Y Safle

A link to one of my articles on the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog elicited a comment that included this:

The so-called ‘market economy’ (a euphemism for monopoly capitalism) is not environmentally sustainable, no matter how much green paint and promises of ‘eliminating poverty’, etc., you apply.

As a very ambivolent anti-capitalist, I found strong sympathy with that statement, and yet I find that I cannot agree. These are my reasons:

1. Capitalism is driven by greed and consumerism. It is an illogical and wasteful system, and one that has huge problems. However, whilst the greed leads to an anti-environmental cycle if left unchecked, it is nevertheless possible to intervene to use the assumptions of capitalism for environmental benefit. An example of this might be the EU emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on emission reduction, and thus generates a trade. Whilst the scheme is not perfect, it is better than hand wringing or sticking our heads in the ground and saying there is no problem (or the problem is intractable).

2. Capitalism is an organic system like any other. It may be a system driven to consume resources, but like any system, if the consumption is too aggressive, then there are negative feedbacks into the system that restrain it. (The problem being that the negative feedbacks perhaps kick in too late to be of any use to the people that are suffering now!)

3. Historically capitalism has been evil, and yet has paradoxically also been a great benefit. The UK invented capitalism with our industrial revolution. It could be argued that Wedgewood invented the idea of planned obsolesence, and modern marketing. In generating a market in patterned chinaware, he essentially began the whole process, even as indutrialisation was changing our landscape.

But here is the oddity - industrialisation created the terrible “labour market” whereby even skilled labourers would be stuck on subsistence wages, and any response to change in the labour market would take a generation to work through - which did not help those with skills no longer valued. But at the same time, the industrialised UK saw population growth - especially in industrialised towns, whilst non industrial countries saw famine and starvation that killed millions.

So unless we have a solution that is better for people than capitalism, we have to paraphrase Churchill et al. and say “Capitalism is the worst of all systems. Except for all the others”.

1. Finally, I am a pragmatist. The way to change the world is in small steps and individual changes.

A comment on another blog raised the question of whether environmentalism and international development are working at cross purposes. The argument is as follows:

In many ways Environmentalism and International Development are conflicting, if not totally incompatible agendas. Which is ironic, given that they tend to both be pushed by the same people, simultaneously. 1. Local food restricts developing countries’ access to world markets – thereby stunting their economic growth; 2. Organic and GM-free foods encourage biodiversity, but can’t possibly produce the yields needed to avert famines in the developing world; 3. So called ‘Fairtrade’ locks third world producers into inefficient, commodity-crop farming when they should be diversifying – thereby ensuring they will never earn more than just-above-poverty wages. These agenda are both essentially bourgeois. It’s alright for us in the west because we are rich and developed enough to be able to make these food choices without risk, but to enforce them on the developing world is a death sentence – economically, developmentally, and (in many cases) physically. Sadly, many on the left don’t actually want the third world to develop. They’d rather keep them in a mythical, agrarian ‘golden age’ and have this patronising view of people there as ‘noble savages’ – victims who need to be ‘saved’ from globalisation and the west. They can’t accept the unpalatable truth that what people in the developing world REALLY want is to be go-getting, middle-class capitalists like the rest of us.

Dizzy Thinks Blog

Now there is much to say here, but I intend to ignore the issue of whether the writer really understands what “the left” wants. (My argument would be that the right/left division is, in any case, essentially bogus).

On the assumption that we can agree that people have concern for the environment and compassion for the poor, and what to see an improvement in the condition of both, how do we answer these claims?

On point 1, does local food production restrict access of developing countries to local markets?

Well on some level there might be some truth in this. If we buy strawberries in february, where do they come from? Are they flown in from Africa?

Clearly that is an environmental disaster. We should eat fruit in season, and not pander to a must-have culture that ramps up the food miles and energy cost of growing foods. But if we do so, then we inhibit the ability of the African farmer to sell his crop on the world market.

But we are not locking the farmer out of the market. Instead, if we live by environmentally sound principles, we ensure that there is no market for strawberries in february. What will teh farmer do? diversify into a crop that he can sell. That is just market forces at work.

As long as the African farmer is free to sell any crop into our markets without restriction, there is not a problem.

But there is a problem, because we do lock African countries out of our markets. We prevent the market from working for the benefit of these farmers.

The answer is not to eat more strawberries. The answer is to free up the markets.

1. Organic production encourages biodiversity, yes. But it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the organic movement to think that this is the root of the movement (although the misconception is a common one, helped on by many who market organic food).

Organic production is primarily about sustainability. E.F. Schumacher wrote a book “Small is Beautiful” which made the point that fossil fuels are energy capital. They are a limited resource, and so good economic principles insist that we only spend the resource in ensuring sustainability.

So the point of organic production is precisely to get to a point where efficient sustainable production of food can indeed meet our needs. It can be done, but will only happen if we move step by step towards the goal.

1. Fairtrade does not lock producers into a crop. It guarantees a fair wage for that crop. Now that may seem artifically high for the crop, because non fair trade coffee can be purchased by companies for a lower price, and it may be that some of those selling at the lower price would do better to diversify.

What will happen? Those who should diversify will. The price of coffee paid to the grower will thus edge up, as demand outstrips supply, and everyone will benefit, without fair trade affecting anyone.

Now if a fair trade grower could earn more by diversifying, then they will also diversify. Indeed, the fair price for their crop will ensure that they have access to more capital to allow for the diversification.

The very idea that paying consumers less than a fair price for their crop will somehow economically benefit them is preposterous.

So this commentator is wrong on all points. Environmentalism is not an enemy of international development.

Indeed, there are some benefits from environmentalism. For instance, the disadvantaged nations of the world will be disproportionately worst hit by the effects of climate change. Efforts to tackle this problem (caused by the richer nations) will aid the third world.

Last week I mentioned problems of EU dumping in the third world, and trade justice in the context of another article. Oxfam had an article on this a while back (actually they had meny, but this one is a case in point):

Failure to reform EU sugar regime would be betrayal of world’s poor Europe has turned its back on some of the world’s poorest countries by proposing inadequate reforms to its unfair and harmful sugar regime, international agency Oxfam said in a new report released today.

The report, A Sweeter Future, coincides with the first Agricultural Council in Brussels to be attended by the new EU Agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel. Oxfam is calling on Ms Boel to make sugar reform a priority in her new job.

“Europe is putting the interests of big business and rich land owners ahead of the needs of poor people in developing countries who could gain from growing and trading sugar,” said Phil Bloomer, Head of Oxfam International’s Make Trade Fair Campaign. “In Mozambique and Zambia alone 30,000 new jobs could be created if Europe made the right changes to the rules that govern its sugar regime.”

Europe’s sweet tooth rots developing country hope - Oxfam Press Release

It is notable that the African nation that has achieved the longest sustained growth in Africa, and become one of its richest nations, is Mauritias. This was achieved by successfully negotiating removal of trading barriers (based on its island status). There is no doubt that Africa is kept poor by the policies of OECD nations - the rich west, locking the poor out of its markets and dumping product as they find it necessary to do so.

War on Want have released a report title “Fashion Victims” that reveals the exploitation of Bangladeshi workers by Tesco, Asda (owned by Wal Mart) and Primark.

To quote from the report:

Lina began working in a garment factory at the age of 13. The oldest of eight children, her parents became unable to pay for her education when her brother became sick. She moved from her village to the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka to get a job and help them make ends meet. Now 22, she works in a factory that supplies Primark, Asda and Tesco. She is one of the lucky ones to have learned how to operate a sewing machine, and so can command a wage of £17 per month. To earn this amount, she must work between 60 and 90 hours each week.

It seems that workers are being paid as little as 5 pence (about 10 cents US) per hour to produce the clothes that we adorn ourselves with. This is a toxic mix of a push to provide shop prices lower than any other high street retailer, whilst encouraging us to spend ever more on clothes that we really do not need.

It is not a bad thing that clothes are being produced in Bangladesh. People need the work - but they also need to be given a wage large enough for them to survive. What is being offered is well below the estimated living wage of £22.00 per month. Many workers can just about scrape together £8.00 per month if they work 80 hour weeks!

It is high time we started seeing the fair trade label on clothing. If such clothing existed, I would be seen in nothing else.

Anyone reading this blog over a long period will be aware that I have always been opposed to the War in Iraq, and perhaps that I am deeply unhappy with the assumptions of our capitalist systems, with their introspective politics and their global reach. I think that in a world of gross injustice and suffering, it is the richest nations that have the most to be ashamed about.

But when we analyze the problem, we need to beware the spin of people we agree with just as much as the spin of those we oppose. Indeed moreso, as we are inclined to challenge those we disagree with, but to allow spin to pass unchallenged by those with whom we agree.

So I was reading a post on the AcrimoniouZ blog, attempting to disect all that is wrong in American politics (and lay the blame for it squarely at the feet of George Bush), when I read this:

Today more than half of the top 100 economies of the world are corporations.

http://acrimoniouz.blogspot.com/2006/12/corporate-america-has-taken-control.html

That claim is bogus.

Firstly I am deeply suspicious of any measure of sizes of economies that appears to be double counting. If we are to count the size of, say, Microsoft corporation and treat this as a seperate economy, then shouldn’t we subtract that size from the US economy in which its profits are accounted? And if we did this for all such corporations, how much would be left to actually count in the national economies? You would clearly expect corporations to be the largest economic units, because you have deliberately broken down national economies into smaller units.

But the other reason this is bogus is because of the way we count the size of an economy. National economies are accounted by GDP. Thus the US has the largest national GDP in the world, followed by Japan, Germany, the UK and France (although if you treat the EU as a single entity, that is the largest economy in the world).

But what does GDP measure? perhaps a little simplistically, it is a measure of the value added by an economy. If we were to find a similar measure of value added by corporations, then we would not be using the figures that people have been using to report them in the top 100 economies. We would not use annual turnover of the corporations, or capitalisation, but rather a measure of added value - i.e. profits.

By this measure these corporations are no longer of equal size to national economies in the top 100 economies of the world.

That does not mean we should not be concerned about how policy in our nations is being shaped time and again for the benefit of corporations, rather than for the people.

But facts matter, and if we are to taken seriously when we have a point to make; if we are to persuade those who disagree with us of our point of view, then we must understand and be careful about facts.

This is why Noam Chomsky commands respect, even from people who disagree with him. Because he is so careful to accumulate, check and document facts.

But we should not leave that to the professionals. If you find yourself agreeing with everything someone says (be it on a blog, in a speech, on television or whatever), then be warned - you may be allowing spin to pass as fact.

US-based corporations are opposing legislation to give Chinese workers new labor rights.

US-based global corporations like Wal-Mart, Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel, acting through US business organizations like the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the US-China Business Council, are actively lobbying against the new legislation. They are also threatening that foreign corporations will withdraw from China if it is passed.

China’s Draft Labor Contract Law would provide minimal standards that are commonplace in many other countries, such as enforceable labor contracts, severance pay regulations, and negotiations over workplace policies and procedures. The Chinese government is supporting these reforms in part as a response to rising labor discontent.

Behind the Great Wall of China

US companies in China make the claim that in so doing they improve workers rights in that country. But here is the truth of the matter - the capitalist greed ethic drives these companies to export their production to the cheapest country, and to interfere in the politics of those countries to keep production cheap.

Christian Aid’s website has the leader Body blow to world poor as World Trade Organisation talks sink.

This is and indictment on the EU (the world’s largest economy), the U.S.A and Japan and their protectionist policies that keep us rich whilst locking the poor countries of the world out of our markets.

The unremarkable failure of leadership from the largest world economies is only matched by the apathy of the electorates of the same. When we vote, how many of us ask our potential MEPs, or national governments what heir stance will be on the protectionism that brings so much misery to the world?

Instead of asking such pertinent questions, we are enjoined to consider our own job markets and our own prosperity - as though we don’t already have enough of what we have that we cannot afford to share? And as though opening up our markets will really make us poorer, when we could be richer.

What is the core of the problem? Peter Mandelson blames the U.S.A, which is languishing under the rudderless Bush presidency, and meandering towards mid term elections.

There is probably truth in Mandelson’s claims, but the E.U. Common Agricultural Policy really must be systematically dismantled. Agricultural subsidy should be aimed at maintenance of the countryside, and not based on production of goods that people don’t want for prices people won’t pay.

And Mandelson may be right about the U.S.A, but his old friend Tony Blair, who got him his Brussels job, completely blew our best chance at CAP reform when he surrendered the UK’s best bargaining chip to force France to wean itself off agricultural subsidy, by giving away much of the UK rebate for nothing more than the chance for Tony Blair to say his presidency reached a budget settlement.

We should have offered the whole rebate for the chance to completely transform the CAP.

And next time there is an election - ask your candidate what their position is on trade protectionism.

In this article, the magnanimous British Phonographic Industry tell us that we can copy songs from our CDs to our own digital music players so that we can listen to them without fear of prosecution. That is so nice of them!

But what annoys me about this and so many articles is the way it says that the BPI will favour targeting professional pirates.

Were the BPI dealing with piracy I would applaud them. Murder and pillage on the high sees is still a large problem, and it seems there are several ghost ships roaming the coasts of the world, acting as mother ships of piracy operations. This is a threat to merchant seamen, and even cruise liners - and the danger is very real.

But actually all the BPI are really concerned about is a legal doctrine of copyright theft. To say that the person copying tracks to his music player is a non professional pirate is a nasty use of hyperbole. Indeed, such a person is not stealing anything, and a law that could even suggest that this is wrong doing is frankly absurd. To suggest that inviting friends over and letting them hear our music (or lending friends the CD) is an act of piracy seems to be out of proportion with the alleged wrong doing.

Inasmuch as copyright theft really causes legitimate loss, we may be justly concerned about it. But call it piracy and everything else you say will pass over my head, as I disappear into a mental pciture of a pound of grape shot ripping through the flesh of the chairman of Sony corporation.

We should stamp out piracy. Yes indeed. But the BPI is not involved in that fight.

At last a victory of common sense over rampant and unrestrained capitalism. We read:

Shops in England and Wales will not be allowed to open for longer on Sundays . . . Under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, large shops with a floor area of more than 280 square metres may only open for six continual hours between 10am and 6pm on Sundays - excluding Easter Sunday, when they must remain closed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5152800.stm

In survey after independent survey we read that people are opposed to liberailsation of the Sunday trading laws. We read that unions oppose it, that pro-family groups oppose it, that Christians oppose it, that people in the West country oppose it (!), that it is bad for family life, bad for society, bad for small businesses and so on, and yet the largest lobby groups in our country nearly rammed it down our throats through a government that has in the past been far to pliant.

Week after week we read in local news bulletins and see on national media reports of the demise of town centres, and small traders being pushed out by aggressive supermarkets. We lament this, but don’t know how to stop it. But where did this all start? Town centres become irrelevant when they offer nothing more than a supermarket - and that largely occurred with the last Sunday Trading law liberalisation. Now the super powers of retailing want to finish the job by forcing a change to the national character - making Sunday just a repeat of Saturday.

Thank goodness that someone in Tony Blair’s dysfunctional government had the guts to (at last) say no to these trading superpowers.

Too bad that we have already had 24 hour drinking foisted on us (as a solution to anti-social drinking for goodness sake! All the evidence is that a tightening of the law was required, not a loosening of it!). But never mind that right now. Credit where credit is due, and this is good news for people everywhere. Congratulations Alistair Darling.

Just wait though. Superpowers don’t like being denied. There will be a backlash. Digby Jones has now left the CBI, but no doubt someone else will do the job of making it sound as though silly little people have stood in the way of the great business future. Such people are the masters of ad hominem. I wonder what they will come up with.