Sick of this market-driven world? You should be

[nexus]

Interesting new Monbiot article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ty-economy

To be at peace with a troubled world: this is not a reasonable aim. It can be achieved only through a disavowal of what surrounds you. To be at peace with yourself within a troubled world: that, by contrast, is an honourable aspiration. This column is for those who feel at odds with life. It calls on you not to be ashamed.

I was prompted to write it by a remarkable book, just published in English, by a Belgian professor of psychoanalysis, Paul Verhaeghe. What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based Society is one of those books that, by making connections between apparently distinct phenomena, permits sudden new insights into what is happening to us and why.

We are social animals, Verhaeghe argues, and our identities are shaped by the norms and values we absorb from other people. Every society defines and shapes its own normality – and its own abnormality – according to dominant narratives, and seeks either to make people comply or to exclude them if they don’t.

Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as neoliberalism. The story it tells is that the market can resolve almost all social, economic and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better off we will be. Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be freed from social control. In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan came to power. It is rapidly colonising the rest of the world.

[emordnilap]

I like this bit:

If neoliberalism was anything other than a self-serving con [...] its apostles would have demanded, as a precondition for a society based on merit, that no one should start life with the unfair advantage of inherited wealth or economically determined education. But they never believed in their own doctrine.

There are many contradictions in our laissez faire hell; this is merely one of the slightly-less obvious.

[madibe]

Interesting article.

Could all be summed up by one phrase though:

"Modern life makes you feel f***ed up"

[RenewableCandy]

I find all this very interesting because it is (almost) an accurate description of how I feel a lot of the time. But, if it's bad now, when we're physically in the lap of luxury, why do we not hear of people feeling this way in the past? Does the presence of the belief (and resulting good feeling) in what you're doing make up for all the deprivations of (say) WWII that our grandparents suffered?

Or did they just keep quiet about it...and now it's too late to ask them ?

[madibe]

Hi RC. It is a symptom of slavery.

Mix that with the knowledge that we are enslaved....

In the past few considered their situation as slavery. It was just the natural order of things, having just stepped out of serfdom a few decades before. Free thought where the pleasure of the privileged, who had little to worry about apart from shooting, riding and managing their serfdom.

The current capitalist / free market system enslaves us ever more: we are not complete unless we are good consumers. Some become addicted to 'having more', some addicted to drink and drugs. Others turn away but find themselves being regarded as 'odd', 'failures' or 'nutters' by both their peers and the system. Depression is the net result.

Someone needs to hit the reset button.

Of course there is so much to this, I could probably write an essay.

[Mr. Fox]

Cheers for that, Nexus. I've long thought that being being considered 'sane' on this planet is nothing to be proud of.

At the heart of this [neoliberal narrative] is the notion of merit. Untrammelled competition rewards people who have talent, work hard, and innovate. It breaks down hierarchies and creates a world of opportunity and mobility.

The reality is rather different.

There was some interesting research back in '02 that seems relevant here:

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html

The finding suggests that the basic inequality in wealth distribution seen in most societies may have little to do with differences in the backgrounds and talents of their citizens. Rather, the disparity appears to be something akin to a law of economic life that emerges naturally as an organizational feature of a network

In other words, wealth concentration is an emergent property of the system - and even if you could wave a wand and instantly share all wealth out equally, it would be back to inequality in no time, since this systemic driver would take over as soon as 'luck' upsets the equilibrium.

[RenewableCandy]

Well yes. If, in the quest for maximum total wealth, your system allows anyone who has any type of capital to do (almost) whatever they want with it in order to maximise income, then one is bound to end up with inequality increasing. Doesn't take a degree in Engineering to spot the positive feedback loop there.

In the face of ever-increasing resource base, this system at least has the redeeming feature of being efficient at making the most of things. On a finite planet, though, it's a bit of a disaster.

[Mr. Fox]

Heh... yep, it all goes in the 'no sh*t, Sherlock!' file as far as most of us are concerned, but it it's still nice to have the peer-reviewed research to beat them over the head with - not that they'd notice.

Regarding how our (grand) parents felt about it, if we look back 35+ years, we can see various mechanisms that counteracted the the tendency for wealth concentration and inequality - things like a 95% upper income tax bracket, student grants, job security etc - all stripped away now.

Basically, there was a different 'narrative'. More of a 'we're all in it together' than a 'f*ck you, Jack'. I mean, we grew up fairly poor, but I don't recall having our noses rubbed in it in quite the same way as you get nowadays.

I guess you can (psychologically) cope with poverty a lot better if there's no-one standing over you gloating about their wealth and telling you it's your fault all the time.

[emordnilap]

I find all this very interesting because it is (almost) an accurate description of how I feel a lot of the time.

That surprised me. I got the impression you were a happy coper.

But, if it's bad now, when we're physically in the lap of luxury, why do we not hear of people feeling this way in the past?

You can choose to live in a present-day socially-average style. Or not. No-one is compelled. I live a very full and happy life on about two-thirds the typical income hereabouts. Less can really be more. [/smug]

[Little John]

I find all this very interesting because it is (almost) an accurate description of how I feel a lot of the time.

That surprised me. I got the impression you were a happy coper.

But, if it's bad now, when we're physically in the lap of luxury, why do we not hear of people feeling this way in the past?

You can choose to live in a present-day socially-average style. Or not. No-one is compelled. I live a very full and happy life on about two-thirds the typical income hereabouts. Less can really be more. [/smug]

That's just simply not true E. Someone who is not very clever, who has not had a good education, who has grown up in an urban environment that severely limits their early experiences, they have no choices in effect. F--k me, I'm a bright man and I have few enough choices. Beside which, I would wager that the greenest citizens of all in this country are the urban poor working flat out to earn a minimum wage who, at the end of the week, have just enough energy left to grab some cheap alcho-fizz from Aldi's and slump in front of their TVs to watch some shit. The simple reason being that they have have got bugger all to consume with. Not very sexy that, though, is it? Far nicer to wax lyrically about being close to nature and harvesting one's own asparagus tips.

Sorry to be blunt E, but there it is.

[Little John]

I find all this very interesting because it is (almost) an accurate description of how I feel a lot of the time. But, if it's bad now, when we're physically in the lap of luxury, why do we not hear of people feeling this way in the past? Does the presence of the belief (and resulting good feeling) in what you're doing make up for all the deprivations of (say) WWII that our grandparents suffered?

Or did they just keep quiet about it...and now it's too late to ask them ?

Three reasons spring to mind;

Firstly, in previous eras, most people from one's class (who were almost exclusively all one mixed with), were in more or less the same boat as oneself. In other words, being in the gutter aint half so bad if you've got company. Modern media, however, means that the wealth of others is constantly pushed in people's faces right inside their living rooms every single day.

Secondly, because of the rigid class system of previous eras, a person's lot in life was more or less set out for them before they were even born. This meant that, unlike the [fake] meritocracy we now live in, it was possible to absolve oneself of the responsibility of having to live with poverty by accepting it as simply being the inevitable way of things. In today's so-called meritocracy, if a person falls to the bottom of the socio-economic strata, they are unable to absolve themselves in this way. The fact is, they should absolve themselves. But, the cultural systems are set up such that it proves very difficult for them to do that unless they have the inclination/energy/time/intelligence to sit down and give themselves the necessary political education. Most people don't have those things in sufficient abundance to do that. And so they blame themselves.

Thirdly, the psychological comfort of religious faith that was far more prevalent in previous eras that told folks they were going to get jam in the next life if they had to eat shit in this one.