After listening to a podcast with Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman and starting to read Slavoj Zizek's new book, I thought of a disturbing similarity between Michael Jordan and Capitalism.
When Jordan appeared petty and sad during his HOF speech, public perception came to his aid and these negative qualities were turned into positives; they somehow reinforced his image as a winner and the ultimate competitor with a killer instinct etc. etc. Likewise, when Capitalism sputters and collapses and the government has to subsidize the system to keep it afloat, proponents claim that it's because we were living under a perversion of capitalism and we need to return to the basic principles if we're ever to recover from this mess. Capitalism, like MJ, has entered the rare "air" of appearing stronger the weaker it actually becomes. How did this happen?
Morning Prayer
13 years ago
6 comments:
We must differentiate between free-market capitalism and our socialist version of it. Americans hold two beliefs that are mutually exclusive - 1) there should be a dynamic class structure in which rags to riches and its converse can occur 2)Everyone should have access to a middle class lifestyle regardless of their effort,intellect or social status.
Which goal are we working toward? Is capitalism that fosters dynamic class movement our goal or is creating a static middle class the goal?
This is where I see problems with the argumentsabout the failures of capitalism. Are you arguing that it has failed to produce a flourishing middle class? Labor seeks this, not capitalism.
State Capitalism or what you call socialized Capitalism is what we currently live under in U.S. In other words, costs are socialized and benefits privatized. Under this mode of production neither of your two mutually exclusive conditions are met. People who defend Capitalism based on the idea that we are living under a perversion of some ideal mode of production based on free markets and pure competition ignore the fact that this has never existed, or the possibility that this "perversion" is just the natural progression of capitalism left to its own devices.
For the right conditons to exist to make this ideal capitalism possible, we would have to effectively erase history so that everyone could toe the same starting line. Since we cannot do this, capitalism is merely a fantasy screen for plutocracy and oligarchy.
History is not the enemy but the very rationale for capitalism. History has shown that the alternatives to even highly corrupt forms of capitalism end up being only beautiful machinations guising selfish dictatorships. I am not anti-capitalism nor am I anti-marxism. I am pro-labor,pro-collective, pro-association, pro-middle class. These are the things that create egalitarian democracy. But I am also a huge believer in Rosseau's social contract theory - we are responsible to rebel if our social order no longer meets it's obligations - in our case, we are responsible to collectivize and rebel against coorportations and the politicians they own if these no longer serve to meet the common good. Through calculated direct action, citizens participate in democracy. But I believe that Americans would rather be entertained than empowered. Like the gladitorial games of Rome, as long as we have our entertainment, the empire will continue. Like Versailles, entertainment dilutes political threat. The key to checking laissez faire capitalism is to get our heads out of the sand, sacarifice and act.
For egalitarian democracy to exist or for people to revolt against a system that no longer serves them, they must be informed, or at the very least know that there are realistic alternatives. What's the difference between state-controlled media and corporate- controlled media? Why is one considered evil and the other considered natural. The bottom line is corporate owned media doesn't serve the people so they in turn don't make real choices. The most obvious example is our two-party system. In any given election there are really only two candidates with a real shot at winning and both represent corporate party interests. The reason that only two have the chance at winning is because only the two major corporate parties recieve media attention. Because journalism no longer serves the people, but instead serves the corporations who pay their salary, people aren't informed enough to make decisions in their best interest. This is not to mention that voting for politicians every two years doesn't mean equal representation anyway because once in office, the richest 1% lobby Washington for whatever they want. If those in power were interested in real democracy instead of merely retaining their power, they would revamp the system and legislate strict campaign finance and lobbying laws and also subsidize "independent" media that would be free from corporate sensorship and the current institutional indoctrination. The media is not meant to serve the government or corporations but to be a watchdog for both. If people knew that they had a reason to be pissed off, they would be, but they've been made to think that they just don't have any options.
I agree that the mainstream media outlets are generally corrupt but don't you believe that the internet has created a great venue for egalatarian democracy? Any Tom Dick or Harry can post a blog, website or video. Doesn't this serve to empower people in the midst of the mainstream media? I dare to venture that people don't like truth, they like to be entertained. Our desire for entertainment has shaped the mainstream media as much as the corporations - they just feed on this desire. This is where the erosion of democracy is at its most severe - where we trade entertainment for truth and justice. Where the most base leanings of human nature - our lust for sex, violence, gambling,pointless competition, gossip, etc are nourished and encouraged until we have all icing and no cake -glutted with our own need for the most base of what we call "entertainment."
Perhaps we should turn off American Idol and begin participating in American Democracy. I am tired of individualistic political arm-chair quarterbacks. We need to get in the game and do something as a group. Hyper-individualism and our lust for entertainment is the true destroyer of democracy. We need to take responsibility for our part of the problem before we point the finger.
I would agree that people don't like Truth to a certain extent because it often times requires action. I've argued as much on this blog. Part of this lethargic attitude no doubt comes from people's general disillusionment with the political and economic system right? There is such a divide between the choices we make and the changes that we see that people just don't feel like they have a voice anymore, and they don't. I think it's nice to talk about doing things in groups, but these kinds of associations aren't abundant or encouraged by society at large. Not to mention, the system conveniently makes it so that the people who would assemble to change it are busy working to stay alive. Most people don't have the time to think about free association in their spare time because they spend so much time working a job they don't like for too little money. This is a double edged sword because it keeps them from thinking about things like what their rights should be and it also keeps the current system in place by making the rich richer. These aren't excuses for me. I've been fortunate enough to read a lot of truth in my life and I go to independent news outlets for my information, but I also don't fault people who work 40 hours a week and take care of a family for not having the time dig.
Your argument for the internet only goes so far. First of all, not everyone has access to the internet. Second, because anyone can post, there's no accountability or credibility and any Tom Dick or Joe doesn't have the resources to report the NEWS. I'm not asking for editorials telling people what to think, I'm asking for news organizations with the resources to call out poliiticans and power brokers to do it so that people can make their own decisions, again if they have the time and energy to do it. Americans aren't inherently blind to the truth or reluctant to search it out; we need to begin to ask what about our culture/power structures encourages these symptoms.
Post a Comment