This is a response to Ian Wooden’s posting http://www.rethos.com/news/view/309-Capitalism-and-Inequality-If-On...
Reclarifications: By “patience”, I mean the kind of patience a battered woman has when she sends her husband off to anger management therapy. I mean the kind of patience it takes to patch up a dilapidated house. All this while a nice guy and a lovely home call to you. No, sometimes patience isn’t the right approach. Will it take hard work and commitment to rehabilitate a violent husband or rebuild a crumbled house? Indeed. But you might as well invest that hard work and commitment in building a new home and getting a new man. You say, that takes more effort, I say more effort pushes us further away from capitalism in general – “why create a whole new system, when you have one to work with?” you ask. This is where my analogy fails…in economic systems and social attitudes you simply can’t “get a new house” one has to evolve from the other. But just as Capitalism grew from Feudalism, and Man arose from bacteria long ago, so a new system must emerge from the current. Getting a new house in economic terms, is creating an entirely different system, from the one we have now. Still why strive for such a radical change? Because capitalism and corporatism is an outdated, repressive economic and social model. It creates an unnecessary hierarchy, and disparity that is intolerable when we as society strive for equality, and self-management…i.e freedom. It may not be the people that are corrupt as much as the system.
Which gets to a clarification of the term “corruption.” The elite class is raised, pampered, groomed…socialized to care about certain things. Think of it this way. A rich person benefits from practices that hurt poor people. This is the worst case then to have the very people who have the resources, knowledge, and connections to actually mobilize and change systems benefit from systems that create disparity, isolation, deprivation and on and on. Consider the goals of a corporation – expand profits, protect shareholder investment…the corporate version of the Hippocratic oath – first lose no money. Short, sweet, laudable set of goals…right? Well, wage raises reduce profit..money lost. “In some cases, corporations will increase wages to attract the best and brightest, this competition creates a balance between pay cuts and raises” you might retort. In short, the effect is CEO’s get paid a shitload, and Janitors don’t get paid shit. Few rich people, many many poor people.. supply and demand says, poor people jobs won’t pay. Lots of hungry people willing to work for a little bit of food. In fact, this pool of hungry people is a corporate executive’s wet dream. Can you honestly think of a better scam than cranking out shoes for 5 dollars, then flipping them for 120. I sure as hell can’t. I think even crystal meth’s profit return is smaller. These poor people’s wages will be depressed for the shareholder’s benefit. Do you honestly think Disney will pay Haitian worker’s more when it can get away with a measly 2 dollars a day. That would be stock market suicide, and against the law because it knowingly devalues the shareholder’s stock. Now what kind of system fosters poverty this way? A corrupt one, all the while the employees carry on their duty feeling completely moral – one need not feel corrupt to act corruptly. “But the people won’t stand for this treatment and boycott the product.” Disney’s not going anywhere anytime soon. I’m sure you’re familiar with the consumer collective action problem that results in industry leader’s interest being more important to politician’s than consumers’. A problem exacerbated by the fact that Disney owns ABC, so ABC (who has the resources, knowledge, and connections to actually mobilize and change conditions) is highly unlikely to create a national awareness about the need for better working conditions for Haitians. Again, stock market suicide, and illegal.
How, then, are we supposed to rely on these institutions, who are practically bound by law to oppress and deceive, to be advocates of positive change. I also think it is a just a little disingenuous of you to imply that only powerful people can bring about change. Remember this, throughout history it has always been the disenfranchised, the trodden slice of society that has brought about revolutionary positive change. From the inception of our nation, to the abolishment of slavery, to secured labor rights, the weary have never failed to stand up in defiance of the powerful who benefit from their misery. Common sense tells us, people exploit others for an advantage, and upon gaining the advantage become more powerful and better at exploiting. Until the most exploitative group of people reach the top – that is, the few people that exploit all others, the class to which we cater to, and even aspire to join. It’s a form of social Darwinism. The great thing about society though, is it is a human construct, we can set the parameters for evolution. We can just stand up and say…those who exploit others will not survive, any institution that inherently causes exploitation, is fueled by ignorance and greed, will be dissolved. We can demand a system in which goods and services are provided in a way that leads to community betterment by inherently causing cooperation and progress. The structures await, nested within the capitalist world, just as the capitalist structures nested within the feudalist world – they await a social movement that will cultivate and focus them, that will allow them to grow and reshape our lives and planet.
For more on these structures, co-ops, go to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14085 Also check out the Fair Trade Federation, and always think of solutions..think big.
