Credit, Debt, and the End of Capitalism
From Lily Allen’s song, “Everything’s Just Wonderful”:
Oh Jesus Christ almighty,
Do I feel alright? No not slightly,
I wanna get a flat I know I can’t afford it,
It’s just the bureaucrats who won’t give me a mortgage,
Well it’s very funny cos I got your fucking money,
And I’m never gonna get it just because of my bad credit
Oh well I guess I mustn’t grumble,
I suppose that’s just the way the cookie crumbles
I’ve been listening to Lily Allen a bit lately. A guilty confession, I know, but I like the way she combines bright, happy pop tunes with gritty lyrics that deal with the losing end of our booming global economy. These particular lyrics about credit and credit ratings have stuck in my head for some reason.
Possibly it is just that strange way that disparate things come together sometimes, but the papers also seem to be full of how as individuals and a society we are overburdening ourselves with debt. Also in the papers is all that concern among finance writers and politicians over the private equity bid for Qantas.
And every now and then, someone says what we are experiencing is not Capitalism any more, but something else. Certainly there’s a lot of academic writing around that tries to explain how Capitalism has evolved into something new, still Capitalism, but with ‘late’ or ‘new’, or ‘global’, or some other modifier stuck in front of it. But doesn’t the proliferation of names in itself indicate that we’re not really sure what we’re dealing with?
I’ve just read an article, “‘Capitalism’ as False Consciousness” by Phil Graham in a new journal, called Language and Capitalism, which gives the clearest explanation of this that I’ve seen yet. Graham uses the writings of Marx and Engels to argue that what we live in is no longer Capitalism but a form of Corporatism based on the separation of ownership and control, and maintained by the leveraging of debt. It is important to note that he is arguing that Capitalism as Marx described it no longer exists, not that the analytical methods used by Marx are no longer relevant.
The point is: if Graham is right, even in part, then we need to rethink traditional forms of activism. This may be stating the bleeding obvious, but it seems that more theoretical work like this, including a reassessment of class, is necessary as a grounding for more effective activism, given that the usual methods and targets are so frequently ineffective now. Maybe I’ve just been out of the activist loop for too long now. Any activists like to comment?
Your Comments
Catherine Howell writes:
Hi Lisa,
I’m assuming joining protest marches or writing to your MP is not what you’re talking about? I can’t claim to be an activist in the trad ‘direct action’ sense, but I do think the nature and ground of grassroots action and social protest has shifted radically in the last 10 years, mostly due to the rise of push / citizen media.
I completely agree about the need for a reassessment of class. (eg. we should question how class and social exclusion may operate in the blogosphere, in spite of the continual claims that ‘the world is flat’ now). With Chavez’ socialist alliance gaining ground, maybe Latin American intellectuals will lead the way?
Re. Lily Allen – I agree her lyrics are socially aware, but her ‘quirky Cockney’ persona seems to be a way of diminishing or managing her (potential) disruptiveness. It’s kind of a shame the UK media have taken her up at the expense of Lady Sovereign – to my mind, LS is a much more radical and uncomfortable ‘class-aware’ performer.
Posted: 17 02 2007 - 01:57 | Permanent link to this comment
Lisa writes:
Hi Catherine, great to hear from you!
Yes, I am talking about things like protest marches and writing to your MP. For limited and local issues, like getting a road fixed, protecting heritage or music precincts, or funding community groups, these measures are still largely effective. But for the big issues with global connections, like foreign policy, trade deals, policies affecting asylum seekers and refugees, or employment and industrial relations legislation, no amount of protest seems effective. In recent years we’ve marched for reconciliation, against war, and to protect worker’s rights, to no effect. In part this is because of Howard’s intransigence, but if Graham is right, politicians have effectively surrendered any control they had in these areas to unrepresentative and unelected fund managers, bankers, and financiers. He’s certainly not the first to make this kind of claim: see Zygmunt Bauman’s work for instance.
I’m assuming here that for political action and protest to be effective it needs to impact on the decision makers. In the case of the big, global issues, the decision makers are rarely known, largely unaccountable to the people whose lives they can affect, and beyond the reach of most public action. Maybe instead of stock market movements in the back of the business pages of the paper we should have “meet the fund managers” columns for the major corporations and a recap of their decisions through the week.
I have to admit to not being greatly knowledgeable about the grassroots action in citizen media, but my impression is that it is mostly an awareness-raising activity, and while there is definitely an important place for this, in itself it does not necessarily effect change unless that new awareness and resultant dissatisfaction with the status quo can be directed somewhere effective.
Latin America, and Venezuela in particular, is certainly proving interesting to watch at the moment. I just wonder whether US foreign intervention and global corporate interests will allow truly democratic processes to unfold, or put a slow economic strangle-hold on any attempts that threaten their interests.
On a slightly different scale, but similar issue, Norway’s attempts to pull the Apple corporation into line over its iTunes software is going to be interesting to watch. If they pull it off, then it will be evidence that if governments did start to stand up to global capital, they could make a difference, and then it would again be productive lobbying governments over the big issues.
Re: Lily Allen vs Lady Sovereign. You could be quite right. From my personal perspective, the one Lady Sovereign song that I recognise annoys me so much that I switch off immediately I hear it. Any impact that the lyrics may have is lost on me because I find it lyrically offensive and musically bereft. But that is purely personal opinion, and as I said, I only know of the one song.
Posted: 19 02 2007 - 14:03 | Permanent link to this comment
Catherine Howell writes:
Hey, Lisa!
Re. ‘traditional’ forms of public protest. I felt exactly the same frustration in 2003, when the anti-Iraq marches in the UK failed to achieve anything – bar a widespread sense of powerlessness. But I’m still not a cynic at heart, I believe in ‘working the system’ as far as I can. I write to my MP, and I use online tools like YouGov and TheyWorkForYou.
I may be hopelessly naive…but I don’t really buy into the idea that the government no longer has any control over various domestic policy issues because of global or corporate finance. I believe that Howard is an idealist, by his own lights, and that he is willing to push his social agenda at all cost. Have you read Judith Brett’s piece on Howard and the Liberals in Quarterly Essay? I found her line of argument compelling.
I do wonder if the political ‘engagement’ route I’m choosing isn’t perceived, increasingly, as less socially accessible – and less effective. We could speak of it as belonging to a set of ‘liberal individualist’ protest techniques, generally favoured by the ‘educated’ (as opposed to, say, going on strike). What do you think about culture jamming – isn’t that also something of an ‘elite’, media-savvy protest strategy?
Citizen media is definitely about awareness raising, but I’d like to think some of its more ‘journalistic’ functions like whistleblowing can lead to change, or at least to gathering ground for legal action, like bloggers outing breaches of corporate social responsibility (although of course, some would argue that CSR is often no more than a corporate smokescreen). On greyer days, I sometimes think that it’s all just one big media love-in!
Posted: 20 02 2007 - 02:02 | Permanent link to this comment
Lisa writes:
Hi Catherine,
I probably was overly negative in my last post. I also believe that you need to work within the system to achieve change. I just don’t think that in some areas of policy and decision making that the average person has any chance of reaching far enough up the system to affect the decision makers. But this is not the case in all areas. I should also clarify that I think governments choose to cede power because it fits with the economic orthodoxies they choose to follow. Those orthodoxies are not the only ones, and go in and out of fashion, and they could choose to follow others or stand up to the fashionable ones. This is what makes Latin America and Norway so interesting at the moment. From that point of view, yes, lobbying politicians in the traditional sense probably does still have some effect, but only when they can see the possibility of electoral defeat. The sudden conversion of the Howard government to concern with the environment just recently has been quite fascinating to watch. Concern with global warming, drought, and other environmental degradation has taken off with the public (and I admit, largely due to the persistence of activists, traditional and not so traditional), and the government is trying to catch up.
I haven’t read Brett’s Quarterly Essay, but I’ve read quite a bit of her other work and been very impressed. She puts a lot of effort into understanding why people behave as they do politically, and after reading her work, I can see why people vote for the Howard government. In many ways, I have a lot of empathy for people who hold what appear to be diametrically opposed political views to my own, and am increasingly of the opinion that working to find common ground is the way to go. To effect real social change requires winning hearts and minds, and working towards some kind of agreed good, whether we can agree on all of the reasons or methods or not. That requires compromise – something that is not very fashionable in a world where it is valued to be seen as ‘tough’: think tough on crime, tough on drugs, tough on welfare cheats, tough on terrorism, tough on border control, even ‘tough’ love.
I quite enjoy hearing about, or seeing culture jamming, but am inclined to agree that it belongs to what I think you mean by ‘liberal individualist’ protest techniques. Certainly does show a degree of media awareness that is quite heartening. I also enjoy satire, but think it has many of the same limitations. Collective action is becoming increasingly hard to achieve. This is most obvious in the area of industrial relations where workers are sometimes under threat if they try to engage, but it applies in other areas as well. There’s plenty of research that shows that welfare discourses encourage people to think of themselves as individuals and personal circumstances as due to individual and personal attributes rather than the result of systemic workings. One of the chapters in Brett’s “Ordinary People’s Politics”, which I have just reviewed, gives a vivid example of the effects that such discourses have. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it. Individualist discourses, though, are present throughout society, not just in the welfare area. A lot of advertising exemplifies this discourse at its most negative.
On my greyer days I fear that the money behind corporate interests will strike out at those raising awareness when they really feel under threat, and that is very depressing. But there are also bright days, and your comments have helped me to put things more into perspective.
Posted: 20 02 2007 - 18:11 | Permanent link to this comment
Phil Graham writes:
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for mentioning my paper here. I especially like the fact that you have linked it to new forms of activism which I think are essential to develop. I have run into quite a lot of resistance and even hostility to the suggestion that this is not Capitalism and have added a couple of more characteristics including the separation of business (making money) from industry (making useful things), something that Veblen started noticing in the 1920s. Also the subjugation of going concerns (sustainable production) to overriding concerns (constant states of emergency beginning with the first world war). Happy to send the paper if you or anyione else reading this wants it.
Re new forms of activism — I quit my union because of the addiction to strikes which in academia only hurt students and reinforce public perceptions that academics really are useless (a strong sentiment in Australia — “the chattering classes”). It seems to me that understanding why business and industry have separated are essential to how new activisim would be done. Business emerges as an addendum to industry at sporadic times of overprioduction or dearth. Capitalism is the point at which business and industry reach an expansive symbiosis. Business subjugates industry in Capitalism but still relies upon it.
But as Veblen points out — business must sabotage its industrial base to maintain political primacy. This can be easily demonstrated by, inter alia, health. One criterion for good health outcomes is low patient to nurse ratios in hospitals. It’s a well researched and common sense fact. But good business requires management to reduce the number of nurses to increase money returns. In other words, business outcomes are in opposition to health outcomes. The same goes for any industry — good industrial outcomes (quality of goods) is bad business. Hence we are inundated by crap and the money market turns 3-4 trillion a day — it’s the perfect business because it requires nothing to be produced other than more money. that is why ownership has become unfashionable.
Business is inefficient. Spread the word. Find every example you can. Tell everybody. Change public opinion. These are the forms of activism that will work in a system dependent on hype, in which everything is done for something other than itself.
Enough raving … Thanks again for the mention.
Best regards,
Phil
Posted: 8 06 2007 - 10:58 | Permanent link to this comment
Commenting is closed for this article.