andycragg.ca

From A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (2007).

“After the implementatino of neoliberal policities in the late 1970s, the share of national [USA] income of the top 1 percent of income earners in the US soared, to reach 15 per cent (very close to its pre-Second World War share) by the end of the century. THe top 0.1 per cent of income earners in the US increased their share of the national income from 2 per cent in 1978 to over 6 per cent by 1999, while the ratio of the median compensation of workers to the salaries of CEOS increased from jus over 30 to 1 in 1970 to nearly 500 to 1 by 2000. Almost certainly, with the Bush administration’s tax reforms now taking effect, the concentration of income and wealth in te upper echelons of society is continuing apace because the estate tax (a tax on wealth) is being phased out and taxation on income from investments and capital gains is being diminished, while taxation on wages and salaries is maintained.” (16-17)

Last night I saw Capital, Michael Moore’s new film. Like his other films, this one jumped around frequently, I assume as a tactic to keep viewers’ interest. Moore’s basic thesis is “Capitalism is bad,” not a very refined thesis, but he doesn’t present a very refined argument. While he does spend some time presenting the basic tenants of Capitalism (free enterprise, free market, etc), Moore’s main focus throughout is really on the deregulation of the financial system since Reagan. (There is an article/book by Thomas Frank on this very topic in an issue of Harper’s magazine.) As such, he spends lots of time connecting the dots between the bad mortgage crisis last fall and the politicians and lobbyists in Washington who made literally millions and millions of dollars off of it and then bailed themselves out with public money when it went sour. He makes his argument not so much through stats, reason, or logic (though there is some of this), but through a series of anecdotal stories of the struggles of real people (family in Peoria, MI who lost their home to rising mortgage payments, workers in a window and door factory who after the factory closes stage a prolonged sit down until their back wages are paid, etc.). I don’t at all mean to sound derisive of this approach. I think it is valuable not only for its effectiveness, but also for its refusal to play by the established (or establishment) rules of how you are supposed to present an argument and to whom you are supposed to go to for evidence (surely, not the people themselves). In this way it reminds me of Zinn’s approach to “the people’s history.”

Moore also, as in other films of his, makes some sweeping comparisons between the USA (failing, foolish) and the EU and Japan (utopian, enlightened), and eventually eases his audience towards the use and possible understanding of the dreaded “S word”. The film culminates in a Moore’s plea to his fellow Americans to join him in the struggle for…Democracy! But for those of us disappointed with his last-second lack of courage to proclaim what he really wants us to struggle for, the closing music takes the form of a bizarre, big band version of the Internationale, further evidence of what Moore really meant to say.

I read this several months ago, and the strongest memory I have now is Orwell’s description of visiting a coal mine and the physical agony involved in the kilometer (or more) long walk from the bottom of the shaft to the coal face. the passage would be 4 feet high, or less where the braceing came down and likely scraped your spine as you passed under it.

Also what I remember is Orwell’s description of the conditions of the boarding house that he stayed in; filthy eating conditions, bad food, rooms packed with beds, shared beds (either at the same time, or in shifts i.e. I sleep there while you work at night and you while i work at day), bedbugs, etc. What strikes me now that I think of it is the frightening similarity to the boarding house for ex-psychiatric patients in Toronto described by Pat Caponni in her book Upstairs in the Crazy House (which I comment on here)

From The Worker August 1933. The blue eagle represents Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act, I assume the gear is the “wheels of industry” or something like that. The communists in the 1930s were very aware of the potential for a declaration of war by capitalist countries against the Soviet Union, as a way for the capitalist countries to deal with their economic depression and the “red menace.” (On a side note, the USSR aparently did very well during the 30s, experiencing massive growth and near zero unemployment.) Thus, the increased military spending that apparently was part of the new deal plan was seen by the communists as part of the general pro-military, pro-fascist, i.e. anti-communist, trend at the time, hence this cartoon showing the blue eagle turning into a swastika….

An article from The Worker, the paper of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC), from July 1933. There is a lot of talk these days about the New Deal, and Obama’s stimulus pacakge, and Harper’s as well. The media seems to me to represent the New Deal as a very progressive or even socialist moment in American history, when massive social programs and spending were brought in to relieve unemployment and class divisions. This may be true, I don’t really know. But, this article, by American communist leader Earl Browder, at least offers a different perspective on the New Deal, albeit from 1933 shortly after it was brought in. Perhaps I will find more articles from later dates to see how it was perceived by the CPC later on.

Browder argues, among other things, that the New Deal is essentially a plan to give (or continue) tax breaks and public money (in the form of loans) to the leaders of finance and owners of capital, and shift the burdenof the depression to the middle and lower classes. Sound familiar?? Corporate bailout anyone??

From November 14, 2007:

“I recently finished The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux. The main character is nuts but inspiring for his inventiveness. He makes me want to learn about how to use metal, machining/threading parts, welding, etc. Right now I don’t know anything about how to use metal, or rather how to make it do what you want it to do.* And motors and shit!** What’s that about? Basically I was inspired by the knowledge and skills that the father character had which he could use to fuel his inventiveness/problem solving. There’s got to be a mountain of scrap metal out there, if you know how to use it…

From December 13, 2007:

Just finished Dark Star Safari also by Paul Theroux. He has a unique, unapologetic, take it or leave it style/voice. At first I was put off, but then came to trust his opinions, reaspect his observations. And wow, one hell of a trip [from Cairo to Cape Town, mostly by land]. The book is a travel log, and besides being interested in the story/trip itseld, I was interested in the author himself as the main character. His life as an author, travelling. His friendships with people in his youth who now, 40 years later are famous people. I am enamoured with the idea of having life long correspondense with people/intellectuals, like he has with V.S. Naipaul, Naghib Mahfouz, and the South African woman author whose name I forget.  I think that being in touch with people like this throughout your life would make you feel connected to a movement, or at least to a generation, a time period.

Other thoughts based on the book:

The idea of being a teacher with the goal of leaving someone (a student) who would take your place.

Theroux’s criticism of NGOs and the idea that aid/aiders are making things worse in Africa, because people become reliant, not self sufficient, they don’t own their own problem. Some/few Africans will teach or doctor in their own country for a low wage when they know that foreign aid agencies will provide/subsidize foreign teachers and doctors. And that Zimbabwe was the best country he visited as a result of having been shunned by foreign agencies; Zimbabweans have had to do things for themselves…It makes you wonder about all development work, about what we are/should be doing here in Honduras. How to apply what he says about aid in Africa to the context here, which seems very different–less desperate poverty and disease, less population, less AIDS, a different culture, etc.

I am thinking now again that if we in the west truly wanted to do something to act upon our urge to help people in other nations, we should lobby our own governments to have better trade policies, and to force our companies to follow the same ethical conduct that they would here (i.e. mining, fruit companies, etc.). This trade policy shift would probably harm us economically/financially though so it would be hard to rally popular support..In this vein I am tempted to support Capitalism, in so far as we have never seen how unfettered Capitalism would actually work, since so far the “free market” has never been free but rather has been consistently and intentionally tilted in the favour of those who are already wealthy..

*I still don’t…

**I did, however, recently receive two little motors for christmas…