Damn Straight

Living with Capitalism

                Capitalism as a means of attaining social justice is failing. Like our religions, our monarchies, our peoples republics and our spokes councils, capitalism caries the promise of giving you a fair shake. And like them all it fails. The free market does not encourage competition but rather monopoly. The invisible hand will do little more than bitch slap you back into the mall.

                There will be those that will argue that what we see today is not capitalism but rather a perversion, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a moot point more akin to arguing that the soviet union was not about communism, that the crusades had nothing to do with Christianity, that pacifism does not appease fascism.

                Whatever the ideology, whatever the idea, purity can never be attained. It doesn’t exist. If we are willing to re-examine capitalism time and again in an effort to make it work, then why can’t we re-examine socialism, communism, anarchism? None of these hold all the answers. All of them hold some.

                Capitalism is not going to disappear but that does not mean that we should not challenge it’s orthodoxies, pry apart its paradoxes demand that it share the stage with other ideas. 

Explain That

When I spend time trying to understand how the economic crisis that came to a head in 2008 started, I come to realise that in fact nothing new has happened. When I see how successful the perpetrators are in escaping the consequences of their actions or even the insinuation of responsibility, I start to understand what is meant when you say that history is written by the victors, by those in power. When I realise that the current struggle between the 1% and the 99% is as old as time itself, when I begin to understand how thoroughly the instruments of state have been and are being used to serve the interests of the very few and to negatively impact the interests of the very many, then I start to realize that there is something very wrong with the system.

This is a very troublesome conclusion to come to, especially if you are an active and willing participant in the system, a “law-abiding” citizen, a productive member of society. To suddenly realize that you are aiding and abetting in negating those very things you believe by trusting the state.

But what does this make you, this realization? What is one to do with this understanding that the whole system is corrupt? When you start seeing the conspiracies, how do avoid becoming a conspiracy nut?

I see tweets like this one from @JAMyerson:

“The goal in capitalism is the endless accumulation of wealth. An excellent way to get wealth is cronyism. The tendency is reliable.”

and think to myself, if it is so obvious that this system is not working, that the people in power are bought and paid for, then why does it not bother more people? Why do we allow this to continue?

I think the answer lies in one of the common responses to the realization that the system is gamed, which is burying yourself in work, consumerism and reality television. Ignorance really is bliss. Most people, when they are fed and entertained will not bother to notice that they are being robbed blind. This is something that the powers that be have relied one for as long as there have been powers that be. There really isn’t much difference between free bread and gladiatorial games in ancient Rome and Big Macs & Big Brother nowadays, is there?

But what do you do when can’t or won’t ignore the reality of what is going on? When I realize that the way I believe the world works and the fact that I believe that I must actively participate in changing the way the world works is very much a minority opinion; when I realize that the more time I spend learning about how the economy works, how our politics work, how our societies work I am becoming increasingly radicalized; when I on the one hand dismiss the conspiracy nuts as just that, nuts and at the same time sometimes find myself quietly thinking that some might have a point, that is when I feel least comfortable with my thoughts and convictions.

Populist Falacies

Part of what OWS and her sister movements are suggesting is that we rethink the superficiality with which we approach our world. An opportunity to re-imagine how our world should ideally work is not something that comes along every day and should be embraced with hunger, curiosity and maybe a little trepidation. Now that Yair Lapid has pulled the veil off of his political beliefs it becomes evident that these are both superficial and unimaginative. What is most disappointing is not that he entertains these ideas, what can you expect from someone that works so hard at giving offense to so few, but rather that the ideas he espouses are so popular.

Here, like elsewhere we find little more than an ill conceived collection of neo-liberal baubels and populist trinkets. At best there is a sentimental distortion of a past that never existed which all too often resembles just plain old chauvinism.

So, what are these populist fallacies then?

The market can solve problems that the state can not.

There is a tendency to look at how messy politics is, how imperfect the way that decisions are made is, how mediocre the results often are and look with envy at how “successful” businesses are at attaining results. This is, of course, a fallacy. Politics take place in a democracy and is conducted in the public arena when compared to businesses which conduct their affairs behind closed doors and are run by hierarchical organizations. Politics and government exists to serve the wants and needs of citizens, business exists to make a profit.

If there is something wrong with the way the Trains are run, why is the logical answer to privatize it? If we need to change the way this service is managed, let’s change it. The reason for it’s existence doesn’t need to and shouldn’t change. It exists to provide a service to the public, not to make money. Add to that there is no example that I am aware of where public transportation was privatized and this led to better service, less problems and ultimately less cost.

Not so, says Lapid, trains should be privatized. Let the market take care of it.

You are all middle class.

I keep on thinking about Monty Python’s the Life of Brian when I hear Lapid talk about the middle class. “You are all individuals”, Brian shouts at the masses proclaiming him the messiah, “we’re all individuals”, they answer. You are all middle class, Lapid seems to say, except for them. Them are the Arabs, the ultra-orthodox and the Plutocrats, leeches the lot of them, living off the sweat and toil of the productive middle class.

What is this all encompassing middle class? My very unscientific definition of the middle class would be those people that can afford to buy an apartment, raise their kids and retire without feeling uncertain that they can pay for all of it. Someone who struggles to do the same is part of the working class. Someone who is unsure if he can feed and clothe his family is poor. Someone who can spend his money frivolously is rich. I am most certainly working class by this definition. Lapid is banking on our tendency to identify up and despise down.

Talking in us and them always makes me uncomfortable. Lapid is suggesting pursuing the divisive, niche politics of them and us while at the same time decrying the divisive, niche politics of others. When talking about Shas and Yahadut HaTorah he calls them both free-loaders and also holds them up as role models for how small political parties can exercise disproportionate power. Talking in us and them disenfranchises the them. Does a society belong less to its poor than it does to its working and middle classes? Is Lapid suggesting a democratic society modeled on Athens, with few citizens serviced by many residents?

This place was once decent (when we were running the show)

The most disturbing sentiment is one which is not specific to Lapid but rather seems to be part of a general malaise. There is a longing for a mythical past when things where more clear cut, people knew their place, when “we” were in power and “they” were not. This is what he alludes to when he says that he wants to change the political system so that small parties can no longer exert power over the coalition. He acts as if there is a form of democratic government where these pressures don’t exist.  The whole point of democratic government in general and parliamentary government in particular is that it forces compromise. It does not allow any single political group to impose their will on the rest. This is a good thing.

Things were not better in Israel when it was being run by a single party. Corruption existed, cronyism was everywhere and whole parts of the population had decisions made for them without being consulted. We don’t live in the past, so why are we seeking out solutions that only partially worked then to solve different problems now? The sixties, which so many of us progressives like to hark back to, was not an era of liberty and social justice but rather an era of great strife as a result of tremendous injustice. Perhaps it is better to look to the past in order to avoid making the same mistakes rather than as a model for our future.

There is this Bertrand Russell quote that I saw on someone’s facebook wall the other day:

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, wiser people so full of doubts.”

A lot of people liked this and seemed to identify with the sentiment, many of whom are professed liberals, lefties and progressives. It triggered a long conversation about how easy it is to trigger that inner fascist we all have that longs for order and certainty and disdains the messiness of groping towards an uncertain truth. I surprised myself with how, when I thought about it, this seemed like such a chauvinistic sentiment. Whether he knows it or not, Lapid is flogging very similar wares and banking on people voting for sentimental reasons.

Relatively Speaking

Cultural relativism is just another form of not having to smell the poor. Human rights are universal and should be extended to everyone, not just your allies. The fact that they are universal is what should make our transgressions, occupations, invasions and killing a source of trouble to us. If what your society does wrong, and all of our societies do wrong, does not keep you up at night then you are little more than ignorant, cowardly, fascist or all of the above.

Don't Confuse Me with the Facts

Shorter Showers

One of the many pamphlets I picked up in Zuccotti park was an anarchist essay by Derrick Jensen “Forget Shorter Showers – Why Personal Change Does Not equal Political Change”. I didn’t take to it’s argument then, that change in the personal sphere has negligible effect on the public sphere, but it took what Chris Hedges had to say on liberals talking about the needs and interests of the poor without ever being in danger of meeting the poor for me to understand why not.

Personal change is essential for political change. Political change requires passion, authenticity and an ability to empathize.  As banal as it might seem, it is exactly learning to buy less that awakens us to the unsustainable nature of our consumer society. It is learning to eat better, to make our own food, to know what we are putting in our mouths, that allows us to realize the importance of promoting equal rights to good nutrition. It is precisely through caring for others that we come to understand our short comings as a society in caring for the needy.

If all we do is concentrate on grand ideas, theories and mass political movements in order to affect change, we are not likely to get very far. We need to marry these ideas to practical change on the ground. It is only when enough people stop believing that change is impossible that it starts to take place. It is only when people feel that change will affect them on a personal level that they will invest the emotional capital needed. How can we convince others to affect change if we haven’t made it ourselves? Who will believe is when we speak of hollow theory?

Even though the Arab spring is more about civil liberties and self determination while protests elsewhere are more about the consequences of economic oppression, what sparked and allowed these protests to grow is personal change, personal example which allowed masses of people to realize that they were in the same predicament. One of the reasons why the protest movement has not yet turned into a mass movement in the States is because the majority of people who are struggling are still embarrassed to admit it, still believe that somehow, magically they’ll realize the American dream.

Like others I believe that the watershed in Tunis, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Damascus, Athens, Madrid and Lisbon came when people no longer felt that they were the only ones that were struggling with the system. This loss of shame at not being able to keep up the farce that everything was ok; that although the economy is tough, you’re keeping your head above water; that although you need to bribe to get ahead, you are managing; that although your neighbor got dragged away by the secret police in the middle of the night, they won’t come for you. This is what is fueling the revolutionary change in governments, in the way so many of us are thinking about the way our world should look. It’s the understanding at a personal level that the status quo simply can no longer be maintained. It is seeing your friends and neighbors struggling, seeing them protesting, defying power, that will move you to join the attempt to reshape our world.