![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsJohn Lanchester writes:
In nations that supposedly have a tradition of egalitarianism and meritocracy, the reasons why the proletariat hasn't come together are more complex. A sense of fatalism pervades the Catholic nations of South America and Europe, a durable sense that nothing the ordinary man does can change; protest marches are screams of rage, not organized attempts to change circumstances. In the US, the fatalism only grips half of the US; the other half believes that, if they work hard enough at it, they will, Howard Roark-like, be recognized for the geniuses they are and reap the approppriate rewards. Illusioned that their brilliance will translate into social mobility, despite their living in one of the least socially mobile of all nations in the developed world.
The other day, I was called out of the blue by someone "looking for skilled developers" to try and make the noise machine of the world even more distracting. It turned out I didn't have the skills they were looking for. But by the end of the conversation I realized that he was trying to make the world even more bread-and-circusy, one Eloii at a time.
We have at the moment this monstrous hybrid, state capitalism – a term which used to be a favourite of the Socialist Workers Party in describing the Soviet Union, and which only a few weeks ago was on the cover of the Economist to describe the current economic condition of most of the world. This is a parody of economic order, in which the general public bears all the risks and the financial sector takes all the rewards – an extraordinarily pure form of what used to be called 'socialism for the rich'. But 'socialism for the rich' was supposed to be a joke. The truth is that it is now genuinely the way the global economy is working.And there are two reasons why there is no organised global proletariat. At the time Marx was writing, few could forsee the industrialization of military power. It was only fifty years after the publication of Capital that the average soldier was transformed from a one-on-one warrior into a killing machine, capabling of sending dozens or even hundreds of bullets downrange with a pull of the trigger.
Marx foresaw that this proletariat would be an increasingly centralised and organised force: indeed, this was one of the reasons it would prove so dangerous to capitalism… But there is no organised global conflict between the classes; there is no organised global proletariat. There’s nothing even close.
In nations that supposedly have a tradition of egalitarianism and meritocracy, the reasons why the proletariat hasn't come together are more complex. A sense of fatalism pervades the Catholic nations of South America and Europe, a durable sense that nothing the ordinary man does can change; protest marches are screams of rage, not organized attempts to change circumstances. In the US, the fatalism only grips half of the US; the other half believes that, if they work hard enough at it, they will, Howard Roark-like, be recognized for the geniuses they are and reap the approppriate rewards. Illusioned that their brilliance will translate into social mobility, despite their living in one of the least socially mobile of all nations in the developed world.
The other day, I was called out of the blue by someone "looking for skilled developers" to try and make the noise machine of the world even more distracting. It turned out I didn't have the skills they were looking for. But by the end of the conversation I realized that he was trying to make the world even more bread-and-circusy, one Eloii at a time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Don't worry, be happy
Date: 2012-04-01 11:51 pm (UTC)As for the substance of your comments, I consider myself to be a Progressive... and I very much *don't* want extensive government control over the economy.
What I want is a capitalist system with State oversight to curb the sort of excesses which, I believe, are inherent to unregulated capitalism, the sort of excesses depicted in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", or the company towns, company stores, private and police forces of the past, not to mention environmental excesses, unsafe food supplies, unsafe or abusive working conditions, and so on.
Capitalism excels when it comes to the allocation of resources and the generation of wealth... but as to the well-being of individuals or of societies, to the extent that capitalism fosters these goods, it is more as a side-effect, if it occurs at all.
Let's face it... most of us want *some* control of the economy by the State... even the most hard-core Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians want the State handing national defense and the enforcement of contracts.
We all just disagree as to how much State action is acceptable / needed / desirable. We're quibbling over where the lines should be drawn, rather than whether or not the lines should be drawn at all.