Affluence Extremism

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.