Sunday 21 December 2008
Sunday
Some Christmas thoughts: is there an opposition to liberal, democratic capitalism? Until earlier this year many of us, including me, thought that there wasn't. I'm still very hesitant to say that the current perceived economic downturn (I refuse to use the words 'credit crunch' or 'recession', yet) spells the end of capitalism, as some have rashly declared. Undoubtedly some things will change, but how much? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, so those forces will be hurried out, won't they? Someone always benefits, and this time it's the anti-war protesters: maybe they planned the whole thing? Zizek's last book predicts a way to overcome capitalism, which could perhaps now be coming true. In a crisis, people turn to totalitarian governments, which is what we really have to be afraid of if things do get worse. Perhaps they already have? Isn't Obama's liberalism a kind of idealism that could easily flip over into totalitarianism? I've got lots of questions, lots of 'isms', but not many answers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There has already been a big swing towards socialism in the governments of the UK and US simply because of the policy of rescuing the banks. Obviously there would have been nigh on civil war if they hadn't.
Capitalism is in my mind akin to evolution. Communism akin to Intelligent Design. To make Communism work you would have to know the outcome of every action, every desire of the mind of the people and plan for it. That generally means a lot of spying on your people and making people fearful of change so planning becomes easier. Capitalism has the pricing mechanism. Every individual component has a price which is set in the moment a transaction occurs. No one person has to be in charge of the plan. This is akin to the selfish gene which drives evolution.
The inherent problem that Communism has is that the leader isn't God (who at least, if he existed, would have the advantage of being actually all knowing). And that because you have to have a leader to keep everyone in line, you don't actually have a parity amongst the people. If the people aren't equal where is the beauty of Communism?
Richard Dawkins rejects the analogy of evolution being akin to capitalism because he says that he feels that people use it as an excuse for the worst excesses of capitalism. I think this is double dealing on his part. He's sort of saying, "I know that people have misused the analogy so lets not make it".
It is however exactly the same, in my mind. We should curb the worst excesses of evolution in exactly the same way as we should curb the worst excesses of capitalism.
Man, in his selfish way introduced the gray squirrel to Britain which has all but destroyed the red one. Man must therefore reset the balance. But thinking that this is outside evolution is nonsense we are evolution in our actions.
We had to step in to save the banks who had invested unwisely because there would have been rioting on the streets. (There was rioting when the poll tax was levied, imagine what would have happened if the government had taken all your money away).
Should America save the auto industry though? A tough question. During the seventies and eighties the American car companies wanted to outsource their car production to other cheaper countries. But the unions and the government intervened to stop them. (this in the analogy is the introduction of the gray squirrel man's intervention). This means that now the most expensive place in the word to produce a car is America. So no wonder they can't compete. What should they do? Save them by pumping more money into a business plan that can't work?
If they hadn't intervened before the American car companies would, probably, be the biggest in the world. They were by far the prevalent brands in the world. But they became too expensive verses their rivals and have slumped. If they had outsourced, people in America in the car industry would have been out of work but Ford and GM would be alive and kicking.
So it's complicated.
P.S. Obama is a liberal, yes, but would be considered right wing in the UK. All politicians in the states, are in the most part, to the right of the conservatives in Economic policy.
Post a Comment