to greed of people. As you wrote in your blog, strong governments can reign in rampant companies, but then you should not be on their pay role.
The rich countries spend vast amounts of money on research and development, education and infrastructure. This gave them the advantage in the first place. These three areas are not adequately, in most cases totally neglected, by the poor countries.
Most of the poor countries also followed a path of Communism after their colonial days. This system is far more destructive than Capitalism in that it destroys progress and individualism in the name of the common good. It further also creates rich elite at greater expense to the workers.
I will end with the following words passed on by my father: All systems work perfectly until you introduce humans along with their greed.
Never borrow money when you will not benefit from how you spend it in the long run or be in a position where you cannot pay it back.
Hi Avishkar, thanks for reading; I appreciate your thoughts and feedback. As far as the ‘b’ word, lol – when thin film technology is mentioned, I think DVD, hehe so we can safely run/rule me out of that category;-)
Could you tell me more about liberalism in context of zero barriers to markets and consumer choice as it relates to prevention of monopolies? I have been enjoying your pieces (read the one on liberalism and look forward to reading more)
Hi Napoleon, thanks for reading;-) you have summed up the situation beautifully..already about 17% of US population lives in dire poverty, between 37 – 50 million people. its a horrible thought – they lose their homes, and public funds go towards bailing out corporates…reminds me of our Eskom situation – R10 million in bonus or so I had heard….
As is often the case, the left blames capitalism for the failings of socialism. The left interferes in the free market, creates externalities, and then points at capitalism and cries that it’s broken.
Khadija Sharife doesn’t seem to even have the vaguest understanding of the system she’s attacking, something that becomes very clear when she refers to Naomi Klein as an “intellectual”, which is kind of like calling Julius Malema a statesman.
Blaming the collusion between government and corporations on capitalism is a ridiculous idea. There is a difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Hi BenzoL – thanks for reading; boat people — what an apt way to describe the canvas of ‘forced’ migration. Some time ago, a friend told me a story about a kid in Morocco, Tangiers..left on a ‘boat’ for Spain..never to be found again. just a child. Right now in the Gulf countries, huge buildings are filling up the sky with the blood of migrants who are paid nothing, living in squalor near open sewers…50 million in Export Processing Zones…i think the solution if fair trade – in terms of the way in which wealth is generated and monitored.what do you think? would like to know your thoughts.
Hi Owen; thanks for reading, always appreciate your comments. very true about vested interests; most laws are designed (by the wealthy) to protect their wealth…often stealing from their own people and others outside of their borders…both sides care for only color, green;-(
Hi Pete Ess!!!! That is the truth of the matter, if people knew, would they buy into the ‘system’? From what I’ve read of Starbucks/Coke/Nike versus ‘the people’ it seems that many – when made aware of the truth, fight for their beliefs and realise that they don’t need the ‘manufactured items’ that have been promoted as necessary/important. Or that they can find alternatives. Companies are often forced to close shop if they experience a 10% decline in profits per specific region…Knowledge that leads to taking a firm and decisive stand can make a big difference.
yeah thats right OPEC went to war with the Nation of Islam… and drove the price of oil from $10 to $150 a barrel? no wait, that was GW Bush… and thats right the rape, loot and pillage the natural resources thing… that was invented by asians? no that was the former colonial powers…
Together, the G8 countries represent about 65% of the Gross World Product[12], the majority of global military power (seven are in the top 8 nations for military expenditure[13]), and almost all of the world’s active nuclear weapons.[14]
The eight countries making up the G8 represent about 14% of the world population, but they account for 65% of the world’s economic output measured by gross domestic product, all 8 within the top 11 countries according to the CIA World Factbook. (see the CIA World Factbook column in List of countries by GDP (nominal))
In 2007, the combined G8 military spending was US$850 billion. This was 72% of the world’s total military expenditures. (see List of countries and federations by military expenditures) Four of the G8 members United Kingdom, United States of America, France and Russia together account for 96-99% of the world’s nuclear weapons. (see List of states with nuclear weapons)
You touch on so many different issues it is hard to know where to start.
I think that you are right in the sense that much apparent choice in the world might not be much of a choice at all. Although I think that your use of a choice of cereals is a bad example as you can still choose to eat anything else you wish to for breakfast and we still have far more choice then our ancestors did, to use this crass example.
On the issue of manufactured choice in politics; well that really depends on which form of democracy one practices. If it is first past the post as is practiced in the US and the UK then choice certainly is some what manufactured but not for the over simplistic reasons that have been asserted. It is manufactured as the candidates that are selected represent a form of compromise within the societies they come from. This is because in order to become a candidate of a major party one must appeal to as many of the overall voters as possible representing the broad interests of the candidates constituents. This promotes greater social harmony and stability in the long run.
The down side of this system is that minorities tend to be under represented and more open to abuse. The up side is that it forces society to make compromises as not all views can be represented only those views that are most strongly felt by the people are given representation.
The other option is to use a proportional democratic system, South Africa uses this system, which would usually not produce such a ‘manufactured’ choice to voters. The up side of this system is that all politically organised groups within society get representation but the down side is it discourages compromise and lands up creating gridlock within government. Italy’s highly fragmented political scene is often given as an example of this.
The overall point of any democratic government is to represent as broad a possible spectrum of people within society as possible. This usual chaffs those people who are on the political margins of society; they are usually the most vehement critics of democracy.
As for your Botswana argument; tt is true that despite the country’s rapid economic growth over the past 20 years the country is still very poor but one must remember where it has come from. Twenty years ago Botswana was a very poor country indeed and the number of people, relative to the proportion of society, living on less then a dollar a day was much greater.
It an unfortunate side effect of the positive phenomenon that is rapid economic growth that social inequality gets greater as the rich get richer at a faster rate then the poor. In the long run this social inequality does reduce as the process of industrialisation matures. The process of economic development within a capitalistic system seems to involve these cycles of growing inequality followed by periods of wealth redistribution.
well written and thought provoking, two comments:
a bit long good ideas don’t need too many words and
what is the practical alternative to the ‘non democrtatic’ market as ‘official’ control hs proved to be worse?
Brent
Hi Douglas
Thanks for the read;-) My analogy (breakfast cereals) was used as an example to illustrate the illusion of choice..latent and pervasive. Democracy really cannot function if the idea of political empowerment is to act as a release valve reducing the actual participation of society, which occurs by default when society is for e.g. controlled by monopolies of a foreign nature that are in many cases not accountable to country in which they are present, but merely to their country of origin who profits from such via officially deniable methods..If the ‘developing’ government wants to succeed in the current model (free market)then human and environmental rights must be [deliberately] diluted, made oblique etc in order for the exploitation to be justified and legalised as business as usual. Can a democracy actually function when matters of state (as representatives of the people) are neither in the hands of the state nor the people? The WTO policy of reciprocal trade moves beyond domestic frameworks, imposed from above…yet in an age of global trade, it is lethal. Could you tell me more about the wealth redistribution you mentioned? Interested in your thoughts.
Hi Verster: Naomi Klein is on list of global intellectuals, so it is officially a title. I’m for fair trade – the middle path. Each man gets a just and fair due whether he works on a farm or manufactures furniture. So we should safely consider me neither left nor right.
Apologists for modern capitalism use Nietzsche to demonstrate that inhumane exploitation, militarism and cynicism in the realm of culture are the natural order of things. Disenchanted ex-radicals and university academics use Nietzsche to demonstrate that systematic scientific thought, a world view based on rationality and progress, is unattainable if not undesirable.
Now considering the recent events in global politics one is reminded of the writings of Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
So our current politicians learned from the Chief Nazi Ideologist….Terror Lekota ‘defending what in the constitution’ free and quality education for all? ….. Obama chanting for change — but what change. Did he not intervene and instruct the Democratic party to vote for the financial bail out of the wealthy?
@Avishkar and liberalism:
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. ~P.J. O’Rourke
Brilliantly researched and written Khadija, thank you for such an informative piece.
Actually neither capitalism nor socialism nor communism can uplift the poor once an elite gets control because of:
1 Corruption (state tenders go to those who give kickbacks, not who submit the best tender)
2. Incompetance ( jobs go not to the educated and qualified, but to the Minister’s nephew, uncle or cousin).
Easier to control in a democracy – impossible to control at all in a one party state with an elite in control of army, police, media and courts.
Hi
The article has mentioned some good points. One thing that has stood out in the many articles that I have read is that people do not understand the difference between socialism and capitalism (economic systems) and democracy and communism (political systems) and tend to see the two in absolutes. Both Socialism and Capitalism has both good and bad issues associated with them, the problem is the correct blend of them. Uncontrolled capitalism creates a serious unequal distribution of wealth and the concentration of power in a few. Uncontroled socialism leads to a lazy corrupt nation that have failed to develop a working and productive ethics system and eventually bankcrupts inself. The issue is the correct blend incoporating the strong points of both.
Dear Napolean
thats where i started in 2002 and now we have the WNPC – so i hear u loud and clear
Political Autonomy – Political Solvency… Corruption festers in the absence of these things
Democracy is a process of electing public servants to office, not an ideology or a style of governance and certainly not any particular set of economic policies.
A command economy permitting few economic freedoms can be implemented by democratically elected bureaucrats, and free market principals may be promoted by totalitarian regimens, and vice versa.
The one is simply not dependant upon the other.
Many persons have the strange notion that democracy will automatically yield an economically equitable society simply for being so, otherwise the claim is made that economic inequalities are the result of undemocratic elements within the society.
This piece further implies that a ‘free market’ cannot yield general prosperity within an equitable society, whilst presumably a command economy will. This is totally at odds with historical evidence, and demonstrates some confusion as to what constitutes a free market.
No free market currently exists.
All nation states exact taxes, which in itself constitutes at least partial ‘collective’ control over production and consumption, and are ‘mixed’ economies.
The state may enact legislation which applies further coercive control over various sectors of the economy, and it is through this ‘empowerment’ which is influenced by ‘corporations’ and the like that legally enforced concessions which advantage themselves are secured.
It is through state intervention in the form of price controls, protection, trade tariffs, taxation, subsidies, licenses and other economic meddling that monopolies are sustained and corrupt and inequitable practices occur with impunity.
This is exactly what a free market is not, and simply because a nation state clams to be a de jure ‘free market economy’ does not make it one.
@Pangea: well put; the difference between the political system and the economic systems, often blurred in the heat of a debate. In addition to that: Russian communism (in fact a socialist economic system) is often referred to as prove of the failure of communism. The real failure was in the non democratic and dictatorial implementation which caused resistance from inside, helped by outside forces from the capitalist (US/Euro) world. At stake was global power and control. Russia lost the first round but is by no means beaten into submission.
Despite popular belief in SA: communism nor socialism are dead.
The ideas of SANE (new economics) and NEF (the UK mentor) are an emerging mix of socialism and capitalism focussing on many micro implementations.
Benzol
And what are the policies of the Nordic countries, Holland, Canada, Australia, UK -if not a mix of socialism and capitalism?
Marxist/leninist communism has worked nowhere. The communism that has evolved in Vietnam and China is as different as chalk and cheese from Marxism.
@lyndal:”And what are the policies of the Nordic countries, Holland, Canada, Australia, UK -if not a mix of socialism and capitalism?”
A democratic implementation of any of these systems leads almost automatically to a mix. The dictatorial implementation of capitalism will equally lead to disaster as a result of explitation. (for lack of better examples on hand: French revolution, Russian revolution)
Benzol
The Russian and French revolutions were mob rule mainly by working up agrarian peasants. Seen any of those lately?
It is UNREGULATED capitalism only that is a problem. Bureaucratic control does not work, because it stifles initiative, entrepreneurship production of jobs etc etc.
Many of the richest “capitalists” have given most of their money back : Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie, The Ford Foundation, the Phelps Foundation etc etc etc
Once basic needs and ego are satisfied, the super-ego kicks in – which means “outside” and “above” the ego.
Verster wrote: “Blaming the collusion between government and corporations on capitalism is a ridiculous idea. There is a difference between capitalism and corporatism.”
You seem oblivious to the fact that there are different forms of corporatism. When governments support big business and in turn target interventions in the marketplace like the bailout seen in the US as well as passing favorable laws for profitability it causes plutocracy which is directly attributed to the form of corporatism in my example. It is all motivated by one thing! Capatilism! Look at our Telekoms industry! Ask yourself whether poison Ivy and our infamous telephone parastatal has created a service which allows for cheaper products and more expendable income. Before answering please see their profits…
Hi SpellJammer
Thanks for the comment. Its interesting you mentioned Telkom …the $1.3 billion privatisation of the service was facilitated by Walter Kansteiner. This same person handles a lot of resources extracted from conflict regions such as Sierra Leone and the DRC, including rutile (titanium).
The revolving door between US corporations and the government is clear when we examine Kansteiner’s role as head of strategic minerals for the DoD ie: coltan, cobalt, cassiterite, rutile etc) and his position as Director of Titanium Resources Group etc
The militarised extraction of there resources from conflict regions does not diminish in times of civil war; it is the opposite.
The African Growth Act (AGOA) promoted by Kansteiner and others of his ilk has been handed over by the US gov to the Corporate Council of Africa, whose membership is composed of 85% of private US corporations, as reported in the Guardian..
AP reports that billions from the Wall Street bailout have been secretly channeled to execs.