View previous stories
	Year of living dangerously by Richard Swift New Internationalist   December 2008   The global food crisis threatens to spread in the wake of economic chaos.   2008 – what a year! First the price of petroleum doubled, then a global food crisis, now a complete financial meltdown. People can be forgiven for wondering ‘what next?’ The runaway cost of basic foodstuffs hit hard earlier in the year. The Western media played it as an unfortunate, but far away, tragedy. Most people in the industrial world barely noticed as the prices on the supermarket shelves edged up. But for those in the Global South living on $2 or less a day – about one in three of us – it was catastrophic. Figures vary, but most estimates, including that of the Food and Agriculture Organization, hold that the runaway price spiral of basic foodstuffs (rice, grain, corn) pushed another 100 million people into situations of life-threatening malnutrition. This is on top of perhaps 900 million people already in this position. That’s a billion people without the means to survive. How many actually died? Or are dying? No-one really knows.   The global financial crisis is a much bigger media story. The nightly TV news, most of the main sections of the newspapers, rumours and analysis whizzing around the internet – it was as if people could think of little else. Everyone was worried. Some you could sympathize with – pensioners worried about their future, mortgage holders about their homes, workers about their jobs. It was rather more difficult to muster up any sympathy for the bankers and politicians who had presided over and benefited from this bubble economy built on mystification and dubious credit. Yet, to my knowledge, few people have as yet died as a result of this crisis. So why the difference in coverage? As the late Chicago folksinger Steve Goodman put it: ‘It ain’t hard to get along with somebody else’s trouble.’   Two sides of the same coin   But aren’t these crises two sides of the same coin? In both cases the public world has become dependent on private corporate interests to provide the essentials of life, and agriculture in the South has either collapsed or been deformed on the promise that cheap food from the industrial North would feed all. In the credit crisis, stagnating real incomes have been supplemented by a huge boom in personal credit, in the belief that the stock- and real-estate markets could be the basis of economic security. Relying either on big agribusiness corporations and global food traders or investment banks and real-estate speculators is proving a very slippery slope indeed. In both cases, short-sighted profit-seeking has outstripped stable and sustainable development. The view that ‘you can rely on us’ is proving as empty as an African rice bowl or a vacated Las Vegas condo.   Ultimately, the sharp end of any kind of economic crisis is hunger. That’s the way it was in the ‘Dirty Thirties’, and that may well be where we are heading today. Still, for the better-off, hardship now amounts just to cutting back on discretionary spending – delaying a big purchase such as a car or vacation. Even the most vulnerable in the industrial North can fall back on (admittedly poorly funded) government programmes of income support. Real hardship is involved, but rarely does it mean immediate life-threatening hunger. This is not the case in the slums of Monrovia or Managua, where a couple of cents on the market price means there is no dinner.   Rural areas too are hit hard. In countries like Bangladesh or Mozambique or Haiti, hard times and escalating food prices can lead to a life-threatening situation almost immediately. Chronic malnutrition worsens. The body weight of newborns drops perilously; mothers lack the capacity for proper breastfeeding. The death rate of under-fives shoots up. This year’s food crisis will result in eight million more stunted children in India alone.   Whether in Central America or West Africa, the pre-harvest ‘hungry season’ becomes a fearful, desperate time. The old die younger. So do the young. Vulnerability to disease rises dramatically. Every resource is geared to basic survival. Forget the future. Be it Indonesia or Brazil, children (particularly girls) get pulled out of school by desperate parents who can no longer afford the fees, or who need the extra labour. Our vaunted high-tech agriculture fails to provide for those who need it most. Further proof, if any were needed, that turning the provision of food over to transnational agribusiness, traders and speculators is a very bad idea indeed.   Crisis and opportunity   The insecurity and hardship that accompanies these crises is palpable. But where there is crisis there is also opportunity. In ordinary times it is more difficult to put forward a sane alternative to the dictates of transnational business because it is delivering the goods, even if in a partial and perverted fashion. But in a period like this, it is clear that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ and there is a void that needs filling.   Our industrial food system is made up of two overlapping markets. One is the large, if shrinking, group of farmers (mostly in the South where a majority of people still survive in this way). This market is catered to by agrochemical and fertilizer giants such as Monsanto, Syngenta AG and the Potash Company of Canada. They provide a range of agrochemicals, infrastructure, technology and now seeds – the basis of high-tech farming. They have managed to convince governments and the international development community that this ‘progressive’ high-tech approach is the only way forward. But, as this magazine spells out, they are following a path fraught with ecological and economic pitfalls. And there is big money at stake: these companies have made staggering profits out of the world food crisis. Small farmers, on the other hand, barely get by.   The second market is that of those who need to eat. This is controlled by a series of intermediaries – processors (like Kraft Foods or Nestlé), wholesalers (like Cargill or Tyson Foods) and retailers (Walmart, Tesco or Carrefour). These companies make their money by adding on to the low price paid to farmers. They are now spreading from the industrial North into the South. They too have made out like bandits during the world food crisis, posting record profits.   Despite the usual ‘there-is-no-alternative’ proclamations, there are saner ways to provide food. It is to the much-abused small farmer we must look for a fair and sustainable food economy. Otherwise the future will continue to be marred by corporate price blackmail and junk food.. Visit the related web page
	The Cult of Consumerism by Benjamin R. Barber Demos USA   As America remains recession mired, a silent but fateful struggle for the soul of capitalism is being waged. Can the market system finally be made to serve us? Or will we continue to serve it? George W. Bush argued that the crisis is "not a failure of the free-market system, and the answer is not to try to reinvent that system." But while it is going too far to declare that capitalism is dead, George Soros is right when he says that "there is something fundamentally wrong" with the market theory that stands behind the global economy, a "defect" that is "inherent in the system."   The issue is not the death of capitalism but what kind of capitalism--standing in which relationship to culture, to democracy and to life?   Even the progressive critics missing from the Obama economic team continue to think inside the economic box. Yes, bankers and politicians agree that there must be more regulatory oversight, a greater government equity stake in bailouts and some considerable warming of the frozen credit pump. A very large stimulus package with a welcome focus on the environment, alternative energy, infrastructure and job creation is in the offing--a good thing indeed.   But it is hard to discern any movement toward a wholesale rethinking of the dominant role of the market in our society. No one is questioning the impulse to rehabilitate the consumer market as the driver of American commerce. Or to keep commerce as the foundation of American public and private life, even at the cost of rendering other cherished American values--like pluralism, the life of the spirit and the pursuit of (nonmaterial) happiness--subordinate to it.   Economists and politicians across the spectrum continue to insist that the challenge lies in revving up inert demand. For in an economy that has become dependent on consumerism to the tune of 70 percent of GDP, shoppers who won"t shop and consumers who don"t consume spell disaster. Yet it is precisely in confronting the paradox of consumerism that the struggle for capitalism"s soul needs to be waged.   The crisis in global capitalism demands a revolution in spirit--fundamental change in attitudes and behavior. Reform cannot merely rush parents and kids back into the mall; it must encourage them to shop less, to save rather than spend. If there"s to be a federal lottery, the Obama administration should use it as an incentive for saving, a free ticket, say, for every ten bucks banked. Penalize carbon use by taxing gas so that it"s $4 a gallon regardless of market price, curbing gas guzzlers and promoting efficient public transportation. And how about policies that give producers incentives to target real needs, even where the needy are short of cash, rather than to manufacture faux needs for the wealthy just because they"ve got the cash?   Or better yet, take in earnest that insincere MasterCard ad, and consider all the things money can"t buy (most things!). Change some habits and restore the balance between body and spirit. Refashion the cultural ethos by taking culture seriously. The arts play a large role in fostering the noncommercial aspects of society. It"s time, finally, for a cabinet-level arts and humanities post to foster creative thinking within government as well as throughout the country. Time for serious federal arts education money to teach the young the joys and powers of imagination, creativity and culture, as doers and spectators rather than consumers.   Recreation and physical activity are also public goods not dependent on private purchase. They call for parks and biking paths rather than multiplexes and malls. Speaking of the multiplex, why has the new communications technology been left almost entirely to commerce? Its architecture is democratic, and its networking potential is deeply social. Yet for the most part, it has been put to private and commercial rather than educational and cultural uses. Its democratic and artistic possibilities need to be elaborated, even subsidized.   Of course, much of what is required cannot be leveraged by government policy alone, or by a stimulus package and new regulations over the securities and banking markets. A cultural ethos is at stake. For far too long our primary institutions--from education and advertising to politics and entertainment--have prized consumerism above everything else, even at the price of infantilizing society. If spirit is to have a chance, they must join the revolution.   The costs of such a transformation will undoubtedly be steep, since they are likely to prolong the recession. Capitalists may be required to take risks they prefer to socialize (i.e., make taxpayers shoulder them). They will be asked to create new markets rather than exploit and abuse old ones; to simultaneously jump-start investments and inventions that create jobs and help generate those new consumers who will buy the useful and necessary things capitalists make once they start addressing real needs.   The good news is, people are already spending less, earning before buying (using those old-fashioned layaway plans) and feeling relieved at the shopping quasi-moratorium. Suddenly debit cards are the preferred plastic. Parental "gatekeepers" are rebelling against marketers who treat their 4-year-olds as consumers-to-be. Adults are questioning brand identities and the infantilization of their tastes. They are out in front of the politicians, who still seem addicted to credit as a cure-all for the economic crisis.   And Barack Obama? We elected a president committed in principle to deep change. Rather than try to back out of the mess we are in, why not find a way forward? What if Obama committed the United States to reducing consumer spending from 70 percent of GDP to 50 percent over the next ten years, bringing it to roughly where Germany"s GDP is today? The Germans have a commensurate standard of living and considerably greater equality. Imagine all the things we could do without having to shop: play and pray, create and relate, read and walk, listen and procreate--make art, make friends, make homes, make love.   Sound too soft? Too idealistic? If we are to survive the collapse of the unsustainable consumer capitalism that has possessed our body politic over the past three decades, idealism must become the new realism. For if the contest is between the material body defined by solipsistic acquisitiveness and the human spirit defined by imagination and compassion, then a purely technical economic response is what will be too soft, promising little more than a restoration of that shopaholic hell of hyper-consumerism that occasioned the current disaster.   There are epic moments in history, often catalyzed by catastrophe, that permit fundamental cultural change. The Civil War not only brought an end to slavery but knit together a wounded country, opened the West and spurred capitalist investment in ways that created the modern American nation. The Great Depression legitimized a radical expansion of democratic interventionism; but more important, it made Americans aware of how crucial equality and social justice (buried in capitalism"s first century) were to America"s survival as a democracy.   Today we find ourselves in another such seminal moment. Will we use it to rethink the meaning of capitalism and the relationship between our material bodies and the spirited psyches they are meant to serve? Between the commodity fetishism and single-minded commercialism that we have allowed to dominate us, and the pluralism, heterogeneity and spiritedness that constitute our professed national character?   President Obama certainly inspired many young people to think beyond themselves--beyond careerism and mindless consumerism. But our tendency is to leave the "higher" things to high-minded rhetoric and devote policy to the material. Getting people to understand that happiness cannot be bought, and that consumerism wears out not only the sole and the wallet but the will and the soul--that capitalism cannot survive long-term on credit and consumerism--demands programs and people, not just talk.   The of the new President"s election and the collapse of the global credit economy marks a moment when change is possible. But we will need the new president"s leadership to turn the economic disaster into a cultural and democratic opportunity: to make service as important as selfishness (what about a national service program, universal and mandatory, linked to education?); to render community no less valid than individualism (lost social capital can be re-created through support for civil society); to make the needs of the spirit as worthy of respect as those of the body (assist the arts and don"t chase religion out of the public square just because we want it out of City Hall); to make equality as important as individual opportunity ("equal opportunity" talk has become a way to avoid confronting deep structural inequality); to make prudence and modesty values no less commendable than speculation and hubris (saving is not just good economic policy; it"s a beneficent frame of mind). Such values are neither conservative nor liberal but are at once cosmopolitan and deeply American. Their restoration could inaugurate a quiet revolution.   The struggle for the soul of capitalism is, then, a struggle between the nation"s economic body and its civic soul: a struggle to put capitalism in its proper place, where it serves our nature and needs rather than manipulating and fabricating whims and wants. Saving capitalism means bringing it into harmony with spirit--with prudence, pluralism and those "things of the public" (res publica) that define our civic souls. A revolution of the spirit. Is the new president up to it? Are we?   * Benjamin R. Barber, is a distinguished senior fellow at Demos. Visit the related web page
	View more stories