Support for the Community Economy - Essay Example

?SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY ECONOMY The current of politics and the economy exhibits a vastly different set of principles than those that are the foundation of the concept of the community economy. While Gibson-Graham, in A Postcapitalist Politics, describes the entire theory of as well as the current state of the community economy, the current system is thoroughly critiqued in Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is closely tied to several concepts that I am opposed to, but concepts that also play a role in my life each and every day. The neoliberal economy is connected to globalization, devolution of ethics, and ultra-free marketer capitalism, as I see it. Specifically, the form of globalization that characterizes the current economy is one that seeks to establish one universal, synthetic culture that is entirely open to capitalistic rigidness, while at the same time rejects and erodes the older, deeper culture and traditions of individual societies and peoples. This hurts the world at a local level, and is bad for the greater population—for this general reason, I support the community economy as an alternative. Harvey’s critique of the system that the world depends on today points out how neoliberalism and capitalism have affected what society’s priorities are. He says that countries using such a system “typically favor the integrity of the financial system… over the well-being of the population or environmental quality” (Harvey 71). This is a concept that I fundamentally disagree with, as I see it as a violation of business ethics and a lack of concern for two things that are of utmost importance—human life, and the condition of the planet we inhabit. Harvey also describes how neoliberalism enforces a redistribution of resources. This redistribution, however, is not the type that is favored by more communal systems, such as Marxist theory, but instead works quite the opposite. While many people may be conditioned to believe that capitalism is completely naturally in allowing money and wealth to flow where it is earned, it can accurately be said that, just as socialism may redistribute resources to the poor according to need, the neoliberal system is a redistribution of wealth to the upper classes (Harvey 9). Beyond the manipulation of wealth, neoliberalism also robs the population of some of its sovereignty. While citizens entrust their government with basic functions and resources, neoliberalism encourages the government to redistribute those responsibilities and resources to private corporations (Harvey 77). This is, in a sense, taking power from the hands of the government, which represents the whole population, and placing it in the hands of the few who have a private interest in profit. Indeed, this is a complete contradiction in my view. Harvey’s critique continues along these lines. He highlights two particular misgivings about the current system, one being the capitalist fixation with technology as a solution for everything. In reality, he says, technology is tied to the destruction of the environment, social breakdowns, and crises (Harvey 69). The even greater problem, however, is that neoliberalism has become so ingrained in law and society that it has created an inescapable web, making it extremely difficult for society as a whole to undo what groundwork has been laid (Harvey 63). These all demonstrate the complete lack of consideration in the modern economy for the community, for local benefit, and for human happiness. I do not support such an approach, as I believe in having a consideration for the well-being of all people, in following the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do to you, and in promoting the concepts of liberty and happiness rather than an unequal socio-economic systems that brings wealth and power into the hands of the few. The benefits of the community economy, as an alternative to capitalism, are superfluous. Many movements exist already that are rooted in the community economy’s concept, which is basically counterhegemonic. These include the idea of fair-trade goods, farmer’s markets for direct benefit to producers, worker takeovers of corporations, anti-sweatshop movements, and calls for a living wage for all workers. I support all of these ideas, because they are essentially pro-human, but also because they call for a positive reform in the economy. Furthermore, the benefit of the community economy and its affiliated movements is that “economic decisions are made in light of ethical discussions conducted within various communities.” (Gibson-Graham 79, 80) Already, the community economy holds great appeal to me in its focus not on profit and individual progress, but in a much more grassroots approach. The community economy seeks progress in some ways, and in other ways does not—however, in both senses, it is for the best. The progress it seeks is in bettering the human condition, the standard of living, and relieving the stress caused by competition and ruthless exploitation in capitalism. On the other hand, it does not advocate the “progress” of abandoning culture and tradition that some deem less than civilized; rather, it encourages localities to embrace their traditions and focus on relationships with their neighbors rather than aligning themselves with some universal, non-descript idea of modernization. It also encourages people to be happy where they are, and feel no pressure to “escape” into some larger echelon of society—essentially, it eliminates classism. The community economy may sound like communism to some, but as Gibson-Graham describes it, the community economy is communism “divorced from its historical referents.” (84) The obstacle that the community economy sees is that many people refuse to gravitate toward the underlying idea of communism, where economic activity is view primarily as a communal practice—one that affects everybody and is for everyone’s benefit—rather than as an individual one, as in capitalism (Ibid.). This is extremely important to everyday life, because society’s aversion to seeing anything economic as being strictly individual by default, without a deeper analysis or consideration, can basically cause negative effects for the community. The psychology of economics can make or break the system, and when a person is determined to reap all the benefits for himself and leave as little as possible for others, it is essentially a case of surplus labor and over-consumption. Marx’s idea of surplus labor shows how important labor itself is in the community economy, as Marx explains that there is necessary labor—the labor needed for a worker to account for his own needs and consumption—and then surplus labor, which begins to waste resources, as they are over-produced and over-consumed (Gibson-Graham 89-90). I find that the community economy provides a far superior view on labor, because it asks that people do not overwork themselves or others in order to accumulate a surplus of resources or capital. Basically, when one heaps wealth, it makes less available for others, but only as a result of greed and desire rather than utility. The community economy requires people to act in a courteous manner of only taking what they need, and furthermore fosters a philosophy of spending more time in leisure and relaxation. A thorough example of community economy is when I go camping. I may need firewood. If I find dead trees nearby, I may use them for fuel without damaging the environment, assuming I need the fuel to cook and keep warm. As soon as I use too much wood, or chop extra in order to sell it to the group at my neighboring campsite, I’ve exhibited a capitalist spirit of profit and excess. Showing restraint leaves more resources for others, and still satisfies my needs—all while respecting the environment and showing courtesy for the local area. Most human activities in an average day are really not capitalist in nature, and may even be contrary to it, as Gibson-Graham points out. The community economy, on the other hand, actually conforms more naturally to human nature, as several researchers noted in A Postcapitalist Politics when residents of the Latrobe area marked less than four out of fifty daily activities as capitalist (148-149). When people do volunteer work, when they give labor or goods to their friends and family, or do anything that is not based on self-benefit, they are contradicting capitalist ideals and showing a larger consideration and care for others. I agree completely with having such a mindset, and find that an economy that is built around this would better serve all people. In everyday life, I find that I am, as Harvey points out for all of society, often stuck in the web of capitalism and neoliberalism that has been set in by politics. This, to me, is basically “the system”. I find, however, that I am always cursing the system and looking for ways to undermine it. I am not so much rebellious as alternative. One way I do this is in using alternative energy, for example, as I ride a bike for transportation when I can rather than burning gasoline in my car—in a larger sense, I try to practice alternative economics in order to avoid the mainstream economic style that isn’t sustainable, environmentally healthy, and good for people. Although I don’t usually try to do so, I find that I also tend to buy many fair-trade products, many of which can be found at Whole Foods but also in the form of coffee at many cafes. I always notice and appreciate when I do this, because in some small way it helps undermine the mainstream economy and support an alternative one that has its own rules—the community economy. My favorite community economy activity, however, is visiting the farmer’s market. Here I get fresh produce, I benefit and even speak with the producer, and avoid the middle men that are involved not with the product but only the profit. I find that my peers and I are all in a society that expects us to scramble to find the highest page wage in order to reap as much profit as possible while at the same time working as much as necessary to gain excess. This violates the principle of only doing necessary labor, as we find that the most elite group of human beings, those seeking higher degrees and top tier jobs, are an elite that is determined to hoard a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources. This can be depressing, because it eventually leads to the revelation that everything tends to be a competition, and that while anyone can win, everyone can lose. The current system favors centralization, where we all want to reach that center of society and climb to the top—this, rather than be happy where we are. My peers and I, we all leave our local communities to go seek something great, because we see the local region as lacking what we need. We find that we can’t afford so many things, and that we don’t have to simply work to get what we need, but we have to work for someone else in order to be granted the resources they hold. The bottom line for me is that life is stressful, that someone else is always wealthier, more powerful, and more important. In addition, someone is always poorer, weaker, and more obscure. This is all a result of money, the currency that is central to the rat-race of the capitalist economy. The community economy offers an escape from all this. The community economy can be characterized by a long list of words that Gibson-Graham lists, the most outstanding of which are “cooperative”, “local”, “environmental”, “ethical”, “autonomous”, and “harmonious” (87). The attraction of the community economy is that all these words could describe the lifestyle of every person living in such an economy, and that, on the flip side, they are what is lacking in many lives under a capitalist economy. The capitalist economy has demonstrated the potential for great wealth to be accumulated, but the community economy shows potential for great equality and common satisfaction with an ethical undertone—because of this, it should be important to all that we adopt this system as a means of supporting one another rather than oneself. Works Cited Gibson-Graham, J. K. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2006. Print. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Print. Read More