What is it these anti - Capitalists believe in?

Excelsior

I concur Occy. Corintian, Bonkey and yourself: Brilliant posting.

You destroyed the very trendy myth of modern capitalism's Original Sin in a couple of well reasoned and brilliantly written posts. A pleasure to read that kind of quality on bulletin boards.
Enough digression from me. Back to the debate.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus Just to address the point you made there JC- sure the US may consume 25% of the world's production, but in finance, entrepreneurship and through supply, we contribute to at least 25% of the world's production, probably more.

Thats not the problem. The problem is that you have apprxomately 2-4 percent of the world's population consuming 25% of its produced resources.

Add in the other "modernised" nations, and we probably have something like 10% consuming 90%.

While we talk about helping poorer nations and all that, the simple fact is that even if there werent problems with corrupt governments, MNCs, etc, the world could not meet its consumer demands if those nations get brought to anywhere near our situation here in the "first world".

No offence, but if other governments are unable to stop MNC's exerting influence on their public, then they are either weak, corrupt or simply incompetent.

Sure - but western governments are being manipulated by their MNCs too. They then are making the situation worse in their actions - they're not out to help other nations unless it helps them as well. Nice in theory, but it shows how hollow the offer of help really is - its fine as long as it improves everyones bottom line - but as I have pointed out - the world does not have the resources for it to continue to help everyone's bottom line. What then? Will the richer nations cut back so that others can have their share? Will they hell.

That Dutch politician who was recently assasinated may have had distasteful views, but his judge shouldn't be deciding his fate with the pull of a trigger,

Absolutely - I couldnt agree more.

Not only that, but had he gained popular support, I would fully support the right of a nation to make what would be generally considered as the wrong choice.

Sure, Fortuyn's policies may have been somewhat distasteful to me, but if enough people voted for him, then he has a right to take his stance. If not enough people vote for him, then he doesnt get to do anything.

Shooting him does nothing, other than showing utter contempt for freedom of expression.

If however, that government is corrupt and intent on lining their own pockets, then it becomes a problem. Multinational corporation (MNC) exploitation isn't an issue for the WTO, the IMF, the World bank, or even the UN, it's up to individual governments to exercise their conscience in allowing certain big names in.

No offense Occy, but thats ridiculously easy to say when sitting on this side of the fence.

You are saying that there is nothing wrong with an MNC looking at a country with a brutal regime oppresssing its people and saying "you know - we could get really cheap labour here, and the government will play ball". You are placing the blame for this on the corrupt government, but it takes two to tango. We, in the west, are too willing to turn a blind eye to such exploitation.

Also - dont forget that companies like KMart and Starbucks are damaging the western nations through their exploitation of monopolistic positions. Its not just the poor nations who's governments are letting its people be abused by the large companies.

there has always been a division of wealth in society, and there always will be.

Well - the anarcho-communists would have us believe that there doesnt always have to be....but can offer nothing of any lasting duration and of sufficient scale as an example of their theories working.

Personally, I believe in an inequal division of wealth - I just happen to think the current division is far too extreme, and that its the rich who are deciding how the game is played. I believe in capitalism, and in democracy, but also that their current implementations are hopelessly flawed. The difference I see is that I dont want them thrown out as systems - I want them improved.

Now if you're a poor farmboy, and you go to a city knowing full well the horrible conditions that faced you in the oppressive factories, then things must be even worse back on the farm.

The same logic could be used about the sweatshops in the far east at the moment, because your description matches whats happening. Unfortunately, your conclusions are flawed.

These people often do not know "full well" what the horrible conditions are. In many (but not all) cases, people hear all the glamorous stories of the Big Smoke, and dream of getting a better job than their current one. They get representatives from the companies coming and promising them a better life (a freedom of speech you support!). They arrive to find that this is not true, and often do not earn enough money to be able to afford to go home again.

This is not every case, but you cannot reduce the problem to a single simple cause. The causes are manifold and inter-related.

In other words, urban migration is merely a side-effect of rural poverty,

And in the Insustrial Revolution, what did the governments do to fight rural poverty? Did they take the cash they made in increased tax revenue and make life better on the farms? Did they bollix - they used it to improve the Industrial side of things....exacerbating the problem.

Which means that the Industrial side was as much to blame as rural poverty, as was the inattention of the government to its people, as was a number of other factors.

ergo, globalization isn't the cause of poverty in the developing world, but a side-effect of it.

I disagree. Its only a side-ffect if golbalisation exists because there were poor people to exploit. I dont think this is why it exists. Its one reason, sure, but not the only reason.

You might as well say that the slave-trade in the early days of the American colonisation was a side-effect of unequal development rates of nations in the world. While technically true, it is also ignoring the fact that it is equally a side effect of the peoples (en masse) of the developed nations being willing to allow exploitation of those less well off.

Why did slavery die out in the US? Not because the governments of the nations the slaves were taken from said "no more". Not because it was no longer profitable, but because enough of those who were reaping the benefits from it said "we have no right..."

Why is this any different. Why are we now saying that its up to them to say stop and not us. That its okay for our nations to reap the benefit of exploiting other nations as long as they have corrupt governments willing to let us. I dont think so - I think we should be morally obliged to object to this behaviour - to once more say "we have no right..."

Does globalization cause poverty? Hell no, but it sure as heck means that unless these nations pull themselves out of the debt and overspending they've engaged in to try and stimulate investment, they're perpetuating the state of the poor, and granting carte-blanche to MNCs to enter the country, thereby 'exploiting' them.

But you yourself pointed out that there will always be an inequal division of riches. So there will always be poor to exploit, and you are more or less seem to be arguing that if they let themselves be exploited, its their problem.

Also, as I've pointed out - these countries cannot pull themselves to the same level as the US, or even Europe. It is not possible. The world cannot physically support it. So enough of them must remain poor to allow for the overconsumption of other nations - an overconsumption you argue is the right of these countries simply for being able to afford it.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument with well-documented evidence that globalization is the root cause of current and future world-suffering.

I dont think it is. I believe it is a cause of current and future world-suffering, as is hyper-consumerism. There are other factors too - including corrupt governments (in rich and poor nations), the inequaity of available natural resources, blind luck, and a myriad other issues.

However, to say that because something isnt the "root cause" means that it isnt a problem.....that I cant agree with.

Debate/refuation(heh, even assent) are all welcome of course,

I think I've given a bit of all three here

jc

potlatch

I mean, it's one thing to have your opinions and that's cool, I accept the legitimacy of your criticisms of left-wing politics but, Jesus, talk about an unwillingness to imagine something different to the way things are. Are you incapable of imaging something different, of thinking outside the square?

think.imagine.live

Originally posted by Excelsior
I concur Occy. Corintian, Bonkey and yourself: Brilliant posting.

You destroyed the very trendy myth of modern capitalism's Original Sin in a couple of well reasoned and brilliantly written posts. A pleasure to read that kind of quality on bulletin boards.
Enough digression from me. Back to the debate.

I agree.
From browsing around there are a lot of equally well thought out threaded arguments in this forum.
The debate here is top class:)
Note: to contributors I second this praise!
mm

potlatch

I thought the Buy Nothing Day thread was the best - there was a little more sensible debate than this one but I'd reckon that's more down to the increased numbers on these boards now.

What I'd really love to know is this: why is it that the majority of kids and users of these boards, especially young people on these boards, are so conservative and against any disruption of the world as it is in the interest of creating something better? What's happening, like?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by potlatch
What I'd really love to know is this: why is it that the majority of kids and users of these boards, especially young people on these boards, are so conservative and against any disruption of the world as it is in the interest of creating something better? What's happening, like?

Conservative young ppl? The two more 'radical' posters in this thread appear to be in their early to mid teens.

As for 'youthful conservatives' in general, I'd think that could be viewed as a little insulting as it could insinuate that radicalism is something expected of youth, but only as a phase.

ReefBreak

As for 'youthful conservatives' in general, I'd think that could be viewed as a little insulting as it could insinuate that radicalism is something expected of youth, but only as a phase.

...Would be a good topic for (a separate) discussion.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by potlatch

What I'd really love to know is this: why is it that the majority of kids and users of these boards, especially young people on these boards, are so conservative and against any disruption of the world as it is in the interest of creating something better? What's happening, like?

Simply because the case has not been made that disruption of the world along the lines of what anti-capitalists are agitating for will lead to something better. Anti-capitalists are not putting forward any rational, cogent arguments, they are simply identifying a problem but not proposing solutions.

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Conservative young ppl? The two more 'radical' posters in this thread appear to be in their early to mid teens.

As for 'youthful conservatives' in general, I'd think that could be viewed as a little insulting as it could insinuate that radicalism is something expected of youth, but only as a phase.

Radicalism - left wing, right wing, whatever - IS to be expected of young people, as they are at the age where they can experience social problems without having to filter that experience through habit, lifelong ideological commitments, occupational interests and the like. So radical answers to social issues tend to come from either young people or older people who can see past these things too. It's an unfortunate fact of life that we tend to find it hard to maintain that clarity as we grow up and fall into career paths and status groups, and start feeling we should throw dinner parties where we complain about street crime and the like.

Note that I'm not saying anything young people suggest is right. They're just less likely to be biased. Injustice seems to offend the young more.

I think this is especially obvious in the arguments over globalisation. The way capitalist globalisation is being done at the moment is producing a host of social problems - massive inequality, environmental damage, destruction of communities, poverty. Governments seem unwilling or unable to even acknowledge this, preferring to parrot the lines that globalisation is inevitable and inevitably beneficial. I'd suggest that this is partly because they simply don't get the right information - trade and economic departments around the world are dominated by gung-ho globalisers - and lack the political resources to do anything with it when they do. They need to see that in fact there is a massive amount of political 'capital' waiting for them in the streets, just lying around waiting to be picked up. People are out in their hundreds of thousands around the world demonstrating against capitalist globalisation (Ireland has a relatively tiny incidence of this kind of protest), but there's not many out there shouting in favour of it.

Government politicians are getting increasingly frustrated by their inability to affect serious change in certain areas, and are becoming almost resigned to this. Eventually they're going to realised that the same people they're so ineffectively trying to dismiss, ignore and suppress are showing them the way forward.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Anti-capitalists are not putting forward any rational, cogent arguments, they are simply identifying a problem but not proposing solutions.

Yeah they are, including and in no particular order:
-reform of international institutions like the WTO and IMF so that they enforce standards on corporations for the protection of peoples, rather than the other way around.
-an end to the coercion of developing countries into adopting free market reforms which serve the interest of nobody except transnational corporations. Allowing developing countries to formulate their own economic and trade policies in ways best suited to their situation.
-an end to the aggressive enforcement of the free trade ideology backe up by military power
-democratic reform at all levels of political life - local, national, international, global - to increase the control of peoples over decisions that affect them.
-community control of the local economy
-protection for political, social and economic rights around the world
-an end to the arms trade.
-a tax on financial speculation to reduce market volatility and fund the United Nations Millenium Goals on combating world poverty and sickness.
-cancellation of unpayable foreign debt to end the massive financial transfers out of third world countries and into first world banks.
-agricultural subsidies in the first world to be diverted away from rich agribusiness farmers and towards small-scale farmers


I haven't come close to exhausting the range of proposals being put forward. Neither am I agreeing with them all, though I think most of those above have merit and should be carefully considered. You're obviously free to call them crazy and irresponsible and an example of the creeping communism that's poisoning the minds of the young, but please don't be so ignorant as to suggest that 'anti-capitalists are not proposing solutions'. You can only think that because you've refused to hear them.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by shotamoose
You're obviously free to call them crazy and irresponsible and an example of the creeping communism that's poisoning the minds of the young, but please don't be so ignorant as to suggest that 'anti-capitalists are not proposing solutions'. You can only think that because you've refused to hear them.

I think the problem is not that 'anti-capitalists are not proposing solutions', but that the solutions that we've heard proposed have tended to be little more than sweeping sound bites. The moment one scratches the surface and questions the rational behind them, one only gets back a momentary blank stare, followed by an often unrelated rhetorical speech, that seems designed for the purposes of obfuscation.

The 'anti-capitalist' solutions may have merit, but they've been at best glibly presented, and never debated - largely as those who often expand them will not or cannot debate them. It’s reminiscent of asking a cleric a difficult theological question and getting back the “it’s a mystery” answer.

It can be very frustrating for one, who is willing to listen and examine a differing point of view from which one may learn, to continually ask questions only to receive dogma.

shotamoose

Let's debate them so. Would you like to start a new thread, or will I?

Before we begin, I think it's important to say that proposed individual 'anti-capitalist' (or anti-globalization or pro-democracy or what you will) reforms will not make sense if studied in isolation from each other. As they're aimed at transforming a large and complex system that works in a variety of ways on a variety of levels, I don't believe it's a legitimate response to criticise one on the grounds that it won't work if everything else stays as it is . Of course it won't, that's the whole idea. Systemic problems require systemic solutions.

That being the case, some people are likely to balk at the systemic solutions being proposed, and find the comprehensive overhaul being talked about either daftly over-ambitious or unrealistic. I'd argue that's because people are thinking about each little bit in the context of how they their own lives are lived right now. The point is that if anti-capitalist (I'm STILL not comfortable with that term, as I don't think these reforms are at root about capitalism, but about non-legitimate power) reforms take hold, everyday life may be significantly different, and certainly politics will be.

I'm not trying to disarm criticism in advance, by the way, just reminding people to bear all this in mind.

I'm not intending to conduct a one-man defence of all this either, as I've neither the time (exams start in a week!) nor the comprehensive grasp to do so.

bonkey

First off - thanks to the votes of appreciation - not just for my posting, but for the content in general. I'm not laying any claim to credit for it, but it makes me proud to be a mod of a forum which is appreciated in this way.

Now, back to the fray (sort of) :

Originally posted by potlatch
What I'd really love to know is this: why is it that the majority of kids and users of these boards, especially young people on these boards, are so conservative and against any disruption of the world as it is in the interest of creating something better? What's happening, like?

I dont know. I tend not to think too much about ages of posters. I know that I'm probably amongst the older peoples here (being a "whopping" 30) which may explain some of my lack of radicalism.

Getting on to the point of "lack of solutions" or "soundbite solutions" - its a very fair point, and I'm gonna be honest with my reply to it. Please dont take offence

The problem with the solutions being put forward is not that they are without merit, but that they are not solutions. They are possible approaches we can take which may make improvements.

As a self-appointed Devil's Advocate in many discussions, I will challenge the people who put forward these solutions to justify their claims - mostly because I know that they cannot. I know that neither the poster, nor anyone, has really done enough detailed research into determining the outcome of these proposed changes - because it is impossible to determine such things categorically!

So - at best - we can have a proposal which may make an improvement. I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is someone's insistence that this is the solution. You cannot know this - no-one can know this. It is such blind insistence that I have a problem with.

In most situations, the more radical the proposal, the less certain we can be about whether or not it will succeed. Sometimes it may be the best option, but it is almost always the most uncertain path.

Just as the radical-change entusiasts force us to look at our current situation in different ways, I feel it should be incumbent on someone to offer equal challenges to their own visions. I dont do it to knock or deride their basic belief that change is needed, but rather to question their choice of change.

Which brings me nicely back on topic. I think a lot of the underlying truth of what the anti-capitalists believe in is fundamentally correct - that our current system has an awful lot wrong with it, and that much of this can be in one way or another connected to capitalism.

Where we disagree is that I believe it is the implementation, and not the basic principle, of capitalism which is wrong. Giving an ideal-world implementation of SystemX is not a solution, because an ideal-world implementation of many systems would be solutions....including capitalism. The trick is to show that your system would be better given the imperfection of the world we live in. This, singularly, is what I have never seen presented by an anti-capitalist, and yet I have heard categoric insistence that their ideas are right.

Jesus, talk about an unwillingness to imagine something different to the way things are. Are you incapable of imaging something different, of thinking outside the square?

This ties nicely in with the "young people" comment you made earlier. I've done plenty of "outside the square" thinking. I still do. However, I also temper it with some basic unavoidable truths about humanity, which all too often bring a system down.

Here's a challenge to anyone who actually believes in the "betterness" of another system to capitalism. Look at how the system can be cheated. Look at its potential for corruption. Now, follow the logical progression of such corruption, and see where it would lead. Is it still a better world? This is what happened to capitalism - it was the corruption of it which led us to where we are today, and nothing else.

jc

shotamoose

Where we disagree is that I believe it is the implementation, and not the basic principle, of capitalism which is wrong. Giving an ideal-world implementation of SystemX is not a solution, because an ideal-world implementation of many systems would be solutions....including capitalism. The trick is to show that your system would be better given the imperfection of the world we live in. This, singularly, is what I have never seen presented by an anti-capitalist, and yet I have heard categoric insistence that their ideas are right.

Right, but there are imperfections of the world we can't do anything about - aspects of human nature such as laziness and corruption, the stubborn refusal of rivers to flow uphill - and there are imperfections of the world we can do something about - inadequate monitoring and enforcement of laws on white collar crime, distance of administrations from their public. Part of the argument over competing conceptions of social organisation is what imperfections can be changed and what can't. History is littered with attempts to erase history or change human nature completely in order to make such and such a system work, and they have tended to end in misery and disaster. But just because any changes will have to take place within limits does not mean that they can't or won't work. I think there's always room for positive reform.

What I have a problem with is someone's insistence that this is the solution. You cannot know this - no-one can know this. It is such blind insistence that I have a problem with.

These are political beliefs, so it follows that they are proposals to be put to other people and argued. I will not insist I'm right and be satisfied with that, but I will argue for what I believe in. Idealism is not its own excuse, but it's not automatically the same thing as fanaticism either. I think I'm right about this, and you've got no right to get offended about that, but you have got the right to demand to be convinced. I think people are annoyed about and even afraid of people proclaiming their political beliefs as though that was all politics is about. But its unavoidably about convincing people too.

But that works both ways. Just because we live in a capitalist system at the moment does not justify it. I've yet to be convinced that as it stands its the best we can do.

Von

The notorious anarchist George Soros has published a new book called On Globalisation and it's been reviewed by his thuggish sidekick Joseph "Smash The System" Stiglitz here. The book reiterates the most common criticisms of supranational bodies like the IMF etc and proposes ideas for reform.

potlatch

An excerpt from his book was also published in last week's New Scientist for those who bought it or are willing to shell out the simoleans to pay to read it.

The Peeler

Anti-Capitalists are a bunch of unwashed, uneducated, dole screwing bunch of knackers who would rather cause millions in damage than go out and try and earn a living. Where do you think that money comes from, our bloodey pockets, if they want to make a point they why don't they protest peacefully. I fully back the Gaurds for there actions, people have been screaming out for them to take a tougher line with regards to civil disorder, now that they have people turn their noses up at them and say tut tut.

DapperGent

Quite frankly I dislike this presumption that anti-(insert ism here) protesters are lazy/stupid/on the dole etc. While I have some major problems with their politics and particularily their rhetoric and zealotry I have yet to meet one who I would term as either lazy or stupid or unwashed (at least not in polite company).

Quite a few of my closest friends would be involved in these sorts of protests and in college they usually did a lot better than most in their academic pursuits while finding time to put lots of work into One World and Amnesty type societies. And now in working life most are doing almost vocational type jobs, they work bloody hard and don't make much cash for it.

Peeler if you disagreed with their political stance attack that, don't question their effort, intelligence or personal hygene because you couldn't be more wrong.

Von

Pic of average young male "anti-capitalist" type in natural habitat here.

Average "anti-capitalist" type young lady photographed at London Mayday demo.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
Average "anti-capitalist" type young lady photographed at London Mayday demo.

Average is not the adjective that came to mind when I saw that photo

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Thats not the problem. The problem is that you have apprxomately 2-4 percent of the world's population consuming 25% of its produced resources.

jc

I think that this is one of those myths that has gone unchallenged. Certainly the U.S. consumes more than its share of oil and I think that is where the 25% bit comes from. Personally, I think that we should use more nuclear power -- 80% instead of 20% -- it's cleaner and would reduce our middle-east dependence.

Unfortunately, it is politically incorrect in the U.S. to build Nuke Plants.

However, we do not breath 25% of the worlds air, we do not use 25% of the world's steel, wood, wool, cotton and magnesium.

Victor

Originally posted by Sharkey
However, we do not breath 25% of the worlds air

No, but your SUVs do.

Originally posted by Sharkey
we do not use 25% of the world's steel, wood, wool, cotton and magnesium.

I don't have figures, but it would be surprisingly high.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Victor

No, but your SUVs do.

Actually, the U.S. is a net exporter of the world's oxygen and an inporter of CO2. Our vast forests more than replenish our air consumption. Too bad Europe cannot say the same.

I don't have figures, but it would be surprisingly high.

Maybe -- maybe not. Personally, I doubt anyone has the numbers.

Victor

Originally posted by Sharkey
Actually, the U.S. is a net exporter of the world's oxygen and an inporter of CO2. Our vast forests more than replenish our air consumption. Too bad Europe cannot say the same.

Hang on, Ireland barely covers transport emissions by the CO2 intake of agriculture and forestry, so I doubt the US covers emissions from all sources.

Then there is the matter of other greenhouse gases and other pollutants.