A world age ended with the Great Crash in the autumn of 2008.
We live in a time when technology and science have given people in the rich countries the sense that, serious crises aside, things will go on as before, and life may even improve if technology, science and common sense are permitted to have their way. For Canadians, who last saw their world torn apart, and paid in blood with tens of thousands of soldiers killed, in the 1940s, the past sixty years, on the whole, has been a comfortable time. Over these decades, to be sure, there have been booms and recessions, natural disasters, human tragedies such as the Air India bombing in 1985, the ugly loss of Canadian lives in Afghanistan and the near division of the country in the Quebec referendum of 1995. But on the whole, Canadians have been traversing one of the sunny uplands of history. For most of us, this experience has given us our bearings for navigating the world.
Now it's time for us to acquire new bearings. A world age has ended, which is something that happens more often than Canadians generally think. While there have been some long periods of time in which life went on much as before and the great questions appeared to have been answered---the Roman Empire, for instance, during the second and third centuries A.D.---shock and transformation have been the regular accompaniments of human existence. Think of the fall of Carthage or the peoples of the Americas undergoing European conquest and you are on the way to conceiving of human existence as rife with swift change and destruction.
The age that ended in the autumn of 2008 was the American-centred age of globalization. That age had been a long time in the making. It had taken shape as a consequence of the interactions of forces of different durations. A central narrative in its construction was capitalism, technology and science. Another narrative, closely associated with the first, was the rise of the United States and the American Empire to the zenith of global power, an achievement fully realized in the decades following the Second World War, and consummated in triumph with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire between 1989 and 1991. A third narrative, more limited in time, was the methods and practices of capitalism over the past thirty years, a time of global markets, de-regulation, and neo-liberal ideology.
Not without an element of perverse humour has been the launching of schools of business on university campuses around the world in recent decades that are dedicated to training business executives, economists and accountants imbued with the propositions of neo-liberalism. These propositions have played a not insignificant role in driving the world economy over the precipice. The hundreds of thousands of graduates of these business schools now must make their way in the world equipped with notions about economics that have as little explanatory value as Ptolemaic astronomy, Thomist theology, or King Canute's ideas about the workings of the tides.
While human beings are adaptive creatures, otherwise they would not have survived, they also have a remarkable capacity for rigidity, stubbornness and a ferocious attachment to ideas that are no longer useful. One of the benefits, perhaps dubious, of civilization is that provided there is a sufficient surplus for some to live off the labour of others, institutions, organizations, temples, churches and political parties devoted to keeping alive useless and counter-productive schools of thought can exist. They can even thrive. During difficult times, the attraction to the occult, to the reassurance of fundamentalist simplicities, and to wacky new age fantasies is very great.
In the political sphere, the pull to the irrational can also be very strong. Take for instance the case of the Republican Party in the United States. Having led the United States into unsustainable current account and government deficits, wars that have become quagmires, and the ballooning of the housing bubble that has now burst, one might have anticipated reflection and rethinking among influential party leaders.
Exactly the opposite has occurred. Talk radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh, a man who proudly denies that human activities have caused global warming, has become the party's leading figure. In his bombastic, bullying manner, he is unashamed to proclaim that he hopes President Barack Obama fails. Limbaugh and less extreme Republican leaders have responded to the global financial crisis with a return to the old verities. Instead of generating stimulus through direct government spending on infrastructure, transit systems, refitting homes for energy efficiency, education and health care to offset the descent into depression, the Republicans favour tax cuts and cuts to government programs, the very recipe that fostered the economic crisis in the first place. Small government remains their cherished ideal even though it was the Republicans who insisted on gigantic military budgets, trillion dollar wars, and an agenda that made the super rich grow richer while the rest of the population faced rising debt and income stagnation. The Republicans contributed greatly to breaking the system that made their backers wealthy and helped ring down the curtain on a world age. This monumental failure, however, has not prevented the Republicans from calling for more of what did not work.
Over the past month, those who believed that this sharp crisis would soon give way to an early recovery have been shown to have been profoundly wrong. As it turns out, neo-liberalism, a system designed to reap the surplus from production the world over for a tiny minority of the population, impregnated the global economy with worm holes of debt that lead everywhere. The full extent of these multi-trillion dollar forms of indebtedness is not yet known, indeed in the case of derivatives, it is unknowable.
Bailing out a system that has rotted from within may be undoable, even with the brilliant and effective Barack Obama at the helm of the Titanic.
A new world age has begun. Canadians continue to be led by politicians who have remarkably little inkling that everything has changed. It should be noted that for the past couple of decades, Canadian politicians have not made any basic decisions about the economy. All they’ve done is to administer the neo-liberal system on behalf of those who have been running it. It’s not easy for such people to deal with the prospect that they might have some real decisions to make in the future.
We need new bearings to cope with a new world. Then we can rid ourselves of the political leadership we have had so we can construct a new and sustainable Canadian economy, with different rules about the distribution of rewards that can endure in a new age.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
You say we need "new bearings to cope with a new world," and I agree, but you don't indicate what those new bearing would look like.
Do we need a totally regulated market?
Do we have to rid our world of market capitalism?
What about capitalism without capitalists?
Do we have to resurrect Karl Marx?
Is democratic socialism possible in this new age?
Is capitalism really dead?
Is unionism passé? Or is it our only hope?
Do we have to reinvent the NDP again?
Should we socialize and/or nationalize key industries?
...and thousands of other questions.
By the way, thanks for your post, James. It was a good read.
James:
Neoconservatism fights on. It corrupts Keynesianism with tax cuts; the Harper government gloats while the CBC fades to black.
The left needs to look at the present as well as the future. It needs ideas. Perhaps, the force for change could start at this site and make it's way to the NDP and beyond.
Here are some topics for consideration. Do we need a national securities regulator? Do we need a national broadcaster? What good is NATO? What good is the NDP?
James, perhaps, you can supply us with some intellectual fuel.
The critique is cogent. Here are several suggested reforms:
1) Let's begin by nationalizing the banks and insurance companies (including co-ops and credit unions). They'd be run as a Crown Corporation with a board that is appointed and elected.
2) Let's amend the Constitution to vest all major economic decisions (fiscal, monetary and investment-related, national and international trade) with a new Legislative Assembly in Ottawa, elected every three years, on a one-person-one-vote PR basis. The LA would appoint the majority of the board of Canada Bank; a minority would be elected. The GG would be our ceremonial head of state, elected every six or so years. We'd have a very grand ceremony to celebrate the passing of the Septre from the Queen to our elected GG.
3) Education, employment and health care would be rights guaranteed by the Constitution and protected by a new and larger Supreme Court of Canada.
4) The provinces would also be reformed.
5) When Quebec decides to opt out(as it would), we will all agree that it is time for Quebec to be independent and to establish its own government. We'll try to negotiate a treaty that allows for ease of movement and trade between Canada and Quebec and lots of opportunities for dual citizenship, shared passports, etc.
Excellent post, James. Well said, as usual.
Unfortunately, I don't think this new age will be an age of socialism in the form that you've advocated.
We've got to get smaller, less centralized, less bureaucratized. All those things that this financial collapse has exposed as false need to be discarded, and old and new ideas that work will be the key to a just and sustainable future.
"We've got to get smaller, less centralized, less bureaucratized. All those things that this financial collapse has exposed as false need to be discarded, and old and new ideas that work will be the key to a just and sustainable future."
We need democratic control of the major economic decisions. Justice demands it. Sustainable development = sustained development = continuous growth. That we don't need and can't have in any case.
Dear Professor Laxer;
If you never write another blog essay again, you could not do better than this one. A beautifully articulated argument for change.
Perhaps the follow up essay should offer concrete, a-political solutions to the next generation of thinkers. To paraphrase Einstein "everything has changed except the way we think". Clearly, we are watching the death of capitalism as we know it and we're watching the old model try to make do.
Time for a non-violent revolution, don't ya think!
LeonT
We need to organize. Just as the Obama movement has done.
Grassroots community meetings and discussions with topics like:
: can progressives in political parties unite and how?
: the issues: proposals for alternatives
: what's working and what's not: for instance: credit unions are working, capital pools and cooperatives are doing well
: we need to understand ideologies and aspects of human nature that divide us and act as barriers to collective action
: we need to question the existing system of democracy. With the technology we have, we can have universal debate on issues and vote online rather than relying on some silly goons in the House calling each other names and pounding on desks.
: from community discussion we go to constituency, then provincial and then, a national congress.
Nothing new here.
Change. Okay, to what?
Prof. Laxer and others have very cogent analyses and criticisms of capitalism. These have existed for some 200 years. At the beginning of the 20th century some people envisioned a different kind of social system and different kinds of societies. These visions failed. But the need for re-envisioning and imagining a different social system is more important than ever. The failure of 20th century socialism has made people everywhere very skeptical of calls for "revolution" (peaceful or not). People know that these aspirations were delusional. They won't be fooled again. And they won't make change based only on analysis and critique.
No one is even attempting to articulate a genuine program. Perhaps that's because no such program is really possible. Maybe Obamanism (piecemeal social engineering, as Popper called it) is all there is.
So far Prof. Laxer and others have failed to provide even a hint of a program or to imagine what a new social system might be.
I see that International Socialists, the SWP (Canada) group run by Abbie Bakan, Paul Kellogg and Carolyn Egan et. al., has announced its annual Marxism gathering for 2009. The first item on the agenda (so far) is: "What would a socialist economy look like?"
The I.S. answer is probably quite predictable: it would look like Russia in 1917, with workers' councils etc. (just what the world wants), but at least they're asking a useful question.
What WOULD a socialist economy look like? Who would run it? How would they run it? If you wanted to buy a new pair of shoes, who would you buy them from? Would some parts of the economy be privately owned? Would there be a market? Or would everything be state-owned and operated? Could you buy a home or would you have to fill out an application for accommodation and wait for a unit to come up? Etc. etc.
Socialism. Capitalism? I am not interested in ideologies. We need to find something that works. Maybe a bit of this or a bot of that.
Having seen the film, Confessions of an Economic Hit man, it is obvious that corruption abounds. Following up on what is this ex hitman doing now, I find him supporting some very worthwhile projects. Now he is a Dream Changer.
The reality is: we need to care for this planet if we want to survive. The Madison avenue approach is doing us in.
Look at the auto industry. They seduced North Americans into believing they needed several of their products to be a successful human being.Now we are paying for that model with our lives, our taxpayers money and a planet over run with automobiles.
Lets get practical instead of ideological.
Dear ZeroEmissions:
The most practical thing in the world is to let everyone buy, sell and make whatever they want. To make and lend money at interest. To invest where they think they will get the greatest return. To tax as little as possible and operate as few government services as possible. But that seems to produce boom and bust cycles that are tremendously damaging to millions of people. And to product vast inequalities between and within countries. So is practical good?
An excellent post in many ways, but you have largely identified problems without putting your finger on root causes or pointing to solutions.
The fundamental fact is that as a species we are living beyond the planet's means. We are using up environmental capital without even realizing that it has a value. Conventional economics depend on a model of continuous growth. Uncertain though it may be how closely we have approached the limits of growth, those limits are there.
Any hope for sustaining anything like our current levels of cultural development requires changes so drastic that they can only occur when the course of events forces them upon us. Since those with the most power would need to give up the most elements of their lifestyle, they will never choose to do so.
Those who believe in a higher power and an afterlife also have no motivation to change.
My conclusion is that we are going to breed, poison, and war our way back, if not to the stone age, then to some other much less globally interdependent, high consuming way of life.
I hope our surviving descendents will preserve enough of our knowledge to come to an understanding of how we can keep from repeating our mistakes at both the micro and macro levels.
C at L may be right.
What we need is a new economics, one predicated on three guiding assumptions:
1) The global birthrate (and therefore the global population) should be reduced.
2) Economic growth = an increasing standard of living for a much smaller global population accompanied by a net drop in consumption and a vast increase in energy efficiency and reuse of existing materials.
3) Equalization of standards of living and rates of consumption within and between countries, regions and continents.
A smaller human population that consumes more per capita but much less overall in a world of much greater material equality is the key to ecological preservation and restoration. In such a context, humans would abandon vast regions of the globe; vastly reduce forestry, mining, industrial agriculture and fishing; end urban sprawl everywhere and concentrate human settlement; and continue to build a new industry involving ecological restoration.
Economists need to think in terms of a much lower human population with a much higher standard of living. The key is to confront the birthrate, poverty and inequality in a coordinated way.
Curiously, it isn't socialism that has a viable plan or program for the future, but ecologism--once we get past the kind of narrow CO2 environmentalism that focuses solely on climate exchange and ignores the continuing destruction of regional and local ecosystems and habitats.
People have been living in the "dream state" for too long.
All of the proselytizing for new/old control systems will not be effective with "citizens" who have allowed themselves to be downgraded to mere "consumers".
You can stump about a new brand of "socialism" until you're wet in the face but for most of the "consumers" that term has been incrementally reduced to a hollow slur by the corporatists who hold the levers of mass communication. Consumers fear it now and that is the whole point.
Since the program of a fear based society was brought into full swing in 2001 it has been rolled out mercilessly.
The terrorist who hates your freedom had a good run and is always available for false flag roll-out but as that bogeyman fades the economic terrorism is initiated.
Shock Doctrines have beat humane thinkers to the punch and the conditions deployed will keep it that way.
Notice the Neocons attempting to bring back the "terror provisions" and pass laws that will fill the jails with people who smoke a joint?
That ain’t for the Muslim bogeyman it is for the newly impoverished consumer. The noose is tightening quicker than most realize.
The capitalists cannot sell their stupid, wasteful and useless products anymore so militarization has become a new revenue stream. The newly poor and ignorant make excellent soldiers to pick up the shiny new weapons and stand guard for the old greed based models or at least those who became the overlords of society by milking said models before they collapsed.
The posters here and the excellent professor all make valid and "cogent" points but turn off your computers and step outside.
You are dealing with masses who have no idea what the word cogent even means.
The call for "new leadership" is obvious but having faith in the consumers to choose somebody who isn't a slick and sexy new face for the new fascism is a losing proposition.
One poster argues the need for population control but notice how even the world's poorest populations breed like rabbits?
To initiate such controls would require exceptionally severe impoverishment (likely) and dictatorial control that in turn will always play into the hands of the sexy fascists who will pledge to protect the consumers from the myriad of terrors the fascists themselves are creating.
People will be left to starve and scratch like beasts in any “population reduction” cull scenario.
Deliberately luckily for the control system they will be branded as “terrorists” and culled.
Canadians have been living in a "culture of entitlement" for too long and will not have the patience for word meanings and uncomfortable social model shifts.
They'll be pitch forking those who are genuinely trying to help them and burning as witches those who their corporatist faith-based leaders tell them are the bogeymen of socialism.
Ivory tower bantering is no solution for the consumers.
This crash is by design and its creators have been thinking long term over generations.
The call for new ideas is the right one but the formula had better be easily digested by the fluoridated minds of the consumer masses or they will be easily and quickly squashed by the long term architects of this new age who are pitiless and psychopathic in their means and intent.
Keep it simple folks because folks are simple.
On the climate change front...
Even when the factories are idled and cars have no gas the climate will still change.
Despite the fact that our mindless ability to destroy the very ecosystems that sustain us is a very real and profound agitator of climate change this "carbon based" save the planet jibber jabber is futile while, for example, earthquakes release massive clouds of methane into the atmosphere and gas from the ocean floor vents continuously.
We do not create all of the Earth Changes we are now seeing.
We are a rock spinning through space and things come about in long term cycles.
Don’t just think globally, think “galactically".
That is no argument to not clean up our piggish and stupid lifestyles but merely a fact that will become apparent with the march of time.
Our toxic polluting of the environment must cease but to blame global climate change entirely on human activity is naive in the extreme and will only lead to new control systems that benefit the few.
James:
When President Obama pays trillions of dollars to US banks so that they can profit by their catastrophic investments, it hardly looks like the dawning of a Brave New World.
James:
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes Barack Obama fails? He's being frank. Do you want Obama to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan? I don't. Do you want Stephen Harper to succeed? I don't. I hope Stephen Harper fails. I hope Jack Layton fails and Michael Ignatieff. And Benjamin Netanyahu. So there! I've said it.
Anonymous wrote:
"I see that International Socialists, the SWP (Canada) group run by Abbie Bakan, Paul Kellogg and Carolyn Egan et. al., has announced its annual Marxism gathering for 2009. The first item on the agenda (so far) is: "What would a socialist economy look like?"
The I.S. answer is probably quite predictable: it would look like Russia in 1917, with workers' councils etc. (just what the world wants), but at least they're asking a useful question."
Why don't you talk to someone in the IS and find out? I'm a member and nobody thinks that the answer "would like Russia in 1917", though I think workers councils are obviously on the agenda as they are for more than just Marxists.
DJN writes:
"... I think workers councils are obviously on the agenda as they are for more than just Marxists."
Okay, go on. Workers Councils and then what? IS/SWP/IST online sources and publicatios never say much more than that.
That's right. I.S. is brain dead. Have a protest and keep your fingers crossed. "Leading members" going nowhere. Revolution from bellow.
Have you been following the latest big split-spat in the SWP? Respect is history and Rees is toast. Can the CDN crew be far behind? The more things change...
The guy who's going to present the I.S. version of a "socialist economy" at Marxism 2009 teaches graphic design. You'd think they'd pick an economist or at least someone who purports to be an economist. But a graphic designer?
Well, they are most interested in posters than economics.... I guess the "socialist economy" (I.S. style) will be based on silk screening and the proper use of type styles.
Post a Comment