You know, I am not a huge fan of economics. There are all sorts of theories and such that sound wonderful and grandiose when they remain theoretical. Try to apply them in real life, and it always seems to wind up the same way. In other words, a select few remain privileged in the system, and the rest have to make do.
It works the same no matter where you go, seemingly.
So it is with most political/economic ideologies and systems.
They might suggest certain things in theory. In reality, watch for those select few that, somehow, always manage to find the most suitable terms towards preserving their empire of privileges and benefits. It does not matter if it is feudalism, totalitarianism, capitalism, or even communism. There is this select few elite group that always remains on top, no matter what. The rest of us, even if we improve in some way, are always looking up. Most of us with some envy.
This is nothing new, of course.
Voltaire once said, "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor."
Remember that he said this during the days before the French Revolution, which was the first huge scale attempt at leveling the playing field. And if there was a place and a time that needed it, it would be pre-Revolution France, which had the "Old Order" of feudalism, under the tyranny of an absolute monarchy. If you have any doubts about how unfair the system was, think of the poverty of a typical medieval village. Small homes, peasants tied to the land, beholden to the local baron. They were indebted, they were not free. And they hardly lived lives of privilege, nor was opportunity for betterment open to them. In other words, they were relegated to hellish lives.
By contrast, look at the excess luxury that the monarchy of France provided for themselves. There are royal palaces and grounds scattered throughout France, but particularly in the Ile-de-France, that area surrounding Paris. Versailles was just the most famous example, and it replaced the Louvre museum, which King Louis XIV felt was inadequate for his needs. Versailles is considered a treasure by today's standards, but can you imagine how expensive it was back in the days of the "Sun King"? The grounds were so elaborate, that trees were maintained to be at the same exact height, so it looked perfectly symmetrical. They do not even do that today there, with the benefit of modern technology. So just imagine what it must have been like back then. Imagine how expensive it would have been to maintain those grounds back then, and then keep in mind that, not all that far away, the King also had property in Marly-le-roi, and another elaborate palace at Fountainbleau.
Was it any wonder that, when the peasants reached their limit, a revolution broke out? Many criticize the French Revolution for it's excesses, and they have a point. But really, did not one extremity breed another, future extremity? After all, let us remember the the French Revolution, and particularly the guillotine that will always be associated with it, was all about leveling the playing field.
Ultimately, it failed. Edmund Burke even predicted that it would, and he was right.
Let us remember that the old order, feudalism, was justified in it's own day.The King had a "divine right" to rule. He was chosen by God.
We may have finally scrapped that old ideology, although some people still seem to feel that they are given a divine right to gain extreme wealth at the expense of the many.
Now, I think this same thing is beginning to take hold on a worldwide scale, under the pretext of what we call "globalization".
I hardly think that I need to explain what globalization is, at least in theory. It is self-explanatory.
Nor does it seem necessary to elaborate on what the impression among many peoples the world over is on the reality of globalization. It privileges the few, at the expense of the many. Increasingly, it is not individuals, as much as a group of individuals, usually in some corporation and/or banking institution, that greatly benefit from the world situation as it presently is.
In real terms, globalization means corporate takeover. Not just in one country, but transcending all borders.
In my recent trip to Europe, you could see the evidence of this all over the place. In a land that, not that long ago (during my lifetime and, most likely, during yours, too), communism was the system people lived under. It deprived people of opportunities, and it was a Utopian system that likely was destined to fail - particularly since the emphasis was not so much on improving the lot of the people, but on keeping up in the endless competition with the capitalist West.
Now, in that same country, you can go to McDonald's, to Burger King, to Subway, to Starbucks. You can buy the same exact clothes that you find here on this side of the Atlantic. You see the same movies playing, and hear the same music. Hell, the very first place we stopped in the very first city we visited, Berlin, Icona Pop's current smash hit "I love it" was playing, and the cashiers of the little tourist shop were singing along. If you did not pay attention to the specifics of the souvenirs being sold, you might as well have been in New York or Chicago, rather than in Berlin. It was a little depressing.
It also is reaching the point where the only difference between Europe and North America, other than government assistance programs being much more abundant in one than the other, is the architecture of the places. Increasingly, traditional European culture, including cuisines that benefit from the diversity of local specialties and traditions in the way things have been made for going on centuries, is yielding to he pressures of "modernization" and "globalization". I saw McDonald's and Starbucks at Potsdamer Platz. Hell, I even saw a McDonald's at Checkpoint Charlie, perhaps as a reminder, a symbol of who exactly won when the Wall fell. There were plenty in Poland, as well.
In fact, I heard that there are more McDonald's in Paris, France, than in Manhattan. That's right, in a city with as rich a culinary tradition as Paris, perhaps the most common eating establishment is Mickey D's. There are other fast food joints that compete with the ever popular McDonald's, as well. In the meantime, some local specialties and eateries have been relegated to history.
This is progress? And we are supposed to believe that the Europeans in general, or perhaps particularly the French specifically, hate Americans? How could they? They dress in the same style, they listen to the same music, watch the same movies and television shows, play the same video games, and eat the same foods. In many cases, they use many of the same English expressions. Perhaps this commonality has bred some resentment by some who, borrowing from a traditionally corporate expression, "think outside the box". After all, familiarity breeds contempt. Some in Europe are beginning to miss some of the old ways, and have begun to desire turning back the clock, at least a little bit. How is that radically different than dissenters in the United States, trying to return the focus to small, organic farms? This is a response to the coporate takeover, and increasingly, it is not just American corporations that enjoy dominance. If you doubt that, listen to how many Americans complain about how the Chinese are taking over, how they own everything these days. The same charge was leveled at Japan a few decades ago, although perhaps there is indeed more legitimacy in this fear about the Chinese takeover, since the population is so huge, and the economy just continues to grow and grow and grow.
Is it surprising that there would be a reaction to all of this? That people would begin to desire having their own identity, either as nations or nationalities with their own traditions, or as individuals rebelling against the corporate imposed mold of what is acceptable? How could there not be a reaction? People want to feel unique. I have heard it described as a de facto human right to feel different, to feel not just like a number. To want to stand out in some way. Nothing is more human than that. Vive la difference!
This brings to mind a story that my father shared on a few occasions. This was about the trip to Hawaii that he and my mom took in the early nineties.
Now, I know Hawaii is an American state, but you go there not because it is like every other state, but because it is so different. There are some truly exotic things in Hawaii that you will not find anywhere else. The pristine waters and beaches, the rainforests with all manner of different vegetation. The year-round warmth and sunshine. The different animals. The volcanoes. The culture. Is this not why most people go to Hawaii?
Yet, he remembered something else, as well. When the plane finally landed at the airport, the people (whom were all Americans) that got off the plane noticed a McDonald's in the airport, and expressed some measure of comfort in the small slice of familiarity. This little piece of home, in an exotic land that, once upon a time, was forcibly taken over by us.
Globalization is another sort of forcible takeover. It might not be with guns, like in the past. There is more subtlety, more tact. It is more sanitized, more politically correct, in that corporate manner that we have all become so familiar with these days.
Indeed, for many (like those mainland American tourists in Hawaii), it can be comforting seeing the same institutions in faraway lands as in your hometown. Perhaps, it may even confirm some measure of superiority and what poses as national pride for many (although I would then wonder why these people would cry foul when China, a land that was closed off but forcibly opened by Western powers, begins to beat us at our own game). Yes, maybe some people will continue to criticize those who long for traditional ways and tastes, and will urge them to get with the program, to accept the inevitable changes as the cleansing broom of modernity sweeps all of these things under the figurative rug, to make things look more presentable on the surface. Perhaps even some day, all of our collective hearts will beat more proudly when we see the same restaurants and dishes available to us when we go overseas, sparing us from having to venture ordering some strange dish in a language that we do not understand, and make no attempt to speak or learn (whatever happened to when in Rome, anyway?).
Perhaps this is indeed what passes for progress. But you might have to read the small print, or listen to that voice at the end of the commercial (you know the ones, particularly for car commercials?), talking a mile a minute, in such a rushed voice that you can barely catch a word, much less the gist of what is being said. We may even miss the meaning, and spirit (or the opposite of spirit, as the case may be) behind what is being said.
In fact, reflecting on it now, I think that is one of the key components of globalization, managing to ignore that small blur of a voice which speaks so rapidly, that it seems impossible that anything is really being said at all. It is that trained auctioneers voice. The voice that warns us of how and when these favorable terms don't apply. It almost makes me wonder if the natives heard a similar voice when they were taken to sign new treaties, because the old ones (which themselves were usually not that old) were deemed outdated and, thus, unacceptable to us. We might not hear, or heed, the voice, but we increasingly have a society here in America that is trained to approach with skepticism, that expects things not to be nearly as good as advertised. Here, in the land of frivolous lawsuits and corporate bailouts used to give CEO's and board members even more huge bonuses, we have long ignored that voice.
But we should not criticize those who are trying to pay close attention, and approaching with caution. In fact, I think perhaps we are a bit envious that we were not a bit smarter ourselves, before swallowing everything that they gave to us without a moment's hesitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment