The Entrepreneurial Imperative
More insidious than the blathering of Milton Friedman (may he rot in Hell) and his syncophants on the Right are these types of neo-liberal, "reformist" pronouncements flowing from the hegemons narration centers. First, here is Dr. Mohammad Yanus, developer of the Grameen Bank and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with what seems like an enlightened project.
"By defining 'entreprenuer' in a broader way, we can change the character of capitalism radically and solve many of the unresolved social and economic problems within the scope of the free market." He wants more poor people to buy into the system which makes them poor and believe the lie which is the "free market". He said glorification of the entreprenuerial spirit has led to 'one dimensional human beings' motivated only by profit." He read his Marcuse but missed the point. While international companies motivated by profit may be crucial in adressing global poverty, he said, nations must also cultivate grassroots enterprises and the human impulse to do good. There was a discussion on this blog about "cultivation" and how the revolutionary must be courageous enough to "change men" but the idea that "one can do good and do well" is at the heart of the moral lie that informs the so-called benevolent, compassionate, entreprenuer. To Janus' way of thinking, women and Muslims have been "liberated" from the traditional aversion to charging interest through"micro-credit". Usary is just fine, even liberating.
Advertised on our public radio station every five minutes is the new book by Carl Schramm titled The Entreprenuerial Imperative, celebrating American's "unparalleled skill as entreprenuers" and defining this "skill" as our niche in the 21st century economy. As Arundahti Roy makes clear,the check book and the cruise missle have been making a pretty lucrative "niche" for some time now. Our Comparative Advantage, as the economists like to say. Explaining why the UN Millenium Goals project of" halving world povertyby 2015" has been "diverted" ,Dr. Janus put the blame on the resources squandered on the War On Iraq,which has shifted the worlds attention "from a more pressing project". Funny how that ALWAYS happens, Dr.Janus, when the entreprenuerial imperative of finding resources, cheap labor and open markets comes up against the worlds poor people.
Koffi Annan demonstrated this same naive, liberal faith in his farewell speech: "Today, we realize that market access, fair terms of trade and a non-discriminatory financial system are equally vital to the chances of poor countries...you Americans can make a crucial difference to many millions if you are prepared to save the Doha Round of trade negotiations." Yeah, right. A sudden change of heart. This is what the mutualists and other pro-market libertarians dream of, with an equally unsatisfying explanation of HOW this change would come about or WHY those with wealth and power would suddenly be willing to share it.
posted by troutsky @ 11:01 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Alexander Cockburn puts the opposition case well:
Throughout the late 1980s and '90s, in the verbal currency of First World do-gooders, "microloans" became one of those magically fungible words, embedded in a thousand foundation and NGO annual reports, like "sustainable." What could be more virtuous in terms of prudent philanthropy than giving very small loans to very poor women? Microloans breathe healthful uplift, as divorced from the sordid world of megaloans as are microbrews from Budweiser.
The trouble is that microloans don't make any sort of a macro-difference. They have helped some poor women, no doubt about it. But in their own way they're a register of defeat. Back in the early 1970s there were huge plans afoot to change the entire relationship of the Third to the First World, to speed Third World economies toward decent living standards for the many, not just the few. At the United Nations radical economists were hard at work drafting plans for a New World Economic Order. All that went out the window, and here are the caring classes thirty years later, hailing microloans.
Microloans are micro-Band-Aids in a scale of things where--to take the example of India--well over 100,000 farmers, including a large number of women, have killed themselves because their federal and state governments, plus large international institutions, have promoted the savage priorities of neoliberalism.
This micro-lending is an aspect of the Bolivarian revolution (better on one level because there are no interest payments) but the streets and favelas of Caracas were crammed with vendors selling all kinds of bric brac and crap made in China,the "informal sector" supported by this policy.If you are just going to subsidize "employment" ,why not have people making something?This merchant mentality is deeply embedded culturally but I don't see how encouraging it is a good idea.
Microloans are strictly a bandaid approach to world poverty.
They were talked about uncritically today on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now".
I watched that show as well Renegade. I was wondering when someone was going to say something critical.
Sorry guys, didn't you stay to listen to Vendana Shiva talk about microcredit affording farmers to subscribe to Monsanto seeds which must be bought anew from the first time on? She blasted the hell out of how the corporations, especially Monsanto, have encouraged microcredit as yet another method of getting between the needy and their little wealth and hold on self subsistance.
In a world of commodified everything, they will try to find a way to charge us for every tear we shed.My biggest complaint,though, goes to what happens to social relations when they are all mediated by a market. As a merchant, I take what you made and create my own wealth by "buying low and selling high", so I profit to the degree I can make you work for less. Nice way to have a relationship. We all know the downside of selling our labor. A loan just perpetuates this my ability to maintain this antagonistic separation.
Post a Comment
<< Home