Thomas
Homer-Dixon argued in his book Ingenuity Gap that in the West
our "triumphalism is dangerously self-indulgent, and even
delusional." He agreed that "capitalism, science, and liberal
democracy ... have made extraordinary contributions to human
prosperity and freedom" but our "triumphalism is partly based on
a selective reading of the evidence." The problems that arise
from this system are "downplayed or ignored" and we "assume
agency where there may be mainly good luck." Therefore, we
accept the current version of capitalism, where "economic and
political processes are intimately entangled," as the final goal
for humanity, giving no attention to its inherent problems --
hurting not just others, but ourselves as well.
There are many aspects that must be looked at, but I will
discuss five specific problems with the current system of
predatory capitalism or corporate globalization (domestic and
international): technology, wage labor, specialization, labor
market flexibility (worker insecurity), investment/intellectual
properties, and Third World debt.
Modern capitalism according to Dixon has created "overlapping
and fragmented realities" which had all become mere "extentions
of our egos" -- meaning that "nearly everything we do and create
through capitalism is made to the measure of our human needs and
aspirations." The result of our isolated cities is that we "no
longer care about, understand, or recognize the importance of
this natural world." We can supply ingenuity through our
technology but we fail to recognize that "they also produce
self-absorption, introversion, and hubris."
Chattel slavery, to my understanding anyway, is when man is a
mere property, subordinated to a higher being to which he has no
influence over, and is without control nor the security that
would make possible the exercise of creativity. It is important
to remember that a century ago wage labor was regarded as no
different from chattel slavery -- a view that was widely shared
among mill workers, artisans, and even Abraham Lincoln and the
Republicans alike. The logic of "gaining wealth forgetting all
but self" was condemned as a demeaning vision of humanity -- a
return to "monarchical principles."
According to David Ellerman, "the mainstay of capitalist thought
[is] that the moral flaws of chattel slavery have not survived
... since the workers, unlike the slaves, are free people making
voluntary wage contracts." Ellerman counters that "in the case
of capitalism, the denial of natural rights is [only] less
complete," that the worker is only a residue of a "legal
personality."
Ellerman offers a simple but cutting analogy:
"When a robbery denies another person's rights to make an
infinite number of other choices besides losing his money or his
life, and the denial is backed up by a gun, then this is clearly
robbery even though it might be said that the victim is making a
'voluntary choice' between his remaining options."
Wage labor thus leave the worker with three choices: sell their
labor, become unemployed or compete in an increasingly
centralized market in which monopolies are heavily subsidized
with "corporate welfare," a choice that is inclined to become
like the second -- a voluntary choice, but a severely limited
one. It is like the American election: there is A and B, while C
is barely a choice and D, E, F, G, does not even make an
appearance. The normal counter would be to "accept it, it could
be worse," while the idea of creating a more just system where
free choice is truly exercised does not even arise.
It seems that this fundamental inequality, between the worker
and employer, can be overcome by putting the control of
production in the hands of the workers -- in turn, the important
dimensions of freedom will be increased. Adam Smith, the
purported father of modern day capitalism, perhaps the biggest
lie ever told (that is if his real economic theory of
"capitalism" matters at all) suggests that when a man becomes a
mere tool of production, highly specialized to conduct a
specific task, void of other skills, he "has no occasion to
exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention." He can
create the doors of a car, but is clueless and untrained about
its other functions: the intricate structure of the engine, the
sturdiness of the wheels, the safety standards it must adhere to
and so forth -- all escapes his knowledge because he is "highly
specialized." He "generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it
is possible for a human creature to become."
Notice that "specialization," as heavily promoted today in many
school systems, does not adhere to the system of capitalism. In
fact, this form of training is a gross violation of not only the
principles of capitalism, but of humanity as well, in the
deepest sense. It is a degrading notion that pays no heed to the
intricate mental capabilities and needs of humans -- a man is
left divided into mere fragments, demoralized, and discouraged
to take control of his own life beyond the superficialities. He
is an automaton of a higher will, subjected to perhaps the worst
form of slavery, the other being "slavery by force."
For the sake of not being misunderstood or subjected to
intentional incomprehension, it is important to point out that I
am using the term "highly specialized" in a peculiar fashion. In
my opinion, a teacher is specialized within his chosen subject,
but whether he is a mere fragment or not is determined by the
amount of security, control, freedom and creativity he can
exercise within his chosen profession -- within this context, he
is not "highly specialized" in the same way a cashier would be.
It is not the job that is degrading (all workers are dignified
in the work they do ... most anyway), but it is the fact that
the worker is denied true control. Notwithstanding, I leave the
reader to decide to what this term applies to.
Beyond these generalities, we turn to specific alternatives
presented by many creative and practical thinkers -- those of
the scholarly world, workers union, a factory foremen, and
everyday working people.
We are exercising peace and freedom in chains and I refuse to
boast, celebrate, and be satisfied with such a system.
Notes
On Capitalism (Part I)