Smaller, Gentler Capitalism

As one could easily have predicted, the major theoretical split in the Occupy Movement is what to do about this thing called ( insert your favorite adjective,ie late,crony,raw, neoliberal, etc... or not) capitalism. The progressive populists want to "move your money" and "end corporate person-hood" and "buy and grow local". All of these things have as a common denominator a downsizing in scale. Live in smaller tribes, start a local currency, all this Schumacher small-is-beautiful type stuff. "One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small." Along with this is what I believe to be an "unexamined nostalgia" for small business and tight communities, a sentimentality that runs the gamut between conservative and liberal. Ideal Mom and pop stores, where everybody knows your name. According to Rob Hopkins' Transition Town handbook, "small scale responses...help show the way forward for governments, business and the rest of us."

None of this speaks to exploitation at the point of production. As Doug Henwood economist with the the Left Business Observer reminds us, small business can be far more ruthless than the post-industrial corporation. Money is still money even if it is in your local credit union. There are some tight reactionary communities around here that are incredibly resilient.

So as much as we would wish it away, it comes back to those dismal sciences of economics and sociology. We still have to debate reductionist anthropological or socio-biological assumptions about human nature. The universities still teach "schools" of thought with their marginal utility, pareto efficiency, theories of value, equilibrium and lump of labor fallacy. In the "new" economics we hear about no growth, steady state, smaller, gentler capitalism but all too often it is a mystification to avoid the huge knowledge gaps most people have about the system under which they now labor. But these critiques are part of the slow painful work of building a new,hegemonic discourse.

Then there is the split between people who insist it is not enough to be against something, you have to know and build consensus around what you are for. You have to establish concise definitions accepted by all and settle all tensions and only THEN can you move forward. Is it enough to be against injustice? Or must one first have a perfect definition of justice? (good luck on that)

Me, I'm investing in pepper spray and tear gas, a high growth sector exploding with potential in the coming years.