31st
July
2007
The Rich and the Nervous
posted by saurabh in Schmapitalism |This article in the Financial Times really must be read. It’s astonishingly forthright in its discussion of how, although it has been a “great time for capitalists”, “workers” “demanding their share of the pie” may start eating into profits. I’m always amused by the fact that the most devoted Marxists are the fat-cat capitalists.
Loading ...
We must weep for them, great salt tears of sympathy.
Well…isn’t the basic theme behind both sides (the hard core capitalist “markets are everything” crowd and the marxists) the same-that the only thing that matters is the economy and production. They both “seem” to reduce the complexity of human society down to money and production. That’s simplistic, I know, but…
I meant “the same” of course (blush)
Sure, simplistic. But capitalist societies don’t really value other forms of wealth, and as time goes on, those other forms of wealth tend to vanish. Social support networks are a great example. “It Takes a Village” was Hillary Clinton’s bit of wisdom stolen from visits to India, where it really DOES take a village - farming is communal, and many resources are shared. Extended families are another good example - when you get old, you don’t need social security, because your children and grandchildren care for you. These are forms of wealth that capitalist society does not appreciate. You can’t commodify and sell familial love, therefore it has no value. Of course capitalists are blind to the value of anything but money.
As for marxists, well - Marx was an economist and his seminal work was entitled “Das Kapital”.
Now, an interesting question is, are there other, important forms of non-monetary wealth available to “the workers”? Does the fact that the capitalists are gorging themselves on pie mean that everyone else is starving? Or are they just eating cake? I’m inclined to say they are not. Alienation has had a lot of time to work. Individualism has won. We’re all free agents operating in the market, now. It’s money, or nothing.
The way we reverse that, methinks, is by rebuilding other forms of wealth, which are not as fickle and easily stolen as money. But in the meanwhile, sure, I think everyone should get to eat more pie.
i’m getting confused, though. are we all sure that not being able to keep ‘em on the farm has to do with money? paris also has pretty lights and a wide variety of crazy behavior. ok, lots of that has to do with money, but not all, right?
google search result quote: “Since you can’t keep them down on the farm after they’ve seen Paris, make sure you locate the farm in Paris.”
Interestingly enough, the only places where traditional “farms” seem to have much hope of survival or even revival is exactly near the local/regional equivalent of “Paris.” See the organic boutique farms of Northern california. Only near capitalist hotspots does it seem like the other values of localism and sustainability and roots seem to matter-even if this trend is marketed as a lifestyle choice (again monetized!) Otherwise, “the farm” has been replaced by vastly scaled industrial agriculture, with the husks of dying famr villages kep alive by government payments and in a few “lucky” cases by the regional SuperWalMart.
1/2 boutiqueness. 1/2 romantic DIYuppies. 1/2 social visioneering. 1/2 local zoning control (to encourage high value entrepreneurité). that’s 1, right?