Wanna Lick?

Last months edition of The Economist had an article on poverty and the west ("A Question of Justice?" March 13-19). The author argued that the level of poverty in the world is not the fault of western nations or a lack of sincere effort on their part but more so, the result of a lack of capitalism and an appreciation of the free market by the governments of these poor people. Specifically, the anit-globalist and aid agency line that the west is profiting at the expense of the poor is a fallacy that feeds the problem more than it medicates it. There are, he says, enough resources to go around for most who are currently poor to become much better off, and the west doesn’t have to lose a penny in the process. He argues that market economies are not a "zero-sum game" and that if, for example, the United States consumes $10 trillion tons of goods and services a year it is only because it also produces that amount, the implication being that none of that is taken from underdeveloped countries. If only they would embrace the free market, they too could experience the riches of the world.

I must say that I agree with the author on a few points namely, that in this age of plenty it is a disgrace that there are hundreds of millions of people who are living on less than a dollar a day. I also agree that the idea of total economic equality is only conceivably achievable with an outright tyrannical regime implementing and monitoring it. However, the author makes some oversights that our right-of-centre friends often make in this argument. First of all, the resources of the world are, in fact, limited. Many are quite simply and well known to be finite and even if there was enough to go around given our bloated appetites, it’s not the person licking the spoon who gets fat but the person holding the spoon who does. It’s why for centuries, countless wars have been fought over the same lands and resources. It’s about ownership, not access in this world. His argument that we can all share in the goodness is based on a power differential of someone coming from a country and background that easily allows him to believe that 'giving them a lick' is sharing and all that they need to be satisfied.

Mentalities like this are exemplified in many polices and strategies of those indirect ambassadors of the United States such as the World Bank and IMF. Historically, their policies have seen them lend money to weak, underdeveloped countries on the condition that they open up their markets to foreign investment. What ends up happening is that the most promising and essential resources, companies and services end up in the hands of foreigners whose primary concern is profit. This alone is not necessarily a bad thing since profitable companies create jobs, bring stability etc. Sounds good, but too often these businesses and resources are sold to large foreign multinationals who buy them at cut throat prices and then corner the market to charge the (already strained) local population ridiculous sums for necessary goods. Energy and manufacturing are prime targets but most disturbingly, so is water.

Does it bother anyone that in most parts of the world, we are PAYING for our water? Not only that but it’s often more expensive per liter than gasoline. Does it bother anyone that clean, safe water is no longer a guarantee unless it’s provided to you by a profit driven company? It’s not about being a tree hugger, it’s about watching the most essential substance on the planet being increasingly controlled by small groups of individuals whose primary concern is to sell it to you at the highest price the market will bear. It’s not unreasonable to expect to see bottled air soon, but those savvy marketing geniuses will no doubt make it seem like that’s the next cool thing and much more preferable to the free stuff we’re getting right now. By then, like water is now becoming, it will indeed be essential to buy your air since the free stuff will be so polluted it will be worth whatever price they charge.

But I digress. My issue here is not environmentalism. It’s with the fervent belief that capitalism in developing countries will solve all their problems. No more poverty, no more waste, no more disease, no more pollution, no more want, no more hate, no more terrorism....that sounds pretty good. Maybe that good ol' boy Donald 'Rummy' Rumsfeld and his brass balled buddies in the Pentagon are right. Lets bust open the markets and let those poor, misguided souls of the third world in on our secret. We can buy their goods cheap and sell them ours! Wait a minute, they can’t afford ours. Fuck it, force it down their throats anyway. If they don’t like it, we can cut off ties and starve 'em into submission with sanctions and tariffs. If they complain we’ll complain louder, if they fight we will fight harder, if they cry, hit 'em again!

And that bit of sarcasm, ladies and gentleman, not only let me vent a bit but hopefully helped illustrate my point; that the opening up of these economies is only done under certain conditions where the primary beneficiaries of trade are the most powerful countries (and by default their citizens). U.S steel is an easy example. The U.S ceaselessly talks about free trade and open markets but simply cannot handle it when other countries do it cheaper and better so they impose tariffs (often illegally) upon importers, thereby breaking their own rules. For my Canadian friends, the pulp and paper industry is another example of this double standard and if you realize what the US is willing to do to impose their will on their ‘friends and neighbors to the north' imagine what they are willing and capable of doing to an impoverished country in sub-Saharan Africa, or the Middle East, or Asia or South America? It happens all the time, you just don’t hear about it.

I’m not saying we should never try to encourage free markets but lets not be so naive as to think that it works every time or that our governments and institutions are motivated purely by altruism. They pry open these markets to make a profit, whether it’s forcing opium into China, exporting (blood) diamonds out of the Congo, or selling chemical weapons to Iran and Iraq at the same time. We often take advantage of weaker economies, and then hypocritically claim that other governments practice unfair trade, sell arms illegally or impose illegal tariffs. If we are to sit here and believe that our markets, our businesses, our institutions, our governments and our lifestyles do not heavily profit at the expense of the poor we are most definitely missing a key point in solving some of the relevant issues facing today’s society.

I will be the first to acknowledge many of the developing countries’ poor leadership, corruption, ego driven decision making, blind religiosity, and factional fighting that have contributed HEAPS to the poverty and destitution of their people. Let’s put the responsibility everywhere it lies but particularly, where it’s within our ability to change. Lets take our share and realize that war, colonialism, imperialism, sponsored coups (often against democratically elected officials), sanctions, forced agreements, double edged policies and in many ways, globalization, have sever impacts and cannot be rationalized as well-intentioned efforts or dismissed as minor factors in the creation and continuation of world poverty levels and for that matter, world violence levels. We do indeed take from the poor to maintain our lifestyles. To say we do not is a blind and self pacifying belief that will likely be held closest by those benefiting most from the current state of affairs. The simple fact that 80% of the worlds wealth is held by less than 15% of the worlds population has to make one wonder how sustainable this and how it came to be in the first place. The wealthy minority has always become so at the expense of the poor majority. It is carved into the history of the world and just because we don’t feel comfortable with that thought does not mean we should deny its validity.


Having said all that, I am a capitalist. It’s true. Whew, I’m glad I got that off my chest. I really do think that capitalism has some answers for many parts of the world’s conflict zones. I’m in one of them and working hard to make it happen right now. I do believe however, that without a social conscience to rein capitalism in we will never maximize social and political justice. I guess that makes me a social capitalist. See, unlike Georgy Porgy, I don’t view the world in black and white, right and wrong, with him or against him. Granted, I am quite decidedly against him, yet strangely also against Osama ‘Yo Mama’ too. Hmmm, how can that be? Well, maybe it’s the tiny fraction of intelligence God has bestowed upon (most) humans that makes us see the world in Technicolor instead of black and white. It could also be the fact that too much power, too much belief, too much control, too much money, too much pride, too much of anything can be incredibly dangerous, no matter what side you may mistakenly think you are being forced to choose. Bush is as dangerous to world peace as Bin Laden. No doubt about it, they are both completely mad and equally caught up in the belief that what they are doing is truly right. That’s the scary part. And they’ll use whatever influence, fear mongering, ignorance and prejudice pushing means they can to get their point (and weapons) across.

Thomas Friedman (right-wing economist and columnist in the U.S) said, “There can exist no invisible hand without an invisible fist to help it along.” Unfortunately, he’s correct. That role is currently being played willingly and effectively by the United States Military Machine. It is powerful, well funded, well trained and always hungry. It exists as much to enforce US business interests as to protect US soil. Any country who proudly states how peace loving it is, yet manages to be at war or involved in some other significant military confrontation for fifty consecutive years, only once defending its land from a viable invasion (that lasted 3 weeks in Cuba) during that entire period, is gaining much more than what it’s expending. Fun fact number two: the US has 5% of the world’s population but accounts for over 50% of the world’s annual military expenditures….and there are people who believe that figure should rise even further.

When Bush vowed to bring “democracy” to the Middle East, it was as pathetic and hollow as the humble, God fearing European colonialists of the 19th c. insisting that swallowing up Africa and Asia was necessary to bring the blessing of Christianity and civilization to the savages. The true motivation behind colonization was and remains, to pillage resources. Many of those who belonged to former colonies view imperialism as rape. Wars such as the one in Iraq do little more than to corrupt armies, followed by the nation that began them, reducing both conquered and conqueror alike to little more than, well, savages.

Control, ownership, influence, and fear have been/are being imposed upon many other countries with huge payoffs being ripped out of their human and non-human resources. Democratic freedoms and capitalism are heroically demanded when the resources of those countries are not controlled by the west, but rarely in those cases where totalitarian governments are co-operating with the west. Obviously that’s because the goal of our governments and leading corporations is not the promotion of freedom, it’s the promotion of profit and where profit allows freedom, great. Where it doesn’t, that’s acceptable.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not being fought by an army of peace lovers who wish to liberate women from their burkas, preserve world harmony and to once and for all put an end to “evildoers”. Tom Brokaw (the popular U.S news anchor), a few days into the Iraq invasion said “One of the things we don’t want to do…..is to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq because in a few days we’re going to own that country.” In many people’s minds, Iraq is no longer a country, it’s an asset. They quite simply want to hold the spoons of the world and if we’re good boys and girls, the rest of us just might get a lick.