Canadian culture has erected many seeming barriers to the truth, and to these we turn with the naïve optimism of a sand castle before a tsunami. Welfare, unions, national parks. Sidewalks, shelters, and national healthcare. All won with bloodied, hopeful hands. But these archipelagos that seem to form a breakwater, all float in the same bottomless sea – tools to keep the waters churning. They make no attempt to drain the pool, merely prevent it from draining itself. The extensive damage of capitalism is the greatest threat to its survival. In this metaphor, government itself is no life-raft, no buoy, let alone sanctuary: government is the lifeguard from within, hired to keep the patrons swimming. Our seeming barriers to the truth – our progressivisms, our environmentalisms, our diets – strive to make the system sustainable. They present no challenge to its cosmology. Radicals, indeed, are merely surrogates; at best groundskeepers.
Knowing its immensity does nothing for the future, but re-encodes the past. We can witness the broad sweep of societies perfecting the marketplace, releasing it slowly – from the emperors, from the holy men, from the lords, from the corporations themselves – until the consumer is unfettered, released into the totality where all beliefs are permitted, all fanaticisms scorned.
Our neighbours to the south have salvaged a second truth from the bogs of the past, namely the fantasy of the nationstate. They erect America as a compliment to the totality of capitalism: synecdoche, metonymy, and metaphor. Indeed, America is the ultimate empty signifier of our day. Meaning nothing, it consumes the most audacious contradictions, swallows all but that which contests its own totality. It is good for nothing except to destroy that which it is not. It’s battles retread the ground capitalism has long since gained. Excepting a handful of giddy utopianists, Canadians permit themselves no such indulgence or willed collective blindness. We watch as old orders – the decommissioned relics – struggle to inscribe meaning into this para-truth with their older renditions, but we resist their romantic allure, mock their failures. Religion is not the opiate of the people; it is the ghost of competition of order. With no genuine utopians amongst us, Canadians accept the truth stoically, set to work in its midst.
To know the truth is not to challenge it, nor is it to admit defeat. To know the truth is to begin to ask questions of its intentions. If we are to challenge it, we must ask questions of imputed, potential orders, ask what are the intentions that will supplant or modify the existing order. Marx, in attempting to imagine an alterior society, recognized that the current mode could not be modified by degree. We must either admit the truth and begin to reject it, or succumb to its momentum and continue to protect it from itself.
Gregory Betts
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 11, 2005]
<br />
<a href="http://www.2river.org/2RView/3_2/bios/betts.html">http://www.2river.org/2RView/3_2/bios/betts.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.poetics.ca/poetics05/05betts.html">http://www.poetics.ca/poetics05/05betts.html</a><br />
<br />
And perhaps offer a viable alternative since the alternatives already tried - socialism/communism, communalism, feudalism etc. etc. - all really suck.
and there is no such thing as a "little bit of capitalism" -- capitalism is all there is. why not begin the process of recognizing where we are, and why things work the way they do? perhaps it will be disquieting to discover new, uncomfortable things about this country. i expect it will. i for one, though, would rather confront what is going on with an open and inquiring mind than advocate arguments that don't make sense. there's already too much yip and yap.
G
Capitalism has contributed far more to our quality of life in Canada than pompous blowhards like this Betts.
it's this kind of -- don't talk about it, don't even think about talking about it -- attitude that makes it so important to start the discussions of what is really going on in this society at the basest of levels. this week we had the premiers (excepting sask and newf) lining up to change the hour of the day to accomodate the interests of "our chief trading partner." education funding was discussed as a means of raising Canadina productivity. trade drives policy. trade drives governance. even our health care system -- supposedly the primary evidence of our Canadian socialism -- is marketed by government and private interests groups as a subsidy to business employers. the logic of capitalism dominates the land. there are no alternatives on the table, and it's time we came to terms with what that implies.
why is it so threatening to recognize this?
G
If the author's point is that buying and selling has come to dominate our culture, then I kind of see what he's talking about. But I think that market economics democratizes the notion of value, at least to a greater extent than more authoritarian social models do.
Something's value breaks down to what someone is willing to exchange for it - money beings simply a token in this exchange. The person's not giving up pieces of paper in exchange for a particular product - he's denying himself the opportunity to use those pieces of paper to acquire something else. And in a competitive marketplace, that person has a choice of manufacturers and vendors from which to acquire a particular product. This allows him to allocate his pieces of paper in an optimal way.
This is a freedom that socialist and feudal approaches do not allow for. Choice is at the very heart of free market capitalism, and it is this choice that the promoters of more authoritian philosophies find so threatening..
The article is about imagining more than two. I'm right with you, capitalism is better than either of those, and is maybe tarnished by the degree to which it naturally tends toward both if left unattended. Herin lies the paradox, if you attempt to designate capitalism a system of governance, rather than an observable phenomenon that occurs alongside and sometimes despite governance. Is it possible to be a "good" capitalist without being a billionaire? Anyone can be a good socialist, hence the allure. If our "capitalism" made "good" capitalists of those making efficient use of capital, it might help swell the ranks, but as long as its poster children are pissing their sometimes-not-so-hard-earned money into their Hummers, the recruiting drive wil be tough.
"Something's value breaks down to what someone is willing to exchange for it"
And for it to work, you thus need willing exchange. Thus industries that tend to form natural monopolies must be regulated (classic socialist governance, in the most limited sense of the term).
One has to wonder what the "willing exchange" is, when an item loses a huge chunk of its value when you "drive it off the lot", or the fact that you can't get ten cents on the dollar for a yard sale item still in the shrink-wrap. Add on top of that the fact that the "willing exchange" in the retail market is financed overwhelmingly by debt, so the price isn't the price anyway.
When capitalism depends on a commodity the state protects with the most expensive military on the planet, and the price of everything depends on it, it isn't capitalism, or at best it's State Capitalism, which has another name.
If we're really all capitalists, why is the market for used items so haphazard and fragmented? Why can't the Chinese buy Unocal? Why is the intrinsic, resale value of common items so much lower than the retail sticker price? Why is there monetary policy designed to make sure labour isn't based on willing exchange (uncoerced that is, you can't have a monetary policy that works against a full employment market and call it willing exchange)?
This isn't capitalism. It's kind if a church based loosely on capitalism--but it aint it.
Why so much poverty?Why does socialism do better?If socialism is so bad why do corporations rely on it so much?
Thanks for the links mk.
In socialism, the whole concept of earning is completely abandoned. "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" ignores completely the idea of merit or reward based on contribution. In fact, the incentive becomes to be as much of a parasite as possible, on the assumption that someone else will actually do the heavy lifting.
One doesn't "earn a living" in a socialist economy. One is *entitled* to a living. Without mechanisms to reward the productive and punish the indolent, a socialist economy chugs along on that thinnest and least reliable of human characteristics - altruism.
Yes, some poor suckers will carry the weight for those around them. One need only go into a public sector workplace to see how the employee complement divides into those who bust their asses to keep the operation going and those who sit on their asses behind union protection and literally do nothing but convert oxygen to carbon dioxide. This isn't a fantasy - I've experienced this firsthand. Imagine the entire economy working like this.
Socialism relies on this phenomenon, but that doesn't make it right.
Yes union shops have their problems,but the corporate welfare bums cause a lot of problems.
Many of us have experienced different workplaces.
A more narrow definition of socialism, got it from a 1940's encyclopedia, Britannica I think, so from before it was such a loaded term with all this vernacular creep: governance under the principle that industries tending toward natural monopoly or involving a public good must be regulated, in the public interest, by an elected government. Simple! Some economic rule-of-thumb suggests such industries provide human necessities, and a monopoly situation (in which freedom of choice and healthy competition are hindered) begins to form when there are fewer than around 9 major competitors (ie: comprising nearly all the market share). Following that are price distortions arising from antitrust or anticompetitve behaviour, that threaten the health of a market economy.
Under these rules, am I a socialist? You bet, since under nearly all reasonable aspirations I can be a capitalist at the same time.
Side note: our medical system is state-capitalist, not socialist. To "socialize" it would require: 1) allowing private clinics to operate (under a public regulatory regime); 2) providing public insurance in addition to allowing private, so that nobody is denied care; 3) aggressive antitrust and "reinvestment" taxation rules to prevent monopolies from forming (including local ones), that restict competition, choice or access