Seven Twenty-First Century Social Sins

In honor of International Human Rights Day, The Seven Twenty-First Century Social Sins

1.Power without Wisdom
2.Pleasure without Awareness
3.Science without Humanity
4.Knowledge without Understanding
5.Politics without Accountability
6.Commerce without Conscience
7.Spirituality without Connection

I believe in a progressive philosophy of examining ideas from the past, processing them to find what about them is useful and not so useful in the present, and reworking them so that they can help us to move society forward - to progress. In this way, beautiful customs that have passed on through time can be respected and continued, notions that may have been the product of ignorance or that have become obsolete can be discarded, and new customs and traditions can be woven from those most durable threads of tradition, being reinforced in the process.

In keeping with this philosophy, here is my updated version of the list that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi laid out in 1925 in the journal, "Young India." His list of social behaviors to avoid was, of course, the product of his place and time, which was Colonial India struggling for self-determination and social justice. Gandhi's Indian revolution was truly innovative as a widespread social movement in its rejection of the use of violence, and his ideas, manifested by his actions, have been an inspiration to all who have advocated for social change through peaceful resistance – from figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, Lech Walesa, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, Howard Zinn, Wangari Maathai in Africa, Ramzi Kysia of the Free Gaza Movement, to artists and musicians such as John Lennon, Bob Marley, and many, many more, from around the globe, representing all walks of life.

Although Gandhi's potent demonstration of the power of non-violent insistence upon change is timeless wisdom, this updated version of Gandhi's Seven Social Sins is necessary because the original applied to a world that has changed significantly since that time. In 1925, the idea of Communism was gaining ground, the European Empires were experiencing their final decline, oil dependency was on the rise, geopolitics were undergoing tectonic shifts, and Free Market Capitalism had yet to become the weapon of choice to be wielded by the United States in order to maintain its total dominance upon the world stage of today. In those years between the two World Wars, workers and poorer people of the world were demanding inclusion in the new kinds of governments that were replacing the waning monarchies, while those who had benefited from the monarchical structures and their hierarchical social constructs sought to hold on to their power and wealth. This was only one chapter in the eternal class struggle that stretches throughout the story of human civilization, but at no other time in history was the notion that the lesser classes might become enfolded into the structures of governance more energized, as the dismantling of old regimes gave way to new opportunities.

It was this wave of opportunity that opened the door to new ideas about how societies should structure themselves, and what pitfalls they should avoid, that Gandhi was boldly walking through when he presented his Seven Social Sins to the subcontinent of India and to the world. Here is his original list:

1.Wealth without Work
2.Pleasure without Conscience
3.Science without Humanity
4.Knowledge without Character
5.Politics without Principle
6.Commerce without Morality
7.Worship without Sacrifice

The differences between the two lists reflect very different attitudes that have arisen with time. Gandhi's version was just like his dress - simple, basic, unadorned. The list appeared, with no discussion whatsoever, for his followers to contemplate as they struggled to recreate an independent India. I have recycled Gandhi's list, demonstrating my philosophy of examining, processing, progressing, and have adorned it with a few new ideas of my own. As the people of the world seek ways to demand social justice in the face of the current economic uncertainty, a cohesive foundation for how to challenge social policies and philosophies that have failed to live up to their promises will be of the utmost importance. It must be stressed that this is a matter of basic human rights, not one of capital flow or market readjustments. Gandhi framed the struggle of the poorest classes of India as being the same struggle as the entire society's right to self-determination against British colonialism. This lesson that various social struggles are not fragmented, but rather, are all one and the same - struggles against wildly unequal distribution of wealth, against the hoarding of power, against the undermining of democratic principles, against environmental destruction - are all connected.

1. Wealth without Work - Power without Wisdom

The idea of, “no wealth without work” has its origins in the ethical argument against usury, or the charging of interest on loans, long seen as a social evil as well as a weakness of character. This idea appeared in the form of "just price theory," from the economic thought of the Middle Ages, and later, in Adam Smith's "Labor Theory of Value," both connecting a product's value to the labor used to produce it, which was further connected to the greater social good by its promotion of industriousness in individuals. As the Industrial Revolution dramatically raised the level of the world's commerce to new heights, economic theory leap towards new understandings, and capitalism based on credit and investment banking did away with the ethical frown upon what was once called "usury." In response to new imbalances that arose along with these changes, socialist philosophy took up the old slogan anew, as laborers felt the need to stand up for themselves, striving to once again recognize the value and dignity of work, to instil pride in each individual's role in society, to raise the status of the worker from that of the mere commodity belonging to the wealthy owners of the corporations that were steadily building their own empires.

Although the ideals behind "no wealth without work" may be noble and just, I feel that this phrase no longer resonates in today's world, where investment strategies and the use of credit have become acceptable means of obtaining wealth that offer some level of greater social good in society. The caveat here is that these means not be taken to excess, which is the hard-learned lesson of the economic collapse of recent years. There is a point of balance between being too dependent on borrowing and not borrowing at all. In a system that thrives on the flow of capital, more than anything else, it is of the greatest import to make sure that not only those who already have large amounts of capital to invest have access to credit. And, despite that tough lesson about handing out credit as if it were Halloween candy (indeed, on college campuses, credit card applications were literally handed out along with candy bars), there are some positive signs that "usury," when carefully initiated and vigorously regulated, can offer a greater good to society, as evidenced by the growing movement of "micro loans" to the world's poorest citizens. These people, often women who have come together to form small cooperatives in impoverished regions, do not need much to help them improve themselves and their communities.

My idea is to look at financing of any sort, in any amount, not simply as a means of trade for goods and services, but as a source of power. Money is power. Many things offer power, including social status, physical strength, pure numbers, access to government representatives, charisma, the secret to nuclear fusion, etcetera. As the lesson about depending too strongly on credit has taught us, so, too, does any kind of power require moderation. This moderation is a kind of Wisdom. Therefore, Power Requires Wisdom.

No power without wisdom. No mere marketing of ideas without digging into the basis of those ideas, who is paying for the marketing of them, how they benefit certain individuals more than they offer any greater good, and how their very veracity might be in question. No unfettered freedom of access to government officials without some show of how the policies that one is pushing for would actually offer some greater good for society. No governmental position of power without strict mediation of how that power can and cannot be used. No trusting that those in power are there because they somehow deserve to be there, without any proof that they are capable or to be trusted with their power. No monarchy or dynasty. No impunity. No lack of oversight and regulation.

To tie power with wisdom is also to re-assert the relationship of those who hold power with those who allow them to hold that power. It is a reminder that in society, the many give tacit consent to their rulers when they do not voice their opposition to this relationship. If the many would understand that they, too, hold power - of numbers, of denial of services, of the ability to stop commerce, in entirely peaceful ways, especially when they can become organized and act in unison - then the powerful would be wise to look after the well-being of the larger community instead of only their own self-interests. And wisdom is, further, a connective and expansive force. It sees in terms of interaction rather than competition, relationships rather than enmities, community rather than self.

I feel that this framing of the issue, of no power without wisdom, without oversight or moderation, without connection, without a larger scope of vision addresses the ills of the modern world more than the framing of the issue as no wealth without work, as the former can be seen as a divisive point that can only degenerate into class struggle, in which the lower classes are viewed as committing one of the biblical seven cardinal sins - envy - while the upper classes are viewed as committing another - gluttony. The real sin here is that of generalization, which feeds the perception that the extremes of a situation are the norm, and that the actions of some represents the sentiments of all. The issues involved in class struggle are not simple. Rather, they are infinitely complicated, easily misunderstood by oversimplification, and inherently divisive. So, by replacing the reference to class struggle, as well as to the outdated connection of wealth to physical labor, with a very different characterization of wealth as a form of power, I hope to take a positive step forward toward the goal of reformulating how societies understand the problems presented by inequities of wealth and other types of power.

2. Pleasure without Conscience - Pleasure without Awareness

Mahatma Gandhi was devoted to a life of simple living, weaving his own clothing out of cotton, and minimizing pleasure and extravagances for the sake of spiritual purity. In this context, pleasure itself was to be avoided, and the having of pleasure was, if not sinful, then connected with guilt. I reject the idea of guilt trips that religious codes tend to impose, so I have substituted "awareness" for "conscience," and I believe that this admonition fits in with modern attitudes about how pleasure enhances our lives, which we should not constantly feel conscientious or riddled with guilt about. I feel that the 1960's cultural revolution - of progressive rock music, personal and sexual freedom, use of mind-altering drugs - ushered in a new understanding of how pleasure can actually enhance one's awareness in surprising ways, and is not always an act of pure hedonism, when that expanded awareness is a connective force instead of an isolating one. It is possible to have keen awareness while experiencing pleasure, if we put our minds to it, as opposed to closing ourselves off to the wider world and pretending that we are in some other reality. Celebrations such as Christmas and Thanksgiving are other examples of how we can enjoy ourselves while at the same time being thankful for the source of our joy. As long as we do not take things to extremes, do not celebrate for the sake of the pleasure itself, and make sure to remain aware of and connected to the larger situations around us, pleasure does not have to bring on pangs of conscience. Pleasure with awareness has the power to heal and re-energizing us to face larger realities with renewed vitality.

3. Science without Humanity

Einstein reiterated this idea with his famous quote, "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." What Gandhi warned the world against, Einstein commiserated had happened. Einstein spoke of atomic weapons, but his observation goes well beyond that in today's world of i-phones and c-scans and gm-foods. The degree to which we do not understand how our gadgets work, let alone the consequences of their manufacture, distribution, and use, has lagged farther and farther behind the level at which we are enamored with them. And from this level of comfort with not understanding derives a tremendous disconnect, a fatal attraction to having no interest in understanding the world around us which leaves us dangerously vulnerable to campaigns of misinformation - the ultimate paradox of the "information age." So society becomes fractionalized, compartmentalized, separated into clusters of special interest groups, digesting information in small bits, sound bites, disambiguated twitters, and our ability to comprehend what it all means for our society, and what it says about us as human beings, gets lost in the onslaught of fragmentized info-porn. This is the nightmare that science fiction writers could not have dreamed up. The computers have not become frighteningly human-like, rather, the humans have become like machines. We must work to regain our humanity in the face of this advanced dependence upon technology.

4. Knowledge without Character - Knowledge without Understanding

Gandhi's idea of "no knowledge without character" carries the implicit meaning that it is "moral" character that must not be lacking. It seems to me that this kind of language was the norm in Gandhi's day, when speaking of how persons were to act in society, with all of the religious connotations included, whether those be Hindu or Muslim or Christian or any other. However, being a proponent of the idea that religion and "morality" are not necessary to motivate people to be upstanding and kind and generous, I want to get away from moralizing. The idea of "no knowledge without understanding," does just that - it takes knowledge out of the realm of a gift that must be paid for with morality and places it in the realm of a kind of power that requires a moderator.

To moderate knowledge with understanding seeks to take knowledge further than the mere collection of information. It ensures that the human element will be present, so that we will not be machines, nor will machines that collect information be anything like humans. To actually understand something is connective. It looks beyond the information and tries to make sense of it, using capabilities that only the human mind possesses. This is, in large part, what makes us human - to understand past, present, and future; to understand that when I do a certain thing, a predictable outcome will occur; to understand that symbolic sounds can be developed into language...

But "no knowledge without understanding" pushes us further, to keep learning new things, to strive to make sense out of what we know so far, to ask "why" after we know "what" and "where" and "how." It goads us toward the wisdom that, to paraphrase Socrates, a wise man understands how little he knows. And it entreats us to continuously connect all of the tidbits of information together into a larger understanding.

5. Politics without Principle - Politics without Accountability

Gandhi hoped that politics could be principled, that the political arena would be self-regulating, in a way similar to how the world of business was supposed to be mediated by such economic theories as the "invisible hand." Politics that lacked principle would be unacceptable to the citizens of a democracy. However, it seems that the opposite has come to pass, that politicians who choose to be principled cannot compete against those who are willing to market themselves insincerely, and worse, spend much of their energy attempting to demonize their political opponents - a process that continues on far past the political campaigns to infect governance itself. The result is that truths become buried under infinite levels of rhetoric, all constructive conversation on issues gets left by the wayside, and citizens become either polarized or cynical about the process, a situation that can only lead to a crisis of confidence in government. So the foundations of democracy - government by the people - begin to crack.

While one would reasonably expect politics to be principled, in its absence, what is needed is accountability. When individuals are found to be in blatant disregard of facts in their politicking, they need to be expelled from being involved in any way from the political process. Accountability would literally apply to accounting in terms of how much money is being spent on campaigns, and limits need to be placed, so that the process is not infected by its insipid undermining of the democratic process. And accountability would also apply in regard to openness of government, with fair access of all to their representatives, and a tracking of how much time and resources are being spent on the actual work of governance, along with further limits on how much precious time and resources can be spent politicking. Forcing the agents of government to account for their actions in a much more immediate and transparent way would go far to reign in the unprincipled politics that have caused so much confusion, polarization, and cynicism in today's political arena, and would begin to repair the foundation of democracy upon which the nation stands.

6. Commerce without Morality - Commerce without Conscience

While Gandhi spoke in terms of morality, I wish to move away from such terminology, for the reason that I have already stated, and also because of the danger of moral relativism. Morality is not universal.
It is dependent on society's mores, understandings, and distinct viewpoints. Not only does morality differ from society to society, but from individual to individual, as each one of us is free to develop our own belief systems within pluralistic societies that include many different religions and philosophies. Yet, some sort of code of conduct, some moderator, some set of principles, must apply to everyone in society, where we must all treat each other with a certain amount of respect, regardless of our personal moralities. A different framing of this concept would be to turn to "conscience," instead.

In this context, "conscience" does not imply guilt so much as empathy and compassion. When we are considering how to treat others in society, conscience can be our guide, as this goes beyond any religious moral code or belief system. The logic of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is as universal as any principle gets, having been present in systems of thought from Confucianism to Buddhism to Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions to New Age philosophies to any thoughtful consideration of how to be a conscientious person. Similarly, when we have conscience about how our actions will effect the different strata of society and the environment, those larger entities within which we all operate, we connect ourselves with our surroundings and thus have a vested interest in doing those things that will help to keep those bodies vibrant and healthy.

This connective principle applies to all aspects of our lives, extending into how we conduct the commerce that is required in modern society to obtain most if not all of our vital needs. The idea that commerce is not a part of the human experience, that the same codes of conduct do not apply to the businesses that we create, participate in, and interact with, because these entities are not actual human beings, makes no sense, whatsoever. The strongest moderator of them all, beyond principle, beyond meek attempts at accountability that consist of fines which are simply worked into the cost of doing business, beyond awareness, which informs, but does not motivate to act conscientiously - conscience must be the moderator of commerce, as it is not something separate, but something that is at the very heart of the human experience and what society is all about.

Economic understandings that separate the "market" out from our daily lives and assume that scientific theories and numeric formulas hold all the answers to how money flows through society have been called into question again and again. Their failures to describe, let alone predict, economic realities might be remedied if they were to be reunited with human considerations, such as defining costs in terms of loss of productivity due to workers' health issues and attitudes, and with even more expansive evaluations of cost, such as the costs to the ecosystem imposed by pollution and environmental destruction. This expansive view of cost analysis might just find that there is a correlation between conscience and the well-being of our businesses in the same way that individuals find themselves to be happier when they are conscientious members of society.

7. Worship without Sacrifice - Spirituality without Connection

The name of "Mahatma" meaning "Great Soul," was given to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi while he was agitating for improvements in the desperate living conditions of poor workers in 1918, against largely British landlords, their militias, and their government supporters. He was arrested for his "agitating," which consisted of making detailed studies of the atrocious living conditions, leading clean-up campaigns, helping village leadership to initiate new school and hospital building, and advocating for the rights of the untouchables. He practiced Hinduism all his life, insisting that all religions were equal, their main purposes being to encourage compassion and brotherhood, while also all having their weaknesses to hypocrisy and dogma. As the title of his autobiography indicates, "The Story of My Experiments with Truth," he was dedicated to the search for Satya, or Truth. And he sought purity, simplicity, and self-sufficiency, practicing spiritual as well as politically-motivated fasting.

Mahatmas Gandhi was, of course, an extraordinary man, and his radical simplicity would be unacceptable in today's world, where appearances are all-important and we are bombarded by commercial messaging from all sides. Jimmy Carter was laughed out of office when he suggested that we all turn down our thermostats in the winter and wear sweaters instead. When the mantra of a whole society is "consumerism," because going without is pessimistic, unsupportive, and unpatriotic, it is extremely difficult to change attitudes and habits that seem to be rights rather than privileges. I can't help but note that Micheal Moore, who certainly isn't one for spending big on fancy wardrobes or expensive haircuts, is the closest thing to a modern-day Gandhi as we are likely to have, as he has been advocating an action plan that combines going without in order to get our personal finances back under control after such over-dependence on credit, involvement in the processes of government, and a program of person health as a microcosm of public health. In his most recent film, Micheal Moore, like Gandhi before him, has tied economic justice with religious-based ethics. Certainly, such concepts can
be seen as a kind of "sacrifice" that can be practical as well as spiritual.

Although this is a holistic approach to social ethics that seeks spiritual guidance, expressed as "worship" by Gandhi, once again, my concern about resonance in a society that emphasizes materialism over spirituality drives me to seek some other way of framing the issue that he was getting at that does not tie worship and spirituality to sacrifice. The idea is to find an approach that nurtures the whole person, so that however we each see ourselves, some sort of a spiritual dimension would be present in our attempts to find a social code that makes sense. My feelings on how this spiritual dimension can be interpreted in the most wide range of possibilities, by adherents to many different religions, or to no religion at all, is to advocate for spirituality as connection.

This connection would be with what we each understand to be "God," and with each other, and with nature. Any sacrifice that would come from the seeking of spirituality would be generated by the desire to connect, and therefore to give something of oneself, to look beyond personal gain, to purify ourselves with the aim of achieving deeper connections through such practices as meditation or prayer or ritual or song and dance or simply taking a moment to be in awe of the universe around us. At the heart of what it means to be a human being is to connect, in mirror of the synapses in our brains. Connecting is conscience, is accountability, is understanding, is humanity, is awareness, is wisdom. The connective principle is what I believe God to be, a higher purpose than the individual, that which we all seek in the form of love, comfort, community, one-ness of being.

This kind of spirituality does the opposite of separating us into different religions and sects. It manifests the idea that Gandhi expressed about the purpose of all religions being to instill compassion and brotherhood. Tragically, he was not successful at convincing the Hindus and the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent that their religions were of this nature, instead of allowing distrust and enmity to cause the division into what is today India and Pakistan. Gandhi was, in fact, murdered because of this rivalry, which he was trying to mediate, and today, these nations are still plagued with ethnic and religious violence.

Nonetheless, I believe in the will of the people to work together to bring an end suffering, to put a stop to violence that only leads to more violence, to push our societies toward progressive change by challenging the status quo and insisting, non-violently, that society must re-order itself so that all will enjoy the benefits of peace and more equitable prosperity. As for the current situation in the United States, the biggest hurdle that must be overcome is the influence of lobbyists and campaign donations on the political process. There needs to be a concerted, focused campaign toward reforming this system, led by a massive citizen's movement, because the politicians are not going to do it on their own. But behind this focused campaign, let there be a set of guiding principles. These are a start, a push toward the process of innovation to come up with new kinds of ideas that might resonate even more strongly. For if we consider the huge success of freeing India from British ownership that Gandhi did achieve through years of influential writing and speaking about his new ideas, acting positively, and sacrificing his freedom as he languished in jail for years, only to come out fighting once again, and then go on to look at all those who he inspired who have also been successful at instituting changes large and small, then our tasks will also appear to have achievable solutions.

Markets Are Not The Boss Of Me!

Naomi Klein was on Democracy Now! recently talking about how the markets throw fits when they do not get their way.

But before I watched the day's evening broadcast of the show, I had a similar idea. It occurred to me that there is a perception that everything that society needs will materialize through the magic of the marketplace, as if it were some kind of force of nature, like gravity, or natural selection, that pushes progress ever forward. What society wants, society gets. Adam Smith described it in Biblical terms, as the “invisible hand” that leads individuals, in their pursuit of personal gain, toward their highest potential, and therefore, at the same time, leads society as a whole towards the greatest good. And this is the basis for free market ideology that says that the more businessmen can do their business free and unfettered by rules and regulations, the better for everyone in society. Any government intervention, according to these ideologues, would upset this natural order and cause society to become stifled. What government should do is to free the businesspeople, the entrepreneurs, the CEO's, and the bankers who lend them money, by releasing them from any burdens of paying taxes or chains of following regulations, and all will be well for everybody.

I have been very critical of this view for a while now, ever since I began to examine all this a few years ago, but it wasn't until the other day that any kind of alternative model to this B.S. presented itself. Well, it came to me while I was pulling weeds from a flower bed in my South Georgia back yard, that the marketplace might be better represented as a child that wants everything that it sees and doesn't want to be disciplined or bathed or to eat dinner before dessert or to go to bed at a reasonable hour. This child is very impressionable and easily influenced by marketing and shiny new things. The child's appetite is insatiable and his temper tantrums, epic. And the free marketeers, as parents of this golden boy who they want desperately to love them, have been coddling him, giving him everything he has ever wanted, and refusing to discipline him or lay down any boundaries that would begin to teach him to think of anything other than his own urges and desires. I think that this model is more apt than the “invisible hand” model because it puts us human beings in charge and accountable, as opposed to depicting the market as a force of nature or a gift of God that we should not try to fight against or contain. It takes the marketplace out of the realm of nature or teleology, and puts it where it belongs, as a human construct that we must take responsibility for.

We can nurture the child as well as discipline and educate him. We can teach him values, to be kind, to share, to respect others as well as to be vibrant and innovative. This puts the marketplace into proper perspective, as one part of what human individuals and societies do, along with building communities, exploring the world, connecting with each other through art and music. By putting this human face on this ever so human entity, we demystify it, claim it as our own, and guide it toward helping us better ourselves spiritually as well as monetarily. We can embrace our child as a connective force rather than a divisive one. By depicting the marketplace as the child of humanity, we free ourselves from the tyranny of righteous inequality that has been imposed upon us all in the name of capitalism and patriotism and so-called "progress." Naomi Klein often cites this quote by Milton Freedman:

“Only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”

Well, here is an idea that I am throwing out there to lie around, as we certainly have a crisis on our hands, and the time for change from the conventional thinking about the supposed “free markets” has come.

In my book, No Stranger to Strange Lands: A Journey Through Strange Coincidences, Connective Thoughts, and Far Flung Places, I talk about property ownership and Ayn Rand as well as some ideas that nomadic cultures have to offer, about sharing of resources as opposed to hording, being flexible, holding leadership accountable, negotiating diversity, but I do not offer a new framework to replace the one that I criticize so harshly. I also explore how ideas spread around in the book, and now, picking up on all of that, the idea had come to me as Ms. Klein was expressing them to Amy Goodman, but before I had any knowledge of the interview. That's what I mean by those "strange coincidences."

And so I am encouraged to continue to build on my ideas, especially this idea for a new model to replace the old one that I believe has been leading us so astray, ever since the Enlightenment, when they thought that they had everything all figured out (yeah - right!).

I am no economist, yet I am deeply interested in economic ideas because our lives are so very enmeshed it that realm, particularly now that our whole economic system is falling into disarray. What I am really interested in is how we think about it all, perhaps it could be called “meta-economics,” the over-arching principles by which we understand how monetary systems function, because how we look at the world around us encompasses everything, from monetary to spiritual to social to physical to mental to emotional to environmental and other realms.

I have come across two items in collecting my thoughts for this piece that help to illustrate my points. The first appeared in my monthly newsletter from Dr. Susan Love, M.D. I keep updated on the latest cancer research news because I lost my mother to breast cancer back in 1989, and now my younger sister is a two-time cancer survivor, of the rare and very aggressive type called Inflammatory Breast Cancer. I like to stay informed of any new information that would be helpful to my sister as well as to myself and my other sister about understanding the disease and preventing it. Here is a quote that piqued my interest:

"Many women find that once they hit menopause their libido isn't quite what it used to be. The pharmaceutical companies are well aware of this, too. That's why they've been trying to identify a treatment that could essentially be the female equivalent to Viagra. To date, they have had virtually no success. Which is why they keep studying—and trying to find a place on the market for—a testosterone patch or cream for women."

This goes to my point about meta-economics by highlighting the difference between how the market is perceived to function versus how it really functions. It directly contradicts the notion that the market is consumer-driven. The fact is that the pharmaceutical companies believe that they will be able to make a lot of money by developing a female version of Viagra, even though all the research from the past eight years has shown that women's bodies are very complex and tend to respond badly to all kinds of hormone treatments, and that the women in the study were not really as interested in their product as the companies would like.

I will add that in the mean time, there still is no cure for cancer, while those horrible chemotherapy drugs continue to be widely used and highly profitable. I can hardly believe that in the twenty years since my mother died, they haven't developed a better way to treat cancer than to poison the patient and hope that the tumors and cancerous cells will be killed instead of the whole person. It seems barbaric to me. It also boggles my mind that the cause of cancer is still such a mystery. Of course, the chemotherapy industry would go under if a proper cause were found, which makes me wonder just how hard they are really trying to find the cause, let alone the cure.

The Progressive idea of health care is that it is a human right and should not be driven entirely by perceived market forces – so would that change the emphasis from treatment to prevention? Take the profit motive out, and the pharmaceutical companies might end their search for the female Viagra, and instead concentrate on keeping women more healthy, which would probably increase their libido. As it stands, they continue to push for this product that no-one wants and that actually causes cancer. So much for the greater good of society!

The other item I came across was this quote about Mikhail Gorbachev, when he was named Time magazine's “Man of the Decade” of the 1980's:

"The metaphysics of global power has changed. Markets are now more valuable than territory, information more powerful than military hardware."

The fall of the Soviet Union was supposed to be the big triumph of capitalism over communism, although the same article admits that it didn't take effect just off the bat:

“Estee Lauder and Christian Dior opened exclusive shops on Gorky Street. Meanwhile, soap, sugar, tea, school notebooks, cigarettes, sausage and other meats, butter, fruits and vegetables, and even matches are scarce.”

In fact, free market capitalism blossomed in its purist form as the Russian Mafia soon took advantage of the lack of infrastructure and the chaos of change. But the capitalists of this nation were quite smug about the whole affair. Ronald Reagan even took the credit for the change of heart of the Russians, although I personally think that the credit properly belongs to the Beatles. The supposed end of the cold war was going to open up all of vast Russia as a market for goods from the U.S.A., and military hardware was to go the way of the dodo bird. And yet, the military was able to survive just fine, and communism did not exactly go away, a la China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and our neighbor, Cuba. In addition, Western Europe, Canada, and lately, a wave of nations in South America have been moving toward more socialist structures as a way to better serve all members of society and to uphold basic human rights, such as the right to health care, for example.

And now, the reign of the unfettered free market ideology is coming unraveled in a catastrophic downfall. The fitful child is already screaming and kicking as our society denies him his usual toys and finally says “No!” to his excesses. No, we cannot continue borrowing and borrowing, just to keep him happy. No, all is not well in our metaphorical family situation, as our government has been insisting, hoping to avoid the reality of the economic abyss from coming forward until after the elections, so that the Republican Party that has clung so fervently to the “free market” delusion would not appear to the electorate to be so incompetent, so responsible for our pain.

No, child, you do not any longer have the privilege of spending all our money as you like, for your purchases have been frivolous and selfish and have done nothing to further anything but your own hedonistic greed. It is time, child, that we gave you some direction, some boundaries, some rules to follow, so that our family can get through this crisis, for we all need to make sacrifices, to come together and join forces to survive.

And let this be a lesson to you, dear child, that acting in pure self interest does not result in the best society after all, as we had believed, so long as we were able to keep the blessed cycle of consumption churning. It is finally time to educate you in how to be a better human being through learning to limit yourself, to be empathetic to the needs of others around you, to help out around the house, and to respect those who care for you. It is finally time, Market, to grow up.

see:
Democracy Now! November 25 2008, Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson Dissect Obama’s New Economic Team & Stimulus Plan

King Marketing and His Queen, Pursuit of Happiness

excerpts from

No Stranger to Strange Lands:

A Journey tthrough Strange Coincidences, Connective Thoughts, and Far Flung Places

...
To be clear, I had only come across Milton Friedman previously because I was curious as to why the CEO of Whole Foods Market was writing that corporations should never be prosecuted for crimes – WHAT?!? What I learned was that his friends over at the Cato Institute are just insane. Their ideology is radical and dangerous. I know it is impolite to throw around mean labels like “Fascist,” but how do they explain that that is not what they really are? The collusion of business leaders, the media, the state, and military factions (i.e. military contractors – Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.) to create a single-party rule through the marketing of the deceit that the fate of all people will be raised up by the unfettered conduct of the elite leaders – that is Fascism in a nutshell, and it sounds all too familiar. Oh, and a little war is always good for the economy, while institutions like unions and government services that help ordinary people to have some control over their own lives are not. It is the “unfettered” part that is scariest. Of course, these people would deny that the government is involved in the “invisible hand of the marketplace,” that Big Business uses its resources to unduly influence the Law in their favor.

I also learned that Milton Friedman was the patron saint of this idea of laissez-faire economic policy, which is based on the notion that the role of government in guidance of the economy should be severely restricted, because the “free markets” regulate themselves. He connected Capitalism with Freedom, and used phrases like “free to choose” and “tyranny of control” to promote this radical ideology. Supposedly, no regulation or rule of law is necessary, because in the Free Market system, the cream rises to the top; only the best and brightest will prevail; business contracts will be faithfully upheld; and lying, cheating, and stealing will not be tolerated because bad reputations are bad business. Gosh, that all sounds peachy. Trouble is, it isn't really about whose product is best anymore, it's about whose PR is best – branding and name recognition, image, regardless of quality or supply and demand mechanisms. It has come to pass that Marketing has become the driver of the economy. That all involves big bucks, but you advertise like crazy, and once you acquire investment money because of your excellent PR, you just keep it flowing through the proper channels – lobbyists and campaign contributions (because the government is deeply involved in the economy, despite the rhetoric, through government contracts, tax law, immigration policy, etc. etc.), lawyers, more PR – keep that profit margin up by downsizing a little and off-shoring, use your connections to get yourself a juicy government contract, be sure to invite so and so to your next cocktail party... All of the capital ends up in the hands of the elite few, while the rest of society is left free to choose between getting expensive health insurance in case of a medical emergency or trying to pay down their phenomenal debt. Edward Abbey was more correct when he said: “Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top."

...

The sadness of bigotry and hardheadedness blanket this entire nation in layers of tragedy and irony. The tragedy of the enslavement of African people – the irony of the original Thanksgiving event, where the native people helped out the struggling Pilgrims, showing them how to survive in this new land, sharing their food and their knowledge, only to later be deemed inferior beings, not worthy of their lands or their cultures – the tragedy of the Civil War, that the righteous on each side were driven to such extreme violence – the irony that many of the romanticized episodes of the Wild West, involving “heroes” like Wild Bill Hickok and Buffalo Bill Cody, were the results of so many armed and restless warriors from that horrible Civil War – tragedy that, as time went on, racism continued against the Black people in the South and a new wave of racism arose against the Chinese in the West – irony that the Industrial Revolution threw “modernization” into overdrive, creating a consumer society so completely dependent on corporations for food, clothing, medicine, transportation, communication, time-saving and life-enhancing gadgets, and energy to run those gadgets, all driven by massive media conglomerations that inform us what we need to buy next. The biggest irony here is that we are constantly reminded of how “free” we are, yet we have become slaves to our own existence. We have the right to free speech, religion, assembly, the press, and to petition our government, as Article I of the Bill of Rights declares, but these rights only exist in spirit, and are in practice minimized to apply only to those supporting this administration. And so, irony of ironies, tragedy of tragedies, this country – despite all the technology and information available, despite all of the lessons of history, despite the awareness of millions of people that our leaders have been lying to us and have manipulated the corporate media so insidiously that Orwell's dystopian world of doublethink has come to pass – this country has fallen from the towering heights into the snake pit of Fascism, lead there by fanatics, Capitalist fanatics, who are the snakes themselves, the embodiment of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, who seduced Eve with its shiny perfect-looking waxed pesticide-laden genetically engineered apple – she didn't seem to notice that it was devoid of most of its apple taste... How easy it is to conjure up our symbolic archetypes! How powerful that imagery is, and the image of the Snake goes a long way: the slimy snake oil salesman; the sneaky snake in the grass; the Great World Snake that lives in a pit at the center of the world; the seething snake pit that even that icon of manly fearlessness, Indiana Jones, can't handle. The Snake is the ultimate in creepiness and deception. A massive, nation-wide pit of creepiness and deception has emerged, created by the Serpents of Free Market Fascism, who lead their followers over its edge and into its depths with promises of glorious Freedom and Happiness while curtailing freedom and offering only false choices. And just like in the Bible, from which that Serpent with its apple emerged, they have their own creation myths and lofty ideals that, when examined closely, can be found to be based on tortured logic, questionable constructs of reality, and pure arrogance - the same kind of inflexible self-righteousness that has always led to violence and abuses, always based on some kind of entitlement claims and moral value systems that are devoid of humanistic ethics or empathy for the suffering of others. Their bible is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Herein lies a major source of the sadness behind my anger: that so many have been swayed by the dangerously seductive ideology of this and other “free market” writings, this twisting of what constitutes “good and evil,” “morality,” and the motivations of caring people, without thinking through the inferences or consequences of what these ideas entail. They are meant to inspire and uphold the rights of the individual and connect Democracy with Capitalism, yet they end up vilifying the working and management classes – the very engines of their precious prosperity - and abhorring populism. In fact, it seems to me that the only thing Democracy has to do with their ideology is that it is not Communism or Socialism. They have one-upped the original Fascists in deceptiveness by utilizing that system while claiming to be Democratic. They particularly like to paint the wealthy as the victims of guilt-trips, do-gooders, and those who hate them for their greatness, thus painting taxes as the coercive looting of their wealth by the state. They are paranoid that everyone is after a piece of them. Do people realize that the basis for this ideology is that the wealthy (who are assumed to be so because they have made great achievements and are the productive element of society) should not be pressured by the lower classes (who are assumed to be so because they are lazy and jealous) into parting with any little bit of their wealth because Self-Reliance is the ultimate good and helping out the less fortunate only encourages them to not try hard enough? In their minds, they are wealthy because they are better, and they are the ones who are put upon to hold up all of society, the “atlases” of the world. This is the thinking, and it is sadly arrogant and self-righteous, yet it seems to sucker people in with the empty promise that all they really need to do is to seek Happiness through Self-Reliance, Achievement, and “Rational Self-Interest,” and above all, do not give in to evil Selflessness, and then they, too, can become one of society's moral leaders. Saddest of all is their dangerous determination not to be sad – to deny Sadness – to forget, and thus lose sight of the truth of the past – that this mighty nation has been built on the tears of many, many diverse and underprivileged peoples - enslaved, indentured, in debt – and has not always lived up to the promises that the Founding Fathers made. It all leads to a false sense of entitlement by those who are most entitled, a sentiment that things are the way they are supposed to be, that those who are most trod upon deserve their fate because they are weak and unworthy, and that this system should be supported even by them because it is the best that Humanity has to offer.

...

While dwelling on sadness is not comfortable in many respects – it is not fun, it can be downright depressing, or make you frustrated and angry - it's a downer, a buzz kill, a drag – it is vitally important to face sadness, to look at it and accept it, because it is a part of the whole of reality. And when you ignore parts of reality, you miss those parts of the Big Picture. Avoiding this segment of reality skews your entire world view toward the belief that Happiness is much easier to achieve than it actually is, especially for oppressed and abused people everywhere.

The lure, the legend, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the Holy Grail, the Promised Land, Paradise, Heaven, where everyone will be eternally happy, is the best marketing tool there is! Self-help books, dieting programs, pills of all kinds, surgeries, injections, gadgets that will improve your life, accoutrement that will make you appear more attractive, that latest “get rich quick” scheme... Businesses know that promises of Happiness sell their products. They need only to look toward religion as its ultimate mass marketer. The business leaders have taken that message and run, creating a new kind of monarchy where Marketing is King, the Pursuit of Happiness is his Queen, and together they reign over the land by controlling the corporations, the news media, and the politicians. Who knew that sweet and noble Pursuit of Happiness would reach the very top of the power structure? She was raised as the crux of Democratic ideals, to empower each individual to be responsible for themselves and their own fate, the sibling of Justice, Liberty, Freedom, and Rights to the Fruits of One's Labors. But she became corrupted by her seductive power, joined forces with her King, and now only uses the names of her siblings to further her quest for more power. She is willingly granted that power, adored by her subjects, beloved by her peeps. She and the King are honored every year, on Superbowl Sunday, their Big Day, complete with all the grandeur of the Colosseum, the beefy competitors, and the pageantry. So, in honoring this Queen, this has become a nation that prefers to turn a blind eye to sadness and suffering. Sure, she dispatches her top athletes to the United Way, and if we donate some money, we can all feel good that the needy are being helped. All the King's Men create the perfect poster child for the campaign. We give money, and then forget. The monarchs know that too much sadness is not good for the bottom line. Just a dab here and there, for dramatic effect, as a contrast to that Happiness that we can all achieve if we just think positive, happy thoughts, buy all the right stuff, stay strong, and follow the script. If our team looses the game, then we will them to try even harder the next time. And if our team wins, then we glory in our collective superiority, knowing that this means that we deserve more than anyone else, that we are better than all others.