No one will notice that I haven’t posted anything on this blog for a long time. That is probably why. Whether it is my content or not being wise to the ways of the blogosphere I do not know. This may become just a repository for my thoughts or sufficiently irritating/interesting enough to provoke some comments.
A few days ago I came across Steve G and his blog Philosophers' Playground. It captured my attention for over three hours as I perused the archives. I highly recommend a visit. A recent posting discussed some economic issues that reminded me of some correspondence I’ve shared with a “conservative” yahoo group where I have been active for a few years. Why preach to the converted? They’ve been gracious to allow my presence for the sake of balance and I must admit that I have learnt from them as well. I do believe change will only occur when we break down the divisive walls that are so evident in today’s society.
http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html“I was driving past one of those new upscale planned communities the other day and noting the irony that those who buy into the planned community are likely those who most strongly oppose a planned economy. Social engineering in one milieu is seen as desirable to those in their socio-economic niche, whereas social engineering in the other is held as problematic.
So is a planned non-market economy that provides a high standard of living for its people, a fair distribution of wealth, reasonable and humane work expectations and safety, and technological advancement in principle impossible, in principle possible but technologically beyond our abilities at this point, or in principle possible but realistically impossible? Or is there another possibility here?”
Posted by Steve G.
I did leave a comment on Philosophers Playground but out of courtesy linked to this blog where I’ve posted a series of responses that took place on another group forum. I believe they address the issues Steve G brought up. Unfortunately I was unable to get permission to use the posts I am responding to. This may lead to the thread being somewhat repetitive and disjointed. I wish to thank anyone that I may have plagiarized, borrowed from or paraphrased and apologize for forgetting or citing the sources in the original correspondence.
Americans in gated communities
The 75% of Americans that want their borders secured don't recognize that the 25% that have the power are not really concerned. They have already created their gated communities from where they can conduct the business of global domination. They live in comfort in Palm Beach or fly to their vacation homes in Punta Leona, Los Suenos or Marbella. They have isolated themselves from the rest of humanity and have come to view their fellow Americans no differently than the campesino outside of the resorts, hotels and vacation condos they visit. Out of sight, out of mind. They are just another source of labour they can exploit which enables them to maintain their lifestyle. The former middle class of America has become a burden and expense that they no longer need. The only security they are concerned about is that which protects their compounds. Or legislation such as free trade acts which enforce their economic model and acts like the patriot act, which enable them to suppress any opposition. Of course they may take action against illegal immigration in the same manner that they orchestrate the war on drugs. It is an exercise in futility but highly profitable for those residing behind the gates. I agree with XXXX’s statement but would suggest that as long as no flies settle in the compounds the problem will not be addressed in any meaningful way. Unfortunately history has taught us that it is unlikely anything will change until the masses storm the gates. I would prefer to see the example of Ghandi followed and would suggest that the ones that need to be driven out are not those who wish to become American citizens but rather are the ones that have abandoned and/or have no respect for the concept of citizenship. You'll find them hidden in enclaves secured by walls and gates.
Re: Free Trade?
After CAFTA is implemented they will point out that in comparison to China, India and other nations that the wages, unions, environmental rules, taxation and lack of corporate subsidies need to be addressed to remain competitive. This is why I got out of manufacturing in Canada over 20 years ago. It’s a race to the bottom. At one time I thought it could be overcome through advanced technologies overcoming the wage issue. Then I went with a customer on an Asian tour where I saw factories that used state of the art robotics and other advanced production methods. In Indonesia a plant manager had just received a visit from the department of labor concerning a fatal industrial accident. I extended my sympathies as I imagined the fines, reports, inspections and higher workmen’s compensation he would be subjected to. He laughed and said the agent was there soliciting a relative as a replacement worker. In the business world this is the reality. To survive you have to use every competitive advantage to its fullest. The globalization of trade agreements are drafted so that corporations can act unhindered. Without the imposition of ethics and values by political entities they become an expense no business can justify except to the extent they provide a marketing advantage. With a global consumer market focused on price there is a relatively small market to serve that makes its purchasing decisions on the basis of ethics. This is easily dealt with by spinning of a subsidiary that acts in a manner consistent with its customer’s wishes. For this it charges a premium. He who controls the customer has the highest standing in the corporate hierarchy. These trade agreements are designed to take control of the customer away from political entities and empower the corporate world. So what to do?
In my opinion you need the competitive forces of the market to innovate and supply the customers in the most efficient manner possible. Government is inept in this capacity as there is no competitive motivation to do anything more than the minimum required. They should govern and business should produce. Government is responsible to the electorate and business its shareholders. Government should draft the rules by which business competes in its markets and these rules should insure an equitable and competitive playing field that reflect the values of the market they operate in. To let the corporate world draft the rules is like letting the fox into the chicken house. The fox isn’t evil and just like in nature has a role to play. Thing is we need chickens too.
The problem is compounded in that national corporations have evolved into global entities that no longer are restrained by their government. Since the birth of Industrialization governments have been in a reactive mode to the damage the Industrialists have caused without restraints. Our governments tend to implement regulations after the fact. The corporate world is far ahead in their organizational structures and has colluded to insure that in the global arena they can act largely unhindered. To maintain this position they have been pro-active in lobbying the enactment of trade agreements that hinder the ability of national governments to enact any restraints. Unless government learns quickly how to co-ordinate in a manner similar to the corporations and re-enact the restraints needed for fair competition that benefits society we are headed for a repeat of Charles Dickens England but on a global scale.
Re: Failed European socialism
XXXX, yes the world has changed since 1968 but the underlying issues haven't. Similar arguments were made then. In the meantime there is no doubt that those who don't follow the current economic mantra will suffer. In my opinion they will be better prepared for the future. What happens when the PRC stops pumping huge amounts of cash into the
U.S. economy? By then the social safety net will have been largely dismantled and the chaos that will result will put Capitalism in the history books alongside Communism. I don't know what the PRC has in mind at that point but I imagine I will be grateful for any alternatives that Europe has devised as a result of the current situation. With the collapse of Capitalism and Communism what replaces it will resemble neither but incorporate elements of both. I am very confident that it will also finally drag us out of the Victorian age and its obsession with getting back to work. Historical and current examples of self-sufficiency do not differentiate tasks into work and leisure. They term what they do as living. The term "economy" is defined to exclude all work or production not intended for the market. Perhaps a new system will on a collective basis provide the infrastructure and support to be largely self-sufficient. Think of the explosion of DIY (Do It yourself), which is only constrained due to the demands of the exchange network that requires that most of our time, is spent at work. Is the decline in the protestant work ethic simply a shift in production for others to production for self? Are they doing renovations, planting gardens, attending courses, volunteering, writing stories and politically active on the Internet? Some of us can't afford to work full time and others just need to be shown the way. The profit-based capitalist market only became necessary when the task of consumption was separated from that of production. This elaborate money based system could mostly be replaced by barter in a DIY society. This will minimize the demands on the state; shrink government and most importantly reduce the role of the economy in our lives. This was the system that we lived by before Industrialization. It didn't work because we didn't have the science, technology and lessons learnt from industrialization. Now we only need the political will to make it happen. In the meantime there will be those that prefer to follow a path of short-term gain in exchange for long-term pain. The current mantra for economic profit demands it.
Re: More Jobs
XXXX, "more jobs, means more people buying things. More people buying things means more yet more jobs" is in my opinion the recipe for all that is wrong with our economic system. I fully agree with your views as to the theft and rape of the Mexican and Indigenous populations of North America. This was the result of the competitive forces that thrive on exploitation and the insatiable demand for raw materials to fuel the industrializing and consumer based economies. The underlying argument that others should not be denied the opportunities to a livelihood will only be solved when the current economic model collapses in the same manner that communism did. Our Industrial model will collapse eventually as did as our Agricultural model. Modern technology such as robotics is displacing the need for labor in the same manner that 80% of the workforce lost their agricultural livelihoods at the beginning of the last century. Swimming pools, lawns and floors are maintained through robotic and automated means. The Japanese have self cleaning toilets and one can envision in the foreseeable future a situation where there isn't even work for the person willing to be a slave in order that he can eat. We do not have to suffer the agony and political turmoil that was caused by denying people a livelihood because farm labor wasn't needed and soon industrial labor as well. At some point I hope that we resolve the problems you point out by recognizing that we could economically organize mankind so that hunger, health, education and environmental issues become the engine of growth rather than consumerism. Rather than cutting funding in these areas it should be increased substantially. If we want to create more jobs reduce the workweek while maintaining the living standards. Why did we stop doing this? We need to become unglued from the Victorian values as it relates to the concept of work. Why do we apply these values in a postindustrial society? If we banned mechanized shovels and bulldozers we could employ millions of ditch diggers. Would we then be willing to feed them? Do we have to once again resort to war so that we can depopulate the unemployed and create work for those creating weapons of mass destruction and for others to rebuild. It is absurd that war and the rape of the planet are profitable while saving lives and living in a sustainable manner is not. The immigration problem will not be resolved until a new economic order is put in place where all people of the world are entitled to a livelihood without being subjected to the demands of a privileged class who's status is a result of past and current exploitation.
Reduce the workweek towards full and self-employment.
The reduction of the workweek along with the implementation of various labour standards resulted in the creation of a large middle class. This middle class became sufficiently powerful economically and politically to insure the redistribution of wealth in a manner that raised many out of poverty while tempering any substantial increases in the so-called aristocratic classes. The ongoing trend to shortening the workweek increased leisure time spawning new industries, which in turn created more employment. The American middle class started to enjoy elements of a lifestyle that previously had been reserved exclusively for the exploiters, robber barons and aristocrats. Their numbers shrank and/or they became less visible as their estates, former hunting grounds and exclusive compounds were gradually modified to cater to a growing middle class. The United States was the envy of the world. After the war Europe followed this model to the extent and in some aspects superseded it. They also created a rising middle class that attracted former immigrants to the U.S. to return. The standards of living became comparable and in some instances higher. This was the American way and a proven success that many around the world wanted to emulate. This certainly isn't the case anymore and even though many desperate people illegally enter the U.S. and Europe they do so with the conviction that they are willing to prostitute themselves to the extent they can remove a few pieces of silver from those that have managed to horde it all. Some hope to eventually return to their homelands and rebuild their lives and others remain preferring the disintegrating conditions of the lower classes to having to work in a maquila, mine or tourism resort under conditions that maintain them in servitude forever. At least in the North the carrot is dangled that it still is possible for a few to rise through the class ranks. You have to run much faster and jump farther because the bridges are being torn down and a billion Chinese competitors have been hired by the newly emerging robber barons to chase after you. So what went wrong?
In my opinion the fox's are not only back in the henhouse but they have managed to convince the farmer that it is in his interest to let the fox get fat by eating his chickens. Mischievous and cunning but that is his nature. I don't blame the fox but can't understand why the chickens don't get a farmer that is willing to protect them rather than one who worships at the alter of the Fox network.
The way forward
XXXX, I fail to see where we differ in that citizens who become dependant on entitlement programs are a problem. I suggest self-sufficiency as an evolving solution and you advocate the industrialized concept of work. I'm sorry for not expressing my ideas in a manner that is not construed as Marxist or an idyllic vision of some medieval utopia. I agree fully with your analysis of Industrialization. It is the recognition that we are changing into a Knowledge based economy that prompts me to suggest something that couldn't work before is now feasible. The explosions in Self Serve and DIY are only the beginnings of a trend toward an economy where the consumer and means of production are directly linked. We bank, order and design items, assemble goods and collaborate on projects while the intermediaries that performed these roles have been displaced due to information and automated manufacturing systems being directly linked to the consumer.
There are many Industrial Robber Barons that are threatened in the same manner Feudal Lords were when industrialization turned their serfs into workers. The cry and need for workers as wage slaves is a resistance to a change that will negate the employers' value to society.
Industrialization's pursuit of manufacturing excellence eliminated the blue-collar worker. The most efficient plants require no workers and the competitive edge will soon be determined by proximity to market. Information technologies have had the same affect on white-collar workers. Artificial intelligence systems will have a similar impact on the professional classes. The reason is that they are more efficient. As I stated previously, if the intent were to create work then ban backhoes. An efficiency expert would recognize that the largest expenses in the cost of goods that lend themselves to reform today are government and the upper management, boardrooms and shareholders together with the financial intermediaries that empower them. All the technologies and knowledge is available to address this but unfortunately not the political will. The government debt being accumulated to maintain consumption for the benefit of an economic system that supports government, capitalists or unions as intermediaries is no longer affordable but more importantly is inefficient.
In my opinion Industrialization can no longer support the economic system that was designed around it. The debt bubble is what has maintained it. I believe this bubble will burst and those States that have dismantled the social security net will collapse into a depression worse than the dirty thirties. Those that have a collective will to maintain social cohesion will possibly have redesigned their entitlement programs and laid the foundations to be able to emerge sooner and with less disruption when a new economy unfolds.
We only have to look at history and the early years of Industrialization for parallels to the current situation. It is unfortunate that those in power and the ludite's of our age will insure that once again we plunge into a chaos that likely will lead to repression, war and terror. Our industrial economic model and supporting government systems are unable to cope with either the demassification of markets or the collapse of consensus.
To debate the merits of any current political party over another is not the issue I am trying to address. I would suggest that Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Tories, Communists, Socialists, Conservatives and Labourites are concerned with preserving the institutions they created to manage an industrial mass society. They defend the giant corporation, the mass trade union and the centralized nation state. Ecological degradation, new family structures, multiculturalism and the growing conflicts and violence between classes, races and ideologies require completely new economic and political systems.
Fear of radical change results in our willingness to accept the status quo even if it can only be maintained by becoming more oppressive. Those citizens who desire to be as free as possible to pursue their own goals and ambitions are not afraid of the inherent risks associated with the changes required to insure that they can become generally happier resulting in a healthier and more equitable society. This is what led to the first American Revolution.
