"No deity that men have ever worshiped is more ruthless and more hollow than the free market unchecked...".
From 'In the strawberry fields', from 'Reefer Madness and other tales from the American underground', by Eric Schlosser.
Well, that's another essay down, with 1 to go. 2, if you count the epilogue-type one at the end. Where the first one was an eye-opener, the second one was just plain depressing. This essay concentrated on the use of illegal (and mainly) Mexican immigrant workers during the peak of the strawberry-picking season. As is often the case with these things, the corporations involved exploited the fact that the labourers in this case were desperate for work and would live in almost any kind of conditions while doing it, and as you'd expect, they were grossly underpaid. Interesting how some bigots see Mexican immigrants as little more than vermin, when the latter are doing at least as much for the economy of the West Coast as anyone else, albeit unwittingly. I could go on about this more, but I recommend you just buy the book instead.
This got me thinking about my own principles in this regard. I'm now firmly in the money-isn't-everything camp, but that wasn't always the case. Right throughout secondary school, I had dollar signs in my eyes, and my career of choice at this stage was going to be law. Some of this was probably down to the glamour that is traditionally associated with the profession (all you crime dramas out there, take a bow) but the main motivation was the money. In one sense, this ideal was a good thing: Law has always had competitive entry requirements and I was a lazy bastard at school. I would never have made myself do honours in everything if there hadn't been some reason behind it other than the advice of my parents and teachers. But then somewhere along the line, I think about halfway through my leaving cert year, I had a change of heart. I ended up putting Engineering as the first choice on my CAO form, and went down that route instead.
What happened after that is the long and not always uplifting story of my first attempt at college, but somewhere along the line I stopped caring about money in the insane, trample-all-over-the-little-folk way that I did when I was younger, and all things considered, it's just as well. One guy that I used to live with who had studied economics for a while made the point that capitalism was the law of the jungle applied to human society, where the so-called weak are moved to the bottom of the hierarchy and the 'strong' to the top. I discounted this at the time, but now it makes perfect sense, and would go someway towards explaining that while financial success still means something to me, how I or anyone else comes into it is also as important, and it also highlights why I am no longer automatically impressed with wealth in other people.
So yup, I am now a committed semi-socialist leftie and proud of it.
Lastly, two essays that I like on the internet, which are more or less in the same vein as what I was saying above:
Kurt Vonnegut: Cold Turkey
Julian Edney: Greed
Interestingly enough, in the second essay, the model of Smithian economics being rebutted by John Nash Forbes' theory of equilibria is only given a passing mention, and could be used as an example in the section 'The Nuts Game', at the end. As far as I know, Smith said that 'what is good for the individual is good for the group', i.e. if each member of a group pursues the goals that are best for itself, then the group as a whole prospers. What I think Nash was saying was that each member of a group must do what is both good for itself and the group, and the equilibrium that is reached between both of these is known as a Nash equilibrium.
Ok, wank over. I think I'll look into this more though.
About Me
- Denis
- After working with computers in Ireland for four years, I had a change of heart and hotfooted it across the pond to Brighton, gay capital of the UK, to study big hairy men and to try and get a degree in Pharmacy from the University of Brighton. I graduated, finished my pre-reg year, and am now working as a legal drug-dealer in the big smoke of London. Join me here in my adventures as I attempt to learn about as many drugs as possible during the day, and get entangled with as many bears as possible at night. I can be reached on gmail.com at denis.g.ryan
9 comments:
Ah Denis, just because you are a student again does not mean you have to become a bleeding heart leftie. You must resist the temptation to jump on every bandwagon going. Believe me, my first year back I did the same and then realised in several years I would be a capitalist again so I took a step back
nice writing though, keep it up
Carl
Carl, criticising an economic system that has created massive inequalities isn't *quite* jumping on the bandwagon. It's simply good sense.
That's the problem with some people's perception of left-field activism. They see it as fashion, the preserve of higher education, or weak and ineffectual (probably a side effect of constantly being seen persuading people that there are better ways to resolve conflicts than bomb the shit out of each other).
Some maintain their convictions even after they graduate from academia. It just so happens that some activists begin their 'careers' at higher education. My convictions have been with me for ten years now.
It's the apathy that bugs me. If you were to give me a choice between going out and protesting against a war or economic system, or sitting at home, drinking beer and laughing at the protestors on television, I'd take the former any day.
Loftiness not intended.
I dont mean to belittle your convictions at all, please dont think that. Its just the inconsistencies that bother me thats all, like in another entry you spoke of how much money that can be made once you graduate your profession, as if it were a prime motivator. I read an article recently Tim Howard wrote "the simple economic facts for these guys out weigh even the most basic morals. They as one single group are reponsible for more pollution and exploitation of workers than any other" . He was of course writing about the Pharmaceutical industry. Now I am working (or will be) in the same (ish) field so I am criticising myself here too...
(Above removed for the sake of an edit)
In the earlier article, it wasn't so much the amount of money that was the motivator, it was the regularity of it. There, I pointed out that two psychologists were on an employment rollercoaster (and still are, as far as I know) because their skills weren't very marketable, and having been in that situation myself before in IT, I refuse to accept that again. It's the stability that's attractive, not so much the money, and I don't make any excuses for that.
You're absolutely right about the industry, I knew this for a long time, but you can choose to make your money in Pharmacy outside of the circle of profit maniacs if you want to. Changes to these systems are, admittedly, not done through protest, but from within, so if it was a future goal of mine to reshape a few policies of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline et al, then the first thing I would have to do is learn about what they do. And I'm under no illusions about how they can be capable of suppressing research findings for the sake of profit, even when the result of that can be positively harmful (step forward, Boots). For anyone who is interested in combatting this kind of legalised poisoning, the first step for that person would be a scientific education. That's the way I look at it.
I actually finished the book that was referred to last night (if you haven't already read it, I heartily recommend) and at the end, Schlosser wrote that immoral business practices such as migrant worker exploitation damage the economy in the long run. He also wrote that the pure form of capitalism as defined by Adam Smith, has never really existed in America, and when the country's divergence from that form was the most pronounced, that was when it flourished. Lastly, also from the book, the president who adhered to the theory of the free market the most slavishly is now widely as the president who was the most shit: Calvin Coolidge, US president 1921 -1929.
I suppose the point to be made here is that *some* free market competition is good, but it has to be regulated, and tempered with some socialist/communist policy. What irks me is that these days, this is somehow seen as radical posturing.
Lastly (I swear!), I'll admit that avoiding all forms of big business in the average life as almost as difficult as refusing to breath, but some of the more pragmatic activists have advocated going for the least corrupt, as it were. So that's what I do.
You'd never actually think that I came into this library with the intention of studying, would you? Christ Almighty...
well you should have a look at this guy, running against Bush and Kerry in the US, are you politically plugged in?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/nader.html
Yes Anonymous (name?), I already know about Ralph Nader, and you'll see from the article that his run for presidency could actually divert votes away from John Kerry. Bush getting in again would be the worst possible outcome.
I actually like Naders ideals the most, but pragmatism is required here. He's (probably) not going to get the vote of disgruntled ex-Republicans.
The site RalphDontRun.net says it all really.
Sorry name? (Carl)was there anyone else in our discussion?
Yes I agree Bush getting in again would be disaster. Not only is he stupid but is unwilling to bend to any persuasion. From watching the debate last night (did you see it?) I reckon Kerry now has a poll lead
Ahh, thought it was someone else. Best to sign, to be on the safe side.
No didn't see it, but saw the skynews article on the web earlier. Kerry's honesty about outsourcing is exactly the kind of honesty we need in politicians now, but Bush actually came across better on the issue of border control, by mentioning that it was a human rights issue in addition to the rest. Not that I believe for one minute that Bush is the better candidate in reality. As for gay marriage, could they have been any more alike?
I still reckon it'll be close, but I'll be glued to that TV come election night.
Post a Comment