I coined the
phrase “affluence extremism” for the title of the last C4L bulletin. It was a counter-balance to the allegation
that Pope Francis must be a Marxist for using terms like, “unfettered
capitalism”, and “a new tyranny” and “the new idolatry of money”.
Since then I went
to see a movie called The Wolf of Wall Street. Without suggesting that all rich people live
in that kind of depravity, he lived very extravagantly. He extended the roof of his personal yacht to
make it a helicopter pad. To smuggle
cash out of the country he literally taped it like football pads around the
arms and legs of his “mules” before they headed through Customs at the
airport. He mocked his investigators
because their salaries were so low they had to travel by subway to meet
him.
Reviews of the
film raise questions about its excesses.
Director Scorcose contends that this was done to expose “affluence
extremism” not to condone it. But like
the “conversion films” of earlier generations, most of the entertainment
focuses on the story before they say the prayer of repentance, not after. Then suddenly… they live happily ever after.
Now I am looking
forward to seeing another move – Twelve Years a Slave. Although it takes place in another era (the
1850s instead of the 1990s) it is once again about a depraved system. A wealthy free black man gets captured in the
USA
and sold into slavery in another state.
His brutal master, who is evil personified, resists social change. No doubt if he were alive today he would call
Pope Francis a Marxist!
What I have
recognized is that today’s economic imbalances between rich and poor, North and
South, even still men and women, and in South Africa whites and blacks - are
systemic like Slavery was. Change agents
are needed, like the Abolitionists and later the Suffragettes. Calling them “Marxists” says more about
yourself than about them!
Saying No to both Socialism and Capitalism?
As both Left and
Right crowd around the Centre, the question is whether “welfare capitalism” and
“market socialism” are the only two options?
Market socialism brought New Labour and Tony Blair to the fore, and
welfare capitalism brought you George Bush and his PEPFAR – said to be the
biggest gift ever given (to fight HIV/AIDS).
Radical centrism
I am getting to
the age where I can start quoting myself… here is something I wrote in 1988 in
my book Thinking Communally, Acting Personally (page 136): “One new agenda - communitarianism - is
gaining momentum. According to one advocate, Amitai Etzioni, “radical
individualists confuse the right to be free from government intrusion with a
nonexistent right to be free from the moral scrutiny of one’s peer and
community... Communitarians, in other
words, differ from classical liberals (known confusingly in America as conservatives) by
challenging the idea that individual self-interest is a decent basis for a
society. But they differ from socialists in championing small social units: the
family, neighborhoods, school, churches...”
But “ideological
communitarianism” is still centrist, because it combines leftism on
economic issues with moralism or conservatism on social issues.
In the book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam observed
that nearly every form of civic organization has undergone drops in membership
exemplified by the fact that, while more people are bowling than in the 1950s,
there are fewer bowling leagues. This
results in a decline in “social capital”, described by Putnam as “the
collective value of all ‘social networks’ and the inclinations that arise from
these networks to do things for each other”. According to Putnam and his
followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining
democracy. So Communitarians seek to
bolster social capital and the institutions of the third sector or Civil
Society.
The Occupy Movement (Indignados)
Also called the 99
Percent Movement, this was sparked in 2011 by Occupy Wall Street in
response to what I call “affluence extremism”.
Its manifesto started as follows:
“As we gather together
in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of
what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the
corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.”
Marxist scholar John Holloway asserted that you can “change
the world without taking power”. However, many in the new generation of
activists have become painfully aware that in order to achieve real change you
also need to take power; that in order to really scare the 1%, you also need to
occupy the state. So some veterans of
the Occupy Movement are considering a turn towards electoral politics. This
change of direction reflects an increasing awareness that there is a limit to
what you can do out of Civil Society.
Zapatistas
Fighter Andile Mngxitama wrote: “The indigenous people of
Mexico declared a different path and very boldly told the world: “We are going
to rise up to overthrow the supreme governments, to overthrow corrupt
officials, to throw the rich and powerful out of this country and begin
building a new Mexico with humble, simple people.”
“The Zapatistas refused to choose between two bad systems:
they proclaimed dissidence to both Capitalism and Stalinism. They denounced the
party and the cult of the leader, and even state power. John Holloway's book Changing the World
Without Taking Power can be read as the Zapatista manifesto.
“The Zapatistas, consistent with their new ideology against
money and power, refused to participate in the mainstream political process to
try to take power. Instead, they formed
their own autonomous governments, which get no assistance from the Mexico
state. This experience is not without
weakness and hardships; the indigenous people have gained visibility but not
economic or cultural freedom. Twenty
years later, they remain under attack and are all but quarantined in their
territories.”
Economic Freedom Fighters
The front page story in today’s Saturday Star is
about Wiekus Kotze, an Afrikaner who was so impressed by Nelson Mandela that 20
years ago he joined the ANC and has voted for them in 3 elections. But he has just switched allegiances - to the
party of Julius Malema. He is now
wearing a read beret. Why? He feels that the ANC is not closing the gap
between rich and poor, largely because of all the self-enrichment going
on. He sees Malema as a visionary like
Mandela who is talking sense and has the courage to challenge the status quo.