In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Capitalist pigs, Thomas Friedman, and me

Jill

Due to various Net Nanny restrictions, I’m unable to get to most of the websites and blogs that interest me – Feministing, Alas, the Village Voice, AlterNet, even Slate are all usually blocked. I can trick it into letting me get to Feministe by clicking “refresh” seven or eight times until it gets tired of blocking me, but it doesn’t fall for such ploys with websites like that of the Voice (and I’m not even going to waste my time trying Salon or Nerve). So my access to information of interest is highly limited. Luckily, I can get to my beloved New York Times so that I can keep up a basic understanding of what’s happening in the world, but when it comes to the issues I’m most interested in – feminism, reproductive rights, sexual freedom – I’m not able to read much. So, after a frustrating day in an internet café in Cagliari, I’m back in my internet connection-less room typing on my laptop, with the idea that I’ll copy this into the blog next time I have internet access. Hopefully this will help to cure my blog deprivation.

Of course, the main problem with blogging in MS Word, without an internet connection, is that you don’t have much to write about when you can’t link out. So I’m forced to do something seldom seen in the blog world (I refuse to use the term “blogosphere”): write about something that I read on paper, something that I didn’t find online. An actual book. Purchased at a bookstore, and read over the course of a few days.

And this book, which so piqued my interest and which I’ve been recommending left and right, isn’t even about feminism (well… not directly, anyway). It’s about money. And economics. And the global economy. And a bunch of other boy things that nice liberal-arts-educated girls like me aren’t supposed to care much about. So, despite what should be general disinterest (at least according to the Larry Summers crowd), today’s post will be a bit long.

The book, which I’ve mentioned before on this blog, is Thomas Friedman’s latest, “The World is Flat.” Friedman basically looks at globalization as a “flattening” force with the ability to level the international playing field, helping to alleviate poverty and push wealthier nations (like the United States) to work harder at creating new technology. The premise of the book is more complex than I’m able to explain in a single blog entry, but one part that I found particularly interesting was the way Friedman took to task the anti-globalization crowd – which includes everyone from radical Muslim separatists to right-wing economic protectionists to old-time labor unions to leftists claiming to speak for the developing world. His criticism of the kinds of lefties who were out protesting the WTO in Seattle a few years ago (something I remember quite well) struck the strongest chord with me because, although I’ve never been an anti-globalization activist, I feel like I can relate to them in their desire to stand up for people whose voices aren’t being heard. Of course sweatshop labor is bad. Of course child labor is wrong. Of course we shouldn’t exploit the world’s poor so that we can have our Nikes. But is protesting globalization, the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF really the answer? Friedman writes:

If populists really want to help the rural poor, the way to do it is not by burning down McDonald’s and shutting down the IMF and trying to put up protectionist barriers that will unflatten the world. That will help the rural poor not one iota. It has to be by refocusing the energies of the global populist movement on how to improve local government, infrastructure, and education in places like rural India and China, so the populations there can acquire the tools to collaborate and participate in the flat world. The global populist movement, better known as the antiglobalization movement, has a great deal of energy, but up to now is has been too divided and confused to effectively help the poor in any meaningful or sustained manner. It needs a policy lobotomy. The world’s poor do not resent the rich anywhere near as much as the left-wing parties in the developed world imagine. What they resent is not having any pathway to get rich and to join the flat world and cross that line into the middle class.

He’s right. Now, if you’re coming from a place that still believes capitalism is the root of all the world’s ills, then you probably disagree with Friedman (and with me). But that isn’t where I’m coming from. Do I believe that part of government’s role is to help its people? Absolutely. I favor universal healthcare, aid to the poor, responsible and compassionate welfare policies, subsidized childcare for working families, fair compensation for home-based labor, adequate paid maternity and paternity leave, and unemployment programs that are not only financially compensatory, but actually help people get back on their own feet. These are ideas that have right-wingers yelling “Socialist!” at anyone who thinks that government should do anything other than allow corporations to run wild and defend your right to own semi-automatic weapons. But a government that assists its people is not at all inconsistent with capitalism. And for the record, I don’t think that the general American interpretation of the word “socialist” is fair or accurate. But I also see that socialism, as we know it, has failed. And I think that there is a deep, inherent arrogance in socialist thought (just as there is with radical capitalism).

I don’t think capitalism is evil. I don’t think it’s an ideal system either, and I think we can all see that it’s rife with problems; but, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s thoughts on democracy, it’s the worst system in the world – except for everything else. But just like in any other economic system, those people operating in a capitalist world must be responsible. Capitalism has to be kept in check by individual governments. That’s what keeps it working at its best. New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer is a great example – he doggedly goes after corporate corruption and, despite right-wing whining about how he’s hurting their precious multi-billion dollar companies, the United States economy (and the world economy) is better for it. He helps to prevent abuse of the system, and thus the system works better.

Governments also cannot ignore their responsibilities to their own people; and the more prosperous a nation is, the more (at least in my ideal world) that nation will take it upon itself to help less developed nations flourish. This means fighting disease world-wide. It means helping to create infrastructures that will give all people access to clean drinking water, nutritious food, education, healthcare, and all the things that will help them to compete in the developed world (transportation, communication devices, etc). Globalization, then, is more than a simple economic issue; it demands a humanitarian commitment. Without that humanitarian commitment, much of the world will remain stagnated in poverty and disease, and will never enter the “unflat” (developed) world.

Friedman writes:

[W]ithout education, young people cannot learn how to protect themselves from HIV-AIDS or other diseases, let alone acquire the life-advancing skills that enable women to gain greater control over their own bodies and sexual partners. The prospect of a full-blown AIDS epidemic in India and China, of the sort that has already debilitated southern Africa, remains very real, largely because only one-fifth of the people at risk for HIV worldwide have access to prevention services. Tens of millions of women who want and would benefit from family planning resources don’t have them for lack of local funding [side note from Jill: and from an exported version of sexual morality that negotiates women’s bodies and lives for anti-choice political gain]. You cannot drive economic growth in a place where 50 percent of the people are infected with malaria or half of the kids are malnourished or a third of the mothers are dying of AIDS.

Friedman presents a variety of solutions, all of which I’m not going to get into. But one of the more interesting quotes he includes comes from Rick Klausner, the head of the global health program for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a former head of the National Cancer Institute. “The most important health-care system in the world is a mother,” said Klausner. “How do you get things in her hands that she understands and can afford and can use?”
Now that sounds like the kind of question we need to be asking.

In the mean time, people like me who do care about the world’s poor, who want them to be better off, and who in all honesty probably do harbor a little liberal middle-class American guilt – but who aren’t arrogant enough to think that we hold all the solutions or that we indeed speak for the rural poor – should re-focus our energies from disjointed protest against the IMF and into Chinese proverbs (you know, the one about “give a man a fish…”):

What the world doesn’t need now is for the antiglobalization movement to go away. We just need it to grow up. This movement had a lot of energy and a lot of mobilizing capacity. What it lacked was a coherent agenda for assisting the poor by collaborating with them in a way that could actually help them. The activist groups that are helping alleviate poverty the most are those working at the local village level in places like rural India, Africa, and China to spotlight and fight corruption and to promote accountability, transparency, education, and property rights. You don’t help the world’s poor by dressing up in a turtle outfit and throwing a stone through McDonald’s window. You help them by getting them the tools and institutions to help themselves. It may not be as sexy as protesting against world leaders in the streets of Washington and Genoa, and getting lots of attention on CNN, but it is a lot more important. Just ask any Indian villager.

My turtle suit is officially tossed out.

12 thoughts on Capitalist pigs, Thomas Friedman, and me

  1. Dammit Jill, I never thought I’d agree with anything Thomas Friedman had to say, but it turns out I was wrong. I have never liked Friedman’s characterization of globalization as this great life changing force which benefited all parties involved, mostly because of the effect it had on developing nations. I have always maintained that the refusal of multinational corporations to establish a framework within these countries to continue enterprise long after they’re gone is detrimental to these nations. And let’s not even mention their pretty shitty treatment of laborers in general. So while the ideals behind globalization always seemed great, the overall lack of humanity in its execution made me an anti-globlizationist (is that even a word?) So to read that Friedman actually said: “It has to be by refocusing the energies of the global populist movement on how to improve local government, infrastructure, and education in places like rural India and China, so the populations there can acquire the tools to collaborate and participate in the flat world.” literally made my mouth drop open. I actually bought Friedman’s book because I was intersted to see what new therories I would diasagree with. Now I’m interested to see how many of his ideas I might actually agree with (I’m shuddering at the thought).

    It’ll be interesting to see if I come to a simialar conclusion about Friedman’s book. Thanks for the review!

  2. There’s a lot of sense in what Friedman says, but my socialist-leaning self thinks that he mischaracterizes the “antiglobalization” (I dislike this term) movement somewhat.

    Economic reform movements do suffer from some incoherency, but to say that there’s no interest in local changes is not accurate. In fact, that’s the basis of concern for those of us who don’t like the direction in which globalization is going. Right now, multi-national corporations – and the states that assist them – hold most of the cards and make most of the decisions.

    I harbor no delusions about the continued existence of corporations. But let’s also admit that globalization in its present form isn’t just a natural force that happens, but is the result of structures and practices that are consciously devised.

  3. But I also see that socialism, as we know it, has failed. And I think that there is a deep, inherent arrogance in socialist thought (just as there is with radical capitalism).

    I’m interested in the reasons why you think socialism has failed; I hear this a lot from American real and internet friends, and it confuses me a bit. When has socialism been given a chance?

    Also, as a socialist myself I tend to get a little burned when people talk of the inherent arrogance of my position; can’t you characterise any political ideology as arrogant, in that to subscribe to an ideology you usually believe you are correct?

  4. The “turtle suit” thing is somewhere between a non-sequitur and a red herring.

    (Mmmm. Herring.)

    The people wearing turtle suits weren’t smashing windows: they were there to publicize the dramatic effect unfettered global capitalism has on the environment. And all the “growing up and working with the poor” in the world isn”t going to change the fact that trade laws as currently written encourage a lowest-common-denominator pressure that erodes protection for the environment.

    And ironically, those protections being eroded are there in the first place because those of us in the environmental movement fought for them in “grown up” arenas, in the legislatures, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.

    And that’s what he wants us to give up in favor of working the way we’ve been working for forty years. Yeah, right.

    Maybe Friedman would be more credible in a turtle suit.

  5. What Sydney and Linnaeus said.

    I think that Friedman is building some strawmen. The anti-globalization movement is not isolationist–the overarching ideal is fairness, not a refusal to acknowledge that we live in a global economy. McDonald’s isn’t being torched because it’s big or even because it’s blank–it’s being attacked because it pursues policies that advance its interests at the profound expense of vulnerable people. The problem with prescriptions like Friedman’s is that they depend on the idea that the governments of rich countries can be separated from the corporations based in rich countries: that the former can act independently of the latter’s selfish, short-sighted economic interests. I don’t think I can read a capitalist theorist who cannot acknowledge–as Friedman never acknowledges–that policy under a capitalist system tends to be capitalist rather than humanitarian.

  6. Where Friedman et al. are delusional is that they believe global economic growth can go on forever, that magically we have the natural resources and wherewithal to continue consuming at higher and higher rates and that all other nations can just jump on board this consumption bandwagon.

    Corporate globalization with its intensive exporting and importing is not going to last much longer with the approaching end of cheap oil. Localization is where it’s at.

  7. Where Friedman et al. are delusional is that they believe global economic growth can go on forever, that magically we have the natural resources and wherewithal to continue consuming at higher and higher rates and that all other nations can just jump on board this consumption bandwagon.

    …That, too. What seems to be happening instead is that people from poorer, less-powerful countries who become educated/trained/”utilized” end up carrying the national and economic disparities into their putatively middle-class lives. Infinitely better off than they would be otherwise, but still much more precarious than, say, you or me.

  8. I don’t think I can read a capitalist theorist who cannot acknowledge–as Friedman never acknowledges–that policy under a capitalist system tends to be capitalist rather than humanitarian.

    Which frankly is why I’ve always thought Friedman was a bit of an idiot. He has this naive belief that if left alone, multi-national companies will carry out their radical capitalism in a humanitarian fashion. As you said Piny, this is just not true. The problem with wanting the government to engage in humanitarian globalization is that they never will. So long as their interests converge with that of big business, the government will not have a moral imperative to act humanely. Something outside force that is more powerful than business has to provide the impetus for changes in the way globalization is practiced. Why Friedman can’t seem to grasp this concept is beyond me.

  9. I suspect most everyone here is familiar with this book, but a good counterpoint to Friedman is William Grieder’s One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism.

    A particularly telling part of the book is when Grieder describes what happens to developing nations when the workers decide that they’re empowered enough to demand a better deal: the corporations threaten to move elsewhere.

  10. Exactly. And under Friedman’s calculus, pauper-governments who pursue draconian anti-union and anti-worker policies are actually doing the humanitarian thing, because big business on any terms is better than no business at all.

    There’s a problem, too, with divorcing protective policies from production-as-security. Minimum-wage laws, price controls, etc., are part of what give goods and services value to the people providing them. A company that gets to employ a poor country on its own terms will insist that it receive those goods and services for the lowest possible price. The country ends up surrendering all of its resources–oil, gold, seamstresses, medics–and getting chump change in return. They’re smart, capable people who have–or had–a resource-rich country, but they still aren’t either wealthy or powerful.

  11. What I think this comment section is suffering from–don’t get me wrong, I’m all for pouncing on Friedman and his absurd resurrection of memes that go to the utter core of stupidity (world is flat)–is that it is proposing that developing nations get everything all at once. Not only should they be able to provide access and opportunity for all its people, but it also has to eradicate poverty, be pro-labor rights, become archetypal humanitarians, pursue policies that provide sources of income, make sure absolutely no one gets exploited, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

    The problem, of course, is that you can’t have everything and if you’re a developing nation this is even moreso the case. Your intentions, and concomitantly your policies, have to be shaped by your capabilities and realistic assessments of what you can get accomplished now. It’s certainly ok, if not necessary, to maintain some ideal of “wow, it would be great if our society looked like this” for a couple decades in the future, but to set the bar so high when the state of a country is so low is a recipe for failure.

    Since no one’s presented any real examples yet, simply take the case of India, which in Friedman’s book is essentially one of the main targets of concern. If one were to analyze India’s economic and political system pre-1990, it was one that could certainly be characterized as Socialist, and unlike whoever said that Socialism has never been given a chance, that’s patently false (see Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc.). Not only were various industries controlled, administered, and regulated by the government, but restrictive tariffs were enforced to prevent outside forces from coming in. Built on the conceptions of Fabian Socialism–that free markets merely wrought social inequality and exploitation–they locked themselves in and didn’t allow for the promulgation of basic economic concepts, preferring instead to rely on the “local” level so admired in the previous comments (3/4 of India live in villages, the poorest areas known to Man).

    Obviously something changed in 1990, and it was essentially economic liberalization that, although incomplete, did more to improve the lives of the people of India in a couple years than all the efforts since independence roughly four and a half decades earlier. By the way, it was the IMF, the World Bank, and Ronald Reagan that were pushing them towards this end game well before India was forced into liberalizing (it would have had to default on its public debt).

  12. Where Friedman et al. are delusional is that they believe global economic growth can go on forever, that magically we have the natural resources and wherewithal to continue consuming at higher and higher rates and that all other nations can just jump on board this consumption bandwagon.

    What I found particularly interesting about Friedman’s book is that he wasn’t really focusing on natural resources as we commonly understand them — he was talking about human-made resources, like technology. Global economic growth, when it comes to human invention, may not be able to go on forever, but it can certainly continue for a pretty long time (much longer than any natural resource would allow). He asserts that globalization, particularly the dissemination of technology, will give individuals in developing nations the chance to be inventors in their own right.

Comments are currently closed.