Message-ID: <v01530501ae79132bea5f@[199.183.204.210]> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:13:47 -0400 From: Santiago Hileret <mailto:styago@HOST1.TALKIN-DRUM.COM> Subject: Re: "Appropriate technology" still useful? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Tom Hodges writes: >We need to look at who
>really benefits from restrictive laws (and customs) rather than
>at who various economic and political ideologies (marxist,
>capitalist, or others) say benefits.
I'm not sure that I fully understand this thought, Tom. I think it's important to compare what a particular ideology _says_ it stands for (and plans to deliver) with the society it _actually_ produces. And I think this is especially critical at a time like this, when _a single system_, which purportedly stands for plural and free competition, has engineered its way into a position of _worldwide monopoly_ in the "market" of ideas on how to organize soociety. (Ask any 3rd World government not willing to declare_ absolute agreement_ with "free market" economics what kind of a reception it gets from the "international financial institutions").
Another thing that troubles me is that the model that has achieved this position of worldwide supremacy openly accepts (and vigorously propagates!) the notion that "the market" should be the ultimate arbiter of all human affairs, when we all know that the market has _no conception whatsoever_ of morals or ethics; only profit and loss.
At the same time, this system argues that less-than-full truthfulness is "just fine" in business and commerce (as well as in politics) if only because "people will be somewhat untruthful, anyway". I don't think we need this kind of _amorality_ from the de-facto leadership of the world.
Neither businesses nor politicians ever attempt to voluntarily present a balanced view of their products and policies; i.e., the full picture, including all of the pros and cons. It is accepted that the way to "operate" is to paint rosy pictures showing only positives. This "poisons the public well" of trust (people are not stupid enough to believe in pure rosy scenarios) and provokes the division of society into antagonistic "sides", since someone will sooner or later feel compelled to stand up and call the rosy proposal a fraud.
At this point you have the free-marketeers' ideal scenario: a divided society where everybody feels entitled not to tell the whole truth and where every man, woman and child is fiercely "competing" for survival with every other one. Quite apart from the ugliness of it, there is the inherent unfairness in the fact that some players not only have more resources than others to begin with, but can actually use _the public's_ resources to _advertise_ their point of view. (They're allowed to deduct advertising as a legitimate business expense. This shows on the _bottom line_ as a lower profit, which translates into a lower tax bill. All of this _transfer of wealth_ happens in the netherworld of corporate bookkeping, so the public never gets to know enough about it to understand how it works).
When I hear someone like Reinaldo, a fellow Latin American (and "3rd Worlder"), singing the praises of this elaborate system of deceit as the answer to the very real problems of corruption and inefficiency in his country/our countries, I worry and react. Not because I doubt his sincerity or intentions, but because I fear that the naked pursuit of self-interest cannot possibly be (and _hasn't_, historically, shown to be) the answer that we're all so _urgently_ looking for. Quite on the contrary: the greatest part of the urgency stems from the fact that the system is _predicated_ upon expansion (that is, it cannot function _profitably_ unless it's constantly expanding; thus "globalization") whereas _the planet_ (the ultimate source of all wealth) doesn't seem to be expanding at all...
Another way to put this concern is: If each of us is reduced to taking care of his/her business in his/her little area of interest or corner of the world, (and indeed we are, with ever-increasing specialization, families where both parents work full-time, and "downsizing" hovering as a sword of Damocles over their heads) (should they not "perform" to the expectations of "the market"), who's taking care of the business of all? It would appear to me it's either "no one" or "Big Brother".
Which brings me to a paraphrase of your question, Tom: Who benefits from having those who "lose"/"fail" blame _only_ themselves all the time, rather than trying to understand more fully the non-advertised/actively camouflaged side of those who keep winning?
One final example of the quality of "leadership" Big Business provides. Entertainment is _the largest_ export industry of the U.S. today. Since we live in a world of "economies of scale", one can safely assume at such a scale these folks are turning a "tidy" profit. However, it was necessary for _the government_ to twist their arm before they would agree to produce _three hours a week_ of educational programming for children. (Even after clearly successful demonstrations like Sesame Street and the Muppets, these folks continue to argue -with a straight face!- that educational programming isn't profitable. But, wait! It gets better! Out the other corner of their mouths, they argue that taxpayer subsidies to Public TV -producer of both successful shows- should be eliminated, since Public TV, and some individuals within it, are making plenty of money from these successful shows). The "3 hr-a-week compromise" is not even a solution, of course. Now we're going to have an endless argument about what constitutes "educational programming" (Reagan's team argued, for a while, that "Ketchup" should qualify as a serving of vegetables for school lunch purposes), and the usual garbage is going to continue to be exported to the "global market", just like tobacco, which is being vigorously pushed in "3rd World" countries to offset the reduced sales in the "developed world".
Call me a pessimist: I don't find this picture nearly as rosy as they tell me...
Peace
Santiago
--------------------------------------------------------- Santiago G. Hileret | Voice/Fax: (718) 858-1324 11 St. Felix St., #3F | Internet: mailto:styago@talkin-drum.com Brooklyn, NY 11217-1205 | U. S. A. | 3rd World 1st!