Un-Cut
There are popular movements building to fight-back against austerity programs being imposed in Europe, here in the US and elsewhere. Greece and France have had general strikes, Britain has it's student movement and union led marches,(the last one brought out an estimated half million in London) and other EU countries are seeing protests over massive budget cuts and other attacks on the public sector. Icelanders just voted down a proposal forcing them to pay for their banks failures.
The US movement has had some successful actions, occupying banks and annoying various elites with their call: We won't pay for your crisis!" This chant was started by those resisting foreclosures, resisting bank bailouts (Michael Moores movie themes) and most recently those in Madison Wis. resisting the attack on public service employees and their union.
The question is this: Is a campaign based on a negative vision enough? Saying what you WON'T do only goes so far. At some point you have to articulate what you will do. "Not paying" means, by default, allowing the economy to collapse. Capitalism has only been preserved by the use of massive public expenditure (the bail-outs and the stimulus) and withdrawing those policies now causes the markets to implode. Those who say Re-distribute the Wealth of hedge-fund Managers, (greedy banksters, etc) must realize the short term nature of this fantasy solution. That is, it can never happen because people like Pagan will defend their masters with their lives. But even if it did, Capitalists would just go on strike as they have been threatening to do, bringing down the markets, governments and global financial collapse. Don't think they wouldn't.
This means an Anti-Cuts movement must be willing to call their bluff and say bring it on. Their vision must include deep structural change, far beyond electoral or legislative solutions. This is the gulf between progressives and radicals, one side accepts the fact of a debt crisis but wants others to pay, the other side refuses to accept this basic frame, insisting it is capitalism itself that is the crisis. Those who propose any kind of Popular Front must have some way of bridging this fundamental divide. "Anti-cut" must articulate pro-economic democracy and justice, pro-ecological sustainability and re-examination of the very notions of work, citizenship and politics.
posted by troutsky @ 7:37 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Capitalism has only been preserved by the use of massive public expenditure (the bail-outs and the stimulus) and withdrawing those policies now causes the markets to implode.
Our system, however you dub it, has been able to hobble along for the reason you describe. The probable result if the stimulus ceases, is not implosion, but a lengthy depression during which debts are paid off and the economy balances itself. We lack the political will for such austerity, so I infer that it will be enforced upon us by economic necessity.
I don't think the American people can handle any reduction in the standard of living which we erroneously believe to be our birth right. We're still ripe for a demagogue who can convince the people that we shall return to prosperity soon. Failing that, we'll be in need of a scapegoat.
Hobble along alright. Generate growth and skim the profits for a small percentage of the population while the rest get inflation, hunger, poor health care and the rest until they revolt and then the State Dept. figures out a way to keep them under control if they live in oil producing regions.
China and India are trying to find a way out of this syndrome right now.
Strange game, only way to win is not to play.
Wiser: We could get into the whole argument about whether this is "pure" capitalism and whether such a creature could exist but for now I say the primary requirements are that it be a private economic sphere based on market exchange and private property rights. What we have then is capitalism.
The idea of equilibrium or "balance" has been posited but shown to be a hypothesis turned to ideological construct. The threat of total implosion is very real and in fact the world stood on that precipice not long ago. Yet the memory has been wiped away.
I think "political will" is a bit too facile, in my understanding politics requires citizens with power.
Even the growth is an illusion, I think, but like profit, it is an illusion you can put in the bank and exchange for toys.
The demagogue/scapegoat option is already very real.
You know, when I was a kid, one of my dreams was to one day own a world class restaurant that would feature different types of international cuisines. I even toyed with the concept of a fast food franchise that featured a French cuisine.
I started looking into it, and as a got older, I started paying more attention to things like regulations, taxes, etc. It kind of-well, ruined my appetite.
Guess who decided to say the hell with opening his own restaurant? The first three guesses are free.
A powerful story, Pagan. Made even more powerful by the incredible lack of franchise restaurants serving high calorie low nutrition food in the nation.
Now, was your objective to serve up better variety and nutrition and was that blocked by the chains who are serving subsidized crap? Then you have a story to tell.
trout, sorry you don't live in Beantown. The crew is getting ready for the opener of Atlas Shrugged Part I (my guess is II and III don't get made). It looks terrible but we can't pass it up.
Only other time Her Nibs was brought to the screen it was by left leaner, King Vidor who had a habit of sneaking some left wing stuff past the studio heads. He turned The Fountainhead into a kitsch laugh riot right under her nose. Great melodrama.
I'm certain they're going to try to play this one straight.
We could get into the whole argument about whether this is "pure" capitalism and whether such a creature could exist but for now I say the primary requirements are that it be a private economic sphere based on market exchange and private property rights. What we have then is capitalism.
I think you're basically correct, but it's important to point out, from time to time, the aspects of our system which work against property rights. The inflationary power of the Federal Reserve ensures that even those who do work to get ahead will have less to give to their children. Meanwhile, the banksters get rich.
At some point, the culprits will be blamed. The question is what kind of system will be posited as a viable alternative.
I think you're basically correct, but it's important to point out, from time to time, the aspects of our system which work against property rights.
-----------
Nope, absolutely incorrect. It's important to point out and discuss from time to time why it may be desirable to work against the idea of property rights as a fetish.
Why don't you set an example, Ducky. Give everything you own away. It's not right for you to own anything, who the hell do you think you are? People worked and slaved to make those things that you "own". Let's start with that film collection you're always bragging about. Why not donate every single one to some film school, or to some community organization that will show them to children from poor or working class neighborhoods. It might inspire them. What use are they collecting dust in your basement? Donate all your music too.
In fact, do you own your own home? If so, fuck that. Sign it over to some worthwhile charity.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Ducky: I pray they show it here!
Wiser: You are correct that monetary and fiscal policy are a major intervention into pure capitalism and one whose intracasies admittedly elude me. I admire your investigations into von Mises and Keynes and others.
Pagan: What about: I dreamed of opening a nuclear waste dump on my property but they told me the used oil drums were not safe. Shouldn't we just let the market decide? Now my innovation has been squashed and the public believes Big Brother will protect them, a huge moral hazard.
I don't think acknowledging the tension between property rights and personal rights means we can't have our own toothbrush. Hygiene is obviously the private sphere.
The economy is obviously in the public sphere.
Pagan, no need to slip into hyperbole. I have no desire to abolish private possessions. Although at a level where the means to a reasonably comfortable life like education, health care, public land and food are concerned we can easily get into some very serious conflicts of interest with private property. The huge flaw in Libertarianism is their waving away these conflicts with a flick of the wrist.
Here's a minor instance but one I know well and have an interest in. I love film. I believe film can be transformative and should be as widely available as possible.
The great, great Indian director Satyajit Ray is unavailable on DVD and what little exists on demand is very poor print quality and not likely to encourage much interest. The Apu trilogy, The Music Room, The Calcutta trilogy, Days and Nights in the Forest, Distant Thunder ... all great films. Their distribution rights are owned by Sony (may the see the inner rings of hell) and they choose not to release them.
A fabulous restoration of the entire catalog (much of which was earlier almost lost to fire) was done by the University of Cal, Santa Clara. So, Sony, which has property rights but has never done a blessed thing to maintain the prints and was not involved in the film production just sits on them.
So this great chronicle of the Nehru years very rarely gets screened. A screening of part of his catalog has been arranged at the Harvard Film Archive but outside metropolitan areas it's rare.
What are Sony's rights here and what are ours? I could go through this with many other directors.
I would think that can be challenged in court. Property rights aside, people have the right to profit from their work, and to pass that profit on to their heirs. And beyond the profit motive, there is also a question of heritage. These films can be seen much like an heirloom. There are any numbers of people involved in the films. The director, the performers, whoever wrote the screenplays, etc. Under current law, I think they would be entitled to a piece of the profits, thus their heirs would be as well.
Sony should be obliged to relinquish their holdings at a reasonable price. If their excuse is they could not make a profit on the films, then there is no valid reason to refuse to relinquish the rights for a reasonable price.
On the other hand, these are foreign entities. Indian films under the ownership of a Japanese company. I'm not sure how international copyright or property laws apply here, or whether US law would apply. But frankly, if Sony thought they could make a profit from these films, I can't imagine why they wouldn't release them.
If they can't make a profit, then they must feel there is not enough interest in them to warrant releasing them at this time. That might change, which might be why they are holding on to them. That and like I said, none of the legal heirs, if there are any (and I can't imagine there wouldn't be any at all)have pursued it to this point.
Post a Comment
<< Home