With a small caveat

It should be clear where I'm coming from, but I'm guessing it is not clear to absolutely everyone. I also think, quite seriously, that there's still a chance for some confusion, so let me clear that up as well.

First of all, yes, we are all created equal and endowed with some inalienable rights. That part of the Constitution the founding fathers got right. However, ...

We don't all show up in equal circumstances. Some people have it a lot harder in life than others, and this for any number of reasons. We don't all have equal opportunities.

What is more, since we have ranked (rigged?) our priorities in favor of the economy over the society, this inequality of opportunities is a double hit for those left out. When it comes to economic forces -- which are valued higher than any other in our modern-day, consumerist, capital-driven, money-loving world, those without are at more than just a disadvantage: they've been shut out completely. Consequently, we can't judge them by our otherwise money-prejudiced standards.

Facebook, for example, abounds with sappy, pathetic drivel about how our lives would be better if we made better choices. That's vague enough to agree with, but it's too vague to be true. For all of those born with a gold, silver, or even stainless steel spoon in their mouths, talk is cheap. Before you disparage the poverty-stricken, the weak, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, and the have-nots (i.e., those without spoons, so to speak), you should give your personal pathos a second thought. I would like to see all those well-enough-off-to-think-they're-more-deserving-than-others manage under the same circumstances as those for whom they no longer feel responsible. Yes, we like to think that responsibility is a personal thing, but that's only part of the story ... a very small part of it actually.

In an age of unbridled, rugged individualism, too many John-Wayne wannabes like to think that they got to where they are by their own efforts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Your social background, your skin color, your fitting or not-fitting into legislated categories, your upbringing, your diet, your family circumstances all play a part in which breaks you get and what breaks you. Recent studies have shown that even random determination of a privileged position leads quickly to the assumption that the benefiters are getting what is their due. Once "there", these people almost invariably tend to get less compassionate quickly as well. Could it be ... I mean, is it perhaps just possible, that you're not being objective about your stance on rights and responsibilities? Could it be that you're just opining from a rather privileged position?

Now, while I still believe everyone needs to make the best of what they have, there are still too many folks without enough for "good", let alone "best". This is anything but a one-size-fits-all matter.

What Alfie doesn't know

Most of you will miss the allusion in the title. It's OK. It's not that important.

In a recent discussion with a friend, one of his observations about the sad state of current affairs was simply that what we're seeing is just humans being human. That seems to be a reasonable statement, but it got me thinking, and I'm not exactly sure how reasonable it is.

It assumes a lot. For example, it implies that things are as bad as they are because that is all we, as humans, are capable of. It intimates that given half a chance, humans will make the wrong choices. It insinuates that humans are inherently defective or deficient (or evil? or degenerate? or nasty? or ...?) in some way. It struck me that my friend doesn't have a very high opinion of his fellow humans.

Oh, I don't blame him for harboring incorrect notions or drawing false conclusions or anything of the sort. After all, we; that is, humanity in general, have a pretty rotten track record when it comes to good things. A lot of blood has been spilled, a lot of people have had to suffer, and we never seem to tire of finding new and obnoxious ways of making other people's lives miserable. What I think I heard him saying was, there is really nothing we can do about any of this; it's simply hardwired into the system, if you will. And it's there that I don't agree.

Yes, I'm one of those hopeless (or is it hapless?) idiots who believe that we can do better than we do. I'm not convinced that we're born brutish or evil or sinful or anything like that at all. Granted, the major Western religions, the so-called Abrahamic Faiths, all postulate a defective creation, (Hu)Man, but I'm not sure that's a strong interpretation of the Creation narrative. This doesn't mean that I automatically agree with our Humanist brethren, for they, at least for the most part, are convinced that we're nothing but atoms, molecules and physical and chemical process that somehow randomly produces the epiphenomenon of consciousness that forces us to decide but completely influenced by external forces and natural laws that leave little room for actual choice. Yes, deep down, I believe they, too, think, we're simply not capable of more. I, however, can't help but think that we are.

Since we're on the topic of what we all believe, I'll tell you what I believe, namely that humans are, to be sure, capable of the most incomprehensible depths of stupidity, of brutality, cruelty, and depravation, yet, at the same time, we are capable of reaching the most unimaginable heights of wisdom, creativity, kindness and love as well. Our individual lives and the life of humanity plays out between these two extremes. While I don't argue that we have been giving the down side more than its due, I would argue that we have the chance to be better. If there is one thing about humans which I unflateringly believe, it is that we -- individually and collectively -- can choose to shape our destiny.

Yes, I believe that whatever happens to us is, to a great extent, in our own hands. We can destroy the world, or we can save it. We can decide. We have consciousness, self-consciousness, and more than just mere instincts and drives. We have awareness, self-awareness, intelligence and insight, even if we don't always put that particular foot forward.

In the end, it is up to us, but it is also up to us to decide what we want to do and how we want to do it. It's not an easy choice and but we can make it. We're not victims of the forces, powers around us and we're more than the combination of our genes. Until we recognize and acknowledge that, however, we'll continue to ... well, put in simplest terms, simply keep screwing up.

So, heads up out there. The hour, it is getting late. If we're to make something of ourselves, we need to start working on it now. Right now. If you're here, you're in. There's no escape. It's time to show ourselves what we're really made of.

Earth Day reflections

It isn't actually a holiday, just a commemorative day, but I believe we should rethink our position on this one. To me, Earth Day should be a full-fledged holiday, like Memorial Day, or Veterans Day, but more important; like Presidents' Day or Columbus Day, but more meaningful. No, we need a day to stop and think about the Earth.

We've only got one, and we're killing it.

Now, for all of you doubters and deniers: get over yourself. You're a huge part of the problem. Global warming is a fact, the ice caps are melting, islands are being lost and soon coastal regions will start flooding; we're acidifying the oceans and desertifying the rainforest regions; we're polluting the air, poisoning our water supply (and ourselves) and destabilizing the earth's crust in places (cf. fracking). You can say it ain't so, but you're wrong. You can believe that humans aren't the problem, but you're wrong. As my main man George Carlin was fond of saying, "you're here, you're guilty, end of story."

What gets me more than anything else is the justification of our ignorance and ignoring: to give ourselves better lives. How oxymoronic can you get? Oh sure, in the short term, some of the obscenely rich will get richer, and most of the obscenely poor will even more obscenely poor. Our lives are not going to get better folks. There is no way they can.

The simple truth of the matter is that the earth is a finite time-space entity. Acting as if it is infinite is, in simplest terms, stupid. But that's what we're doing. The developed world is consuming too many resources in improper ways with catastrophic results. The undeveloped world thinks the developed world knows what it's doing, but it doesn't. Things aren't looking good, folks.

It really is time to think about setting aside at least one day to reflect upon our own suicidal insanity. Earth Day would be the perfect day, but we missed our opportunity again. I wonder how many more we really have.

Happy Easter!

Just in case you were wondering, I have to admit that I'm enjoying this Easter a little more than some in the past. Oh, sure, the weather is more or less cooperating (I remember snowstorms, frost, sleet and rain on some); but I am also sort of enjoying the squirming some of the non-Orthodox Christians are going through this year. This isn't schadenfreude, it's merely an observation.

You will recall that the Roman Church and most Protestants would rather celebrate Christmas than Easter. For many of them, as is the case for many moderns regardless of persuasion, spirituality is a bit difficult to deal with. By focusing on the physical we can avoid all that messy metaphysical stuff. Up until now, the Paulites had the say: Jesus was killed for your sins; own up to it, accept it, proclaim it (preferably loudly) and you're home free (as far as the Protestants were concerned; you had to register this, so to speak, with the authorities and the Catholics considered you part of the club).

Unfortunately, this is just one view: Paul's. There are still some "weirdos" out and about, however, who think that Christianity has something to do with what Jesus said and did while he was alive, that what was important was not so much what you say, but what you actually do. The way I see it, this is precisely the approach that Papa Frank is pushing. I can't begin to imagine that he's making a lot of friends with it either. And that's why I'm feeling a little more upbeat today than usual.

So, whether you're getting ready for spring, looking for hidden eggs with the kids, having a special dinner, or simply wondering what others might be celebrating, I hope you have fun doing it, and I hope you have fun doing it with others. Easter should be, in my view, a family holiday. It's as good a reason as any to simply get everyone together and to spend some special time, eating, drinking, and being merry.

Yes, live it up. After all, that's what this particular holiday is supposed to be about.

Maundy Thursday

It is clear to me that many who read these posts regularly are bothered, if not downright offended, when I compare our current plutocratic capitalism to a religion. What is interesting, to me at least, that some of the upholders of that view are bothered as well as others of faith are bothered. That's a good thing. We should be bothered by ideas from time to time.

The advocates of "the system" like to think they are not religious, but I think it's pretty clear they are. They simply have a different set of beliefs that those who believe they are religious. The patterns are the same, the mechanisms are the same, there are rituals and professions of "true belief" involved, and -- most unfortunately -- the outcomes are pretty much the same (more death and destruction than life and growth). The religionists don't like it because they think being compared to a secular club somehow denigrates their religion. It only does if you allow it to, or if you practice what you call religion in such a way that it is hard to distinguish from its secular counterpart. That's where we are by all who believe that their religion is the true religion. This applies to fundamentalists of all stripes, but considering the real-life timing of this post, we're going to concentrate on our Christian friends.

Today marks the real beginning of the Passion of Easter. It should be, by all rights, the highest four days of devotion for all those who call themselves Christian. We need to remember: no Easter (that is, no death and resurrection) there's no Christianity. It's very existence depends on the events of these days 2,000 years ago. As it is, it is the Eastern Church, the so-called Orthodox varieties, who make this holiday the high point of the year. For the Roman Catholics and Protestants, it's Christmas; that is the celebration of the physical birth. If we look at the contention that Jesus was crucified, put to death, buried and arose again on the 3rd day, well, then what we are dealing with here is a spiritual birth. Religions, being by nature spiritual, you'd think that today would be the kick-off of the time of greatest celebration, but it isn't. We're going to spend a lot more time looking for hidden eggs and eating chocolate.

It's not exactly clear to me why, but I do have my suspicions.

The new religion

Don't get me wrong. I am more than aware of the power of beliefs. I may say that these are "simply" things that some folks believe, but "mere" beliefs have been the root of some of the most heinous atrocities in the history of humankind.

The problem is that it is an extremely small step from "belief" to "true belief", from "believers" to "true believers". True believers are not be questioners. By that I mean that they are not renowned for questioning those beliefs. Not only are they believed, they are accepted as true, they are taken as fact, and, in the end, it becomes heresy (or some kind of crime) to call them into question at all, to even hint that they may, well, questionable. And that's where we are with neoliberalism these days.

It would seem that we are confronted with a new religion. Neoliberalism, as currently advocated and practiced, has all the trappings of religion and its power is comparable, if not in excess, of its religious predecessors, be it the Islamic Expansion after the death of the Prophet Mohammed or the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. More specifically, it exercises its power through violence.

How many infidels were converted by the sword? How many non-believers were brutalized, tortured and executed for challenging the authority of the Church? And today, be it through the outright dictatorial oppression that the peoples of Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Poland, Russia, Southeast Asia, and post-Colonial Africa were (and in many cases still are) forced to endure, or the ravaging of whole economies by the World Bank and IMF, as is happening to Greece, or the militaristic corporate state that has taken root in the United States, how many of been beaten, arrested, imprisoned and persecuted for resisting the Power of the Market?

No, the pattern, the motivations, the modus operandi, the justifications, the argumentation ... it is all the same. Whereas the victims of religious zeal were at least promised a life of peace and happiness in the hereafter, in the New Dispensation you are condemned to Hell on Earth: insecurity, fear, pain, poverty, illness and arbitrary violence as the preferred means of control.

Or, as the new High Priests like to proclaim: or so have you chosen. Only you are to blame for your plight.

Oh, how far we have come.

When the inmates run the asylum

Now, for those of you who have "drunk the (neoliberal) Kool-Aid", so to speak. I'm sure you've got your undies in a knot over how I can just slough off things you so dearly believe in. My point is simple: each of the 10 items I listed as central to a neoliberal world view are, at bottom, nothing but beliefs, articles of faith, if you will, because they have no justifiable basis in reality. None of them are true. None of them are facts. They are, simply stated, just things you believe.

So, for the anal-retentive types among you, my point-by-point refutation:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
   Please explain altruism to me. Provide any evidence that, say, evolutionarily speaking cooperation is not advantageous.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
   What does "enlightened" mean in this context? How does everyone looking out for him/herself automatically become "for the good of all"?
3. Markets should be free.
   What does "free" mean? If left to their own devices, where is the historical evidence that markets work to the benefit of the majority, not the minority?
4. Deregulation is desirable.
   See previous point.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
   What does "efficiency" mean? Name one privatized sector in which public services are being provided at costs lower and more people are served with fewer resources than if the government were doing it.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
   Since social spending is, by definition, for the good of all, define "wasteful" in this context. Explain how spending $3bn on food stamps, for example, is "worse" than providing companies with $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
   Any evidence whatsoever would be appreciated.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
   If neoliberalism works, why do we have wealth/income inequality in the first place?
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
   Based upon which criteria?
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.
    Why? Why is property so important to begin with?

In other words, where are the facts to back up the assertions? Where is the evidence to support the principles? If you can't show it, I am perfectly justified in thinking that these are not things that "are", rather they are simply things that you believe.

The fruits of delusion

The most extensive and exacting look at Friedman's and The Chicago School of Economics' approach has been presented by Naomi Klein in her eminently readable book The Shock Doctrine. She traces the path of influence and implementation of Friedman's and neoliberalism's activities over the past 40+ years, starting withe Chile, moving on to Argentina, Bolivia, Poland (post Solidarity Movement), Russia (and Yeltsin), South Africa, the Asian "tiger economies", through Thatcherism, Reaganism, up to the financial crash of 2008. I'm not saying that this isn't a controversial book. It is. But, it's well documented, well argued, and, in the end, pretty much on target.

Practically every principle or precept that neoliberalism holds to be true fails to hold up in reality. Free markets don't exist, but it's not that they haven't been free enough. Instead, we see that without massive government intervention (for example, as in Iraq), markets are not capable of organizing themselves. Without regulation, businesses, left to their own devices, will seek protected markets, government subsidies, and monopoly status to protect their interests, not the greater good. It turns out, in practice, that self-interest is anything but enlightened, rather Gecko's maxim, "Greed is good", prevails. Yes, a few benefit -- greatly, even outrageously -- but most of us are left by the wayside.

Yes, the neoliberal program has been forced through again and again, and the result is always the same: unfree markets, dictatorial governments, the widespread abuse of human and other rights, oppression, destruction, and, if necessary (or not), war to provide the shock that is needed to ... well, it is not clear what the real goal is. The non-violent, non-military, non-CIA-induced regime-change applications of the theory, say, in the UK or USA, has produced nothing more than rising unemployment, demonization of the poor, and a wealth inequality unparalleled in the history of the world. If there has ever been a failed mode of thought, this is it, yet it lives, thrives and is perpetuated, in particular in organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The (now discredited) policy of austerity is their non-military application of their principles. The Greeks are the latest victims, but, I can assure you, they will not be the last.

If so many lives were not at stake, we could afford ourselves the luxury of intellectual refutation, as Sheldrake's case against science demonstrates. These principles of neoliberalism, however, are not mere intellectual postulates. It is possible, rather easily, I might add, to demonstrate clearly how incredibly inapplicable any one of these "dogmas" are. Not a single one holds true. Not a single one is supported by any real-life evidence. Not a single one is defensible on realistic or real-life ethical grounds, but they are the New Gospel of Salvation.

Those who believe, however, are those who benefit from such ideas. Those who believe have access to the power brokers and law makers worldwide. Those who believe are responsible for the pain, suffering and even death of so many innocent human beings. If there has ever been a system of faith, a system of belief, a "religion" that broaches no other, neoliberalism is it.

References
Klein, Naomi (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Picador, New York.

More on economics' delusion

It should be becoming clearer that this science of economics is a bit difficult to pin down. A lot of what happens in the world and what happens to all of us depends on what economics says should be. It would be worthwhile then, in parallel to Sheldrake, to identify those precepts of economics that are driving policy and law makers these days. Here is my suggested list ... those things that "economics" asserts to be true:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
3. Markets should be free.
4. Deregulation is desirable.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.

If in fact economics (and granted, this is the currently dominant, neoliberal version of the subject that we are considering) is a science, even only a descriptive one, then we should be able to find evidence in our experienced reality that bears out these principles. So the question is: can we? I think even a cursory review of the list reveals they're not even close.

What I've described in those 10 points above is more or less the position that Milton Friedman advances in his seminal text, Capitalism and Freedom, the "Bible" of Neoliberal Economic Theory. This is the text that drives most of what has been happening from the policy side since the early 1970s. There should be a good body of evidence in support of these principles. Is there?

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no". Not a shred.

But wait, you say, where and when has any of this been "tested", in any sense of the word? And to that I can only respond: in too many places and in too many ways, but that's a subject for next time.

References
Friedman, Milton (2002/1962) Capitalism and Freedom, 40th anniversary edition, with the assitance of Rose Friedman, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

The economics delusion

The unexpected question (and the implied answer) were a bit surprising, I know. Every once in a while, a writer needs to wake up his or her reader. Good morning (or afternoon or evening or whatever, depending on when you are). We need to dig a little deeper.

The English philosopher R.G. Collingwood once defined "science" in a rather simple and straightforward way. He said that science is "a body of systematic or orderly thinking about a determinate subject-matter" (p4). Thinking systematically, in turn, is "answering questions intelligently disposed in order. The answer to any question presupposes whatever the question presupposes. And because all science begins with a question (for a question is logically prior to its own answer) all science begins with a presupposition" (p63).

I like this definition for two reasons. First, it certainly allows us to look at economics as a science (and the definition is equally applicable to the natural sciences as well). Second, it emphasizes (and reinforces) the point I have been making and that Sheldrake presented so forcefully, namely that all sound thinking starts with assumptions (and it would do us well to be aware of what these are).

When seen as systematic thinking, we can see what economics is up to. They should be able to develop theories, even if they can experiment with them, that can be used to explain what's going on around us. Those of us who were forced into economics classes in the course of our schooling and those who take an interest in more than sports have come to know some of the general principles that economics proposes: supply-and-demand (high demand, high prices, for example); too much money in circulation equals inflation; and more, but our experience also shows us that these principles (which economists like to pass off as "laws", which they aren't) don't always work. Anyone who thinks that gasoline prices, for example, are driven by supply-and-demand, is out of touch with reality. I've seen prices vary by as much as 10 euro cents per liter between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. What we all drive to work but don't have to go home? No, it's the little things that give it away.

It turns out that economics, then, spends most of its time developing (mathematical) models that describe what is going on around us. My question is, just how helpful is that? I'm not convinced they are very helpful at all. All that economic commonsense that most of us were exposed to just doesn't seem to reflect what is really going on. Oh sure, the economists would like us to believe that the world has become so much more complicated that it's hard keeping up with reality. Truth be told, though, their models are just that models. Reality ... well, that's whole other story ... as any of us living there can tell you.

It's here that we see the weakness of Collingwood's definition, that is true, but it's the best one we have right now. There is systematic thinking about a subject matter going on. The problem is, however, that the thinking about the subject matter has little, if anything, to really do with the experience of the subject matter. In other words, it would seem that economics may have simply said adieu to reality. If that's the case, who cares if it is a science or not?

So it is to that, and its consequences, that we will turn to next time.

References
Collingwood, R.G. (1998/1940) An Essay in Metaphysics, Revised edition, with an Introduction and additional material edited by Rex Martin, Clarendon Press, London.