Globalisation is a result of profound capitalist systems. It has provided a fast-track route into a new era that is seamlessly void of limitations, proving as irreplaceable as the mechanisms it serves. But to what end do we serve it? Have we sacrificed the one thing that defines us as humans- Choice.
Campaigners on Wall Street, at St Pauls cathedral and around the world have been flouted for being unable to suggest an alternative system, making their opposition mute in the eyes of many spectators. However, the idea of protesting without alternative is not as toothless as it sounds. After all, the streets aren’t filled with Aristotles and Platos, and the tents aren’t occupied by Keynes, Smith or Marx. They are made up of people, personalities, and beliefs.
Occupy is a mass- human movement. It is the last weapon fighting a bullet proof system. The self propensity that is Capitalism means that the systems that work for it (the government, the press, powerful institutions) control the systems that could work against it. The so called ‘legitimate’ routs are blocked, and the alternative seems so inconceivable that (just as Marx predicted) the repressed and the blameless turn against themselves, rather than against the perpetrator.
Is Capitalism innate?
It was suggested to me that there was an innate, human attraction to Capitalism. That the greed, dog eat dog mentality that ruled the primate world exists in us today as it did then, mutated into stocks and shares over mates and meat. The psychology of man is far beyond me, however, this theory actually proves to oppose Capitalism. As a system, there certainly is no room for the wounded or old, however, this is a dated, tribal concept being reconstructed in an educated and modern era. If Capitalism is construed as an enabler of modernism, then reverting to tribal instinct is hardly pretext for its inhumanity. We wouldn’t favour witchcraft over penicillin, or a feudal system over democracy, or sticks and stones over machinery. Absurd it may sound, but this is to many the reason why there is no choice in political systems.
Move to Cuba
There are founded alternatives that have been used and disused in countries for centuries. ‘Communism,’ and its genteel relation ‘Socialism’ are the systems that are commonly cited, and then associated with the countries and governments that have tried and failed in their attempt of their implementation. The general line of reasoning tends to involve Fascism and the Nazi Party, Asian communist countries linked to Cold War tensions and the Communist state in Cuba. The authoritarian nature, the stunted growth and the closed borders radicalise tested alternatives, which often results in the short-sighted conclusion that an alternative can’t exist at all. But, the reality is, these are all economic systems of the past; evolutions of monarchy systems, the modernisation of feudalism. We are currently standing as a world indebted beyond repayment, facing huge inequalities of wealth and fighting wars on a scale never seen before: Capitalism has hardly worked either!
Is there an alternative?
Participatory economics
Participatory decision making refers to the widespread involvement of people and politicians, often giving those most affected by an issue the biggest say. And to that point, there are certainly portions of the current political movement that would be satisfied by this theory. Citizen power has clearly been undermined in recent years (through wars, unions, reforms), and the 99% slogan goes to show the importance of people power to the Occupy Movement. Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, among others, have attempted to channel this philosophy into economic terms, by applying it to the distribution of resources as well as production and consumption.
It opposes the self-allocation of Capitalism, but also offers an alternative to the centralized allocation used in Socialism. It rewards effort, and abolishes privileges such as hereditary rights, property rights and innate intelligence. In many ways, it is the most efficient alternative of streamlining globalisation, which is the most daunting task to overcome, and the reason why there are so few alternatives to offer.
Mutualist economics
The Mutualist economic theory offers an interesting adversary stance to labour hierarchy, which is an issue that has become particularly poignant as the distribution of wealth widens. The fat cats of the banks and the big bosses of industry would be forced (under the Labour Theory of Value) to reward workers to the value of the work they have produced, meaning exploitation, usury or labour theft would not exist. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon encourages an association of workers, as the master-wage-worker relationship is ‘repugnant to a free and democratic society.’
Economic Democracy
Economic Democracy is another socioeconomic philosophy that will appeal to the ‘99%’ ethos. Under this theory, the power of corporate stakeholders is reallocated to public stakeholders, completing a full scale move from centralisation. Resources, such as banks, infrastructure etc... are therefore universally disposed, rather than privately owned by the state or companies. This is aimed at empowering consumer purchasing power by eradicating a centralized corporate monopoly of common resources.
Ecosocialism
Ecosocialism would appeal to the Greenies, and that’s about it. It essentially eradicates the ability to make profit, as profit is seen as destructive to the planet. Ian Angus and others have speculated that the Capitalist requirement to make profit at an uncontrollable rate is what will ultimately destroy the ecosystem.
One of the more viable suggestions made by advocates of Ecosocialism is Capitalisms ability to camouflage political opponents. For centuries British and American government has been fought two ways, both conflicting over the central middle ground. The placid ‘left’ of the Democratics and Labour/ Liberals, contesting the meek ‘right’ of the Republicans and Conservatives/ Tories, only to mildly iron out piecemeal imbalances. The fact is that the political parties work for the system, not the people.
Congratulations to The Matrix
Each of the alternative ideas may be a little farfetched in parts, but they highlight an alternative to the most destructive capitalist element of all: the ability to eliminate choice. We are not slaves to a system, we are people, and therefore the system is a slave to us. When the filmmakers and scientists predicted that the 2000’s will be filled of robots and artificial intelligence they may have been right. Granted, not in the way they may have thought. Robots were initially cast as slaves to the humans, not the other way around. But congratulations to the Matrix, for they got it right: we are indeed fuel for a more powerful mechanism; one that lives and breathes production whatever the cost. Our only hope, that the Nebakanezer makes it to the core: on the Streets and in the tents, the living 99%.
No comments:
Post a Comment