Finding the roots of addiction in the instability of ‘free markets’

Addiction is big business and obscuring its roots is its ideological handmaiden. Despite the incessant chanting that everything that happens to you is solely your fault, social ills do have social roots.

We need not lay this “personal responsibility” mantra solely at the feet of neoliberal ideologues, for such beliefs pervade capitalist society, even among those who are critical of capitalism’s excesses. New age philosophy, for example, routinely blames the individual for all manner of personal misfortunes and overemphasizes personalities at the expense of collective effort.

An episode of Oprah that featured Nelson Mandela saw Oprah Winfrey repeatedly tell the former president that he had accomplished so much by himself; she was oblivious to his protestations that he could not have brought an end to apartheid except as part of the collective movement of which he was a part. On the personal level, a friend still angrily recounts an incident many years ago when she was mugged, went into a nearby New Age establishment to seek some help and instead was asked, “What did you do to draw in that negative energy?”

Reducing everything to personal activity obliterates that movements animated by organized groups accomplish social change (not the solo efforts of charismatic leaders), and by conveniently laying all fault for social ills at the feet of the marginal such reductions obscure larger social conditions.

AlcoholThe common responses to alcohol and drug addiction very much fall within this pattern. It is true that different personalities have differing susceptibilities to addictive behavior; nonetheless, this can’t be and isn’t anything close to a full picture. Solutions to addiction based on correcting individual behavior are hopeless without analyzing the role of dislocation in capitalist society, argues Bruce K. Alexander in his paper The Roots of Addiction in a Free Market Society. Published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the paper demonstrates that free markets, and the massive dislocation that results from them, are the ultimate causes of addictive behaviors.

Failure to focus on root causes will lead to failure

Writing in the context of a new policy put forth by the city of Vancouver a decade ago that sought to treat addiction through a focus on “four pillars” — treatment, prevention, law enforcement and harm reduction — Dr. Alexander argues that, although an improvement on traditional initiatives that focus on policing, such a focus is woefully short of tackling the root causes. He writes:

“[D]islocation is the necessary precursor of addiction. … [F]ree markets inevitably produce widespread dislocation among the poor and the rich. As free market globalization speeds up, so does the spread of dislocation and addiction.

In order for ‘free markets’ to be ‘free,’ the exchange of labour, land, currency, and consumer goods must not be encumbered by elements of psychosocial integration such as clan loyalties, village responsibilities, guild or union rights, charity, family obligations, social roles, or religious values. Cultural traditions ‘distort’ the free play of the laws of supply and demand, and thus must be suppressed. In free market economies, for example, people are expected to move to where jobs can be found, and to adjust their work lives and cultural tastes to the demands of a global market.” [page 1]

Ignoring these larger forces, argues Dr. Alexander, who has more than four decades of experience researching addiction, is responsible for the ineffectiveness of efforts to contain addiction.

“Attempts to treat or prevent addiction that ignore the connection between free markets, dislocation, and addiction have proven to be little better than band-aids. Addressing the problem of addiction will require fundamental political and economic changes. … [S]ociety, as well as individuals, must change. It requires moves towards good government and away from policies that undermine our ability to care for one another and build sustainable, healthy communities.” [page 2]

Dr. Alexander defines addiction more expansively than is ordinary, arguing that a compulsion for money, power, work, food or material goods are as dangerous and resistant to treatment as is addiction to illegal drugs. These addictions are a “desperate substitute” in the wake of dislocation from intimate ties between people and groups. This pattern is repeated in disparate societies around the world; no corner has been spared penetration by global capitalism during the past two centuries. Continual reinforcement is needed to maintain the consumption that is the engine of free markets.

“[E]stablished ‘free’ market societies require the continuing presence of powerful control systems. Carefully engineered management, advertising, taxation, and mass media techniques keep people buying, selling, working, borrowing, lending, and consuming at optimal rates, deliberately undermining the countervailing influences of new social structures that spontaneously arise in modern families, offices, factories, etc. Thus, opportunities to re-establish new forms of psychosocial integration are suppressed.” [page 9]

A pattern found across societies and times

The high rates of poverty, economic disparity, divorce, children diagnosed with “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” and many other indicators of dislocation within U.S. society are well known, but Dr. Alexander draws on the disparate examples of the Indigenous peoples of Pacific Canada, Scottish peasants and British subjects who lived in the Canadian North in the employ of the Hudson’s Bay Company to illustrate his thesis.

Photo of Vancouver by Andrew Raun

Photo of Vancouver by Andrew Raun

Force was frequently applied to dislocate Indigenous populations. The founding of Vancouver as a port and railroad terminal required the uprooting of almost 100 First Nations villages and systematic destruction of Indigenous culture. Dr. Alexander writes:

“The natives’ lands, which had for centuries been sites for food gathering, communal houses, huge wood carvings, ancestral burial grounds, and invisible spirits became the basis of a free market in real estate almost overnight. Many of their complex cultural practices were outlawed or mocked out of existence. Their famous ‘potlatches,’ elaborate ceremonies in which rich natives gave enormous amounts of food and goods to others according to complex traditional, clan, and personal obligations were the antitheses of free markets. They were prohibited by law from 1884 until 1951.” [page 6]

Even in cases where there was relatively little direct violence or enslavement, military force and other sources of violence were waiting in the wings.

“Of course British authorities always had the lash, the gallows, and the artillery of the royal navy close at hand, and these were called into service at the slightest indication of organized resistance.” [page 25, note 50]

This was true for resistance on the British Islands as well. England’s establishment of a free market society by the early 19th century was achieved through mass displacement and, in the case of Scotland, destruction of cultural institutions that, although far from ideal, did provide social safety nets for the poorest and helped keep starvation at bay during periods of crop failures. Independent peasants were forced off the land so that elites could convert farming from supplying local consumption to producing products for export. This required

“a massive, forced eviction of the rural poor from their farms, commons, and villages and the absorption of some of them into urban slums and a brutal, export-oriented manufacturing system. Those who resisted these new realities too strenuously were further dislocated from their families and communities, by forced apprenticeship of their children, destruction of their unions and other associations of working people, elimination of local charity to the ‘undeserving poor,’ and by confinement in ‘houses of correction’ where they were encouraged to accept their new responsibilities with whips and branding irons.” [pages 9-10]

Those who refused to pull down their houses and leave had their homes burned down by the local sheriff after clan chiefs, induced to join English society, or English landlords bought their formerly inalienable land in the “free market.”

Racial ‘explanations’ for addiction are nonsense

Although it can not be said that there were no social problems among Canadian First Nations peoples before European contact, Dr. Alexander reports in his paper that he has found no mention by anthropologists of any behavior that could be termed addictive, which he attributes to the high level of “psychosocial integration” in societies that had high levels of communality and shared resources. He writes that the popular explanation for widespread alcoholism among Canadian natives (this would also apply to native peoples in the United States) — a racial “inability” to control themselves — is refuted by the lack of addiction before the European drive to wipe out their cultures and languages.

“It was only during assimilation that alcoholism emerged as a pervasive, crippling problem for native people, along with suicide, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and so forth. … ‘Civilization,’ as it came to [eastern Canadian] natives, was administered by militant Jesuits in a century of fanatical religious zeal. This meant destruction of the robust Huron religion and, hence, Huron culture itself, with dislocation as the consequence. Eventually every tribal culture in Canada was engulfed by the overpowering European culture, and every tribe succumbed to the ravages of dislocation, including epidemic alcoholism. Massive dislocation produced massive addiction.” [page 15]

The same pattern was found among dislocated Europeans. Dr. Alexander cites the example of Hudson’s Bay Company employees from Scotland’s Orkney Islands, valued by the company because they were used to far Northern conditions and life at sea, and known for their sobriety. They nonetheless succumbed to widespread alcoholism in the Canadian north, a problem the company could not stamp out no matter how many prohibitions it issued.

Prohibition has not worked in modern times, either — the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s served as fodder to intensify the “war on drugs.” Pervasive propaganda at the time that crack is “instantaneously” addictive is a “fabrication,” Dr. Alexander writes, noting this was falsely claimed for alcohol, heroin and marijuana at various times in the 19th and early 20th centuries. He argues that dislocation, not crack itself, is the cause of crack addiction and that, similar to other substances, most use it without falling into addiction.

Stable communities as the solution to addiction

The solution to reversing addiction, Dr. Alexander writes, is to reverse dislocation and stabilize communities. Doing so, however, requires considerable pushback against pervasive messages that spotlight individuals rather than social causes.

“Changing the terms of this debate is a huge task, since the current manner of speaking of addiction as an individual drug-using disease is maintained by an media army that has been launching this message for decades. People endure this barrage of disinformation partly because it complements a deeply-rooted North American ‘temperance mentality,’ which makes it seem natural to blame social problems on drugs and alcohol and partly because it profits many institutions and professions that treat, police, prevent, and ‘harm reduce’ the putative disease. Those who launch the public information barrage prosper because the ‘War on Drugs,’ which has drawn its justification from it, serves vital commercial and geopolitical purposes for vested interests with very deep pockets.” [pages 19-20]

The “war on drugs” is, for example, a useful tool for the U.S. government to justify continual interference in Latin America, punishing governments that do not fully yield to U.S. dictates, and it also suppresses competition to legal drugs peddled by the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry.

People need to belong to their society, “not just trade in its markets,” Dr. Alexander argues. Imposing fair labor standards and preventing multi-national corporations from pressuring local governments to rescind labor, health, safety and environmental standards would be a better solution than mass migration, as would rebuilding a proper social safety net. He concludes:

“On a global level, substantially reducing the addiction problem requires nothing less than exercising sensible, humane controls over markets, corporations, environments, public institutions, and international agencies to reduce dislocation. This cannot be achieved without conflict, because it will inevitably impede the pursuit of ever-increasing wealth and ever-freer markets. Of course it would be naive to hope for a return to any real or imagined golden age. However, it is at least as naive to suppose that society can continue to hurtle forward, ideologically blinded to the crushing problems that free markets create.” [page 22]

In a rational society designed to meet human need rather than private profit at any cost, this conclusion would be obvious. That it seems a fantastic goal is a morbid manifestation of the cancer that is our economic system.

The magic of the market comes to a national park near you (a poem)

The yuppie couple in the tent next door
Bring in their take-out pizza
Despite all the warnings against keeping food after dark
That’s good
Because if the bears come
They’ll attack their tent and not mine
Though the bears ought to get paid for making an appearance
Since this is a for-profit park
I don’t know what the government would do
If Yosemite stopped being profitable
One concessionaire already controls everything in the park
Would it be allowed to foreclose?
Maybe this is the first step in privatizing the parks
And then it’ll be made so expensive to visit
That only yuppies and the rich will be able to stay there
We’ll sneak into the park disguised as rangers
Then plant food inside the tents to draw out the bears
Putting new meaning into the concept of “eat the rich”

Too much of this will get the bears fired
No one will have civil service protection once the parks are fully privatized
Certainly not the bears
It would be a sad sight to see bears in the unemployment office
With few options
They might wind up in the military
Hopelessly out of their element in the desert
Unless this is seen as an acclimation program for the bears
Under full privatization
Parks will reach their full profit potential
All the hunting licenses that can be sold would be sold
The trees cut down
Until the parks are reduced to desert
And now the bears can come home
When their tours of duty in the desert are finished
Because they will now be acclimated for the parks

With nothing left but barren ground and a few disgruntled bears
Who are hungry too because there is nothing left to scavenge
The land will be of no use except as target practice for the military
And the bears will already be used to bombs dropping
A new way to see the nation
Bomb Yosemite! Bomb Yellowstone! Bomb Arcadia!
The psychological benefits of parks bombing will be immeasurable
If you can bomb your own parks
Bombing other countries will be even easier
Making it easier to export these ideals
More humanitarian bombing will lead to new privatized governments elsewhere
Which will sell bombing rights to their parks cheaper
Enabling the military to cancel its national parks leases
There will finally be no more profits to be made
The private parks company will sell the parks back to the government
They will again be open to all
Which will be fine by the rich
Since they won’t be interested in traveling to a wasteland
And the newly admitted will plant a tree

Happy holidays to you all. If you are in New York City on New Year’s Day and like poetry, considering coming to The Alternative New Year’s Day Spoken Word/Performance Extravaganza, taking place from 2 p.m. to midnight at the Nuyorican Poets Cafe, 326 East Third Street. It’s free and more than 100 poets will preform.

Sorry, Google, I won’t spy on myself for you

I turned down a chance to spy on myself for Google. This was a real offer: Google, picking my address at random (or so it says) offered me a modest sum of money if I would let them install a monitor on my computer that would report on everything I did online.

Google claimed it wanted to better understand what users do online so as to provide a better Internet experience, or something to that effect. It wasn’t hard for me to turn this offer down, despite Google sending me two letters and having someone call me on my home phone. I was not gentle in turning down the offer but, so far, my Internet connection has not been cut off in revenge.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see the real reason for Google taking a personal interest in me and, presumably, untold thousands of others: Advertising.

FenceGoogle evidently seeks further refinements in the algorithms it uses to “tailor” advertising to its Gmail and other users, based on what you are reading or the content of your e-mail. And likely for other, more nefarious purposes. It is disquieting how accepted corporate breaches of privacy seem to be accepted. A son-in-law of a friend, prompted by being asked what he does for a living, actually saw himself as providing a necessary service when he explained how he works for a technology company to tailor advertising to the profile of a user, complaining that non-tailored advertising “would be a waste” — for the recipient of the advertising!

We’ve gone far down a slippery slope when being bombarded by corporate advertising is considered a public service.

This is simply one logical outgrowth of the concept that corporations shouldn’t be taxed. Bus stops, building walls, the insides and outsides of public transportation vehicles, even the sidewalks, are crammed with advertising — city governments ask them to buy advertising space instead of taxing them. National governments borrow from the wealthy and from corporations instead of taxing them; less so can local governments, given the damocles’ sword that corporations can dangle. Tax us? We’ll just move our factory. Voilà! No more pesky taxes to pay.

The ‘right’ to do whatever you want to others

There is no reason to expect technology companies to act any different from those in older industries. It’s not surprising that many Silicon Valley millionaires style themselves as libertarians: What more fundamental “right” could there be for such people than the “right” to be left alone, i.e., to not pay taxes or submit to regulations. Never mind that their newly minted piles of money are built on infrastructure created by government agencies and paid for by taxpayers. The Internet was invented in a Pentagon laboratory; the World Wide Web in a European research laboratory. Global positioning satellites, products of government space programs, are the basis of many a private profit.

The working people whose taxes paid for these technologies aren’t receiving renumeration, but Silicon Valley millionaires certainly are.

So it’s more than a little hypocritical for eight technology companies (AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo) to suddenly declare opposition to government spying programs. The eight corporations grandly call for limiting governments’ authority to collect users’ information; for oversight and accountability; transparency about government demands; respecting the free flow of information; and international treaties to harmonize privacy rules.

It is not beyond notice that these corporations said nothing on this topic until Edward Snowden provided the world with details of spying programs by the U.S. National Security Administration, Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters and others. Indeed, the president of a lobbying group, the Center for Democracy and Technology, admitted in an interview with The Guardian that the eight companies are motivated by a fear of losing business in the wake of revelations of their routine facilitation of U.S. government spying.

The extent to which they have lost some of their public standing due to the uncovering of their cozy relations with spying agencies has resulted in this public-relations effort. Nonetheless, Silicon Valley millionaires’ libertarian principles hasn’t stopped them from using “free trade” agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which has very little to do with trade and much to do with tightening corporate control over society) to get some of their fondest wishes snuck in through the back door.

Technology companies are well represented among the 605 corporate lobbyists who have access to the otherwise secret Trans-Pacific Partnership text, through their own executives and through organizations such as their Information Technology Industry Council.

Why is corporate spying different than government spying?

There is not one word in the jeremiad about privacy from corporate spying. Facebook and some other social-media websites collect more personal information than does the NSA. These torrents of personal information have one core use — to be monetized by Facebook and its cohorts. Advertisers would love to have your personal information in order that they can tailor the advertisements shown you, and follow you with their ads whenever you are online. The more information you willingly hand over to social-media networks, the more they are going to profit from you and the less privacy you have.

Google has decided to supplement its data gathering through direct spying conducted by software directly installed on your home computer. The ability to profit from your detailed personal information by selling it to advertisers and who knows whom else is valuable enough to Google that it is willing to part with minuscule crumbs from its cash hoard to induce you to provide it to them. Maybe next year, Google will offer a small payment if you’ll provide a DNA sample. Many a pharmaceutical company would like to have such information and we should not fall out of our chairs in shock if the libertarian heroes of Silicon Valley are willing to get it for them.

We are outraged by government spying. As we should be. Why, however, is there pervasive silence over corporate spying? Big Data is watching you, and is likely more efficient at it than Big Brother. Is it because capitalist ideology has so inculcated the world with the idea that government is always bad and the private sector is always good? Is it because that ideology’s insistence that creating a profit is the sum of human existence, regardless of who is hurt? It it because corporate domination of every sphere of life has become so taken for granted that it is no more noticed than the air we breath? Is because everything of human creation is being reduced to a commodity, even our own privacy?

Government spying and corporate spying lie along the same continuum. Government is not some disembodied entity floating above society; it is a reflection of the most influential and powerful entities and groups within a given society. The largest industrialists and financiers are those most powerful in a capitalist country — governments thus act on behalf of those interests in opposition to the interests of the working people who comprise the vast majority.

The world system of capitalism requires a center; that center, the United States, necessarily goes the furthest in accommodating these elite interests. It is then no surprise that so much of the spying conducted by U.S. spying agencies concentrates on gleaning industrial and trade secrets from other countries and on suppressing domestic peaceful political dissent. The technology companies are among the beneficiaries, making their sudden privacy advocacy naked hypocrisy, nothing more. I’ll no more spy for Google than for the NSA.

Nuclear energy dangerous to your wallet, not only the environment

The ongoing environmental disaster at Fukushima is a grim enough reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, but nuclear does not make sense economically, either. The entire industry would not exist without massive government subsidies.

Quite an insult: Subsidies prop up an industry that points a dagger at the heart of the communities where ever it operates. The building of nuclear power plants drastically slowed after the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, so it is at a minimum reckless that the latest attempt to resuscitate nuclear power pushes forward heedless of Fukushima’s continuing discharge of radioactive materials into the air, soil and ocean.

Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant, Switzerland (photo by Roland Zumbühl)

Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant, Switzerland (photo by Roland Zumbühl)

There are no definitive statistics on the amount of subsidies enjoyed by nuclear power providers — in part because there so many different types of subsidies — but it amounts to a figure, whether we calculate in dollars, euros or pounds, in the hundreds of billions. Quite a result for an industry whose boosters, at its dawn a half-century ago, declared that it would provide energy “too cheap to meter.”

Taxpayers are not finished footing the bill for the industry, however. There is the matter of disposing radioactive waste (often borne by governments rather than energy companies) and fresh subsidies being granted for new nuclear power plants. None of this is unprecedented — government handouts have the been the industry’s rule from its inception. A paper written by Mark Cooper, a senior economic analyst for the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment, notes the lack of economic viability then:

“In the late 1950s the vendors of nuclear reactors knew that their technology was untested and that nuclear safety issues had not been resolved, so they made it clear to policymakers in Washington that they would not build reactors if the Federal government did not shield them from the full liability of accidents.” [page iv]

Nor have the economics of nuclear energy become rational today. A Union of Concerned Scientists paper, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies, states:

“Despite the profoundly poor investment experience with taxpayer subsidies to nuclear plants over the past 50 years, the objectives of these new subsidies are precisely the same as the earlier subsidies: to reduce the private cost of capital for new nuclear reactors and to shift the long-term, often multi-generational risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors. And once again, these subsidies to new reactors—whether publicly or privately owned—could end up exceeding the value of the power produced.” [page 3]

The many ways of counting subsidies

Among the goodies routinely given away, according to the Concerned Scientists, are:

  • Subsidies at inception, reducing capital costs and operating costs.
  • Accounting rules allowing companies to write down capital costs after cost overruns, cancelations and plant abandonments, reducing capital-recovery requirements.
  • Recovery of “stranded costs” (costs to a utility’s assets because of new regulations or a deregulated market) passed on to rate payers.

Yes, you read that last item correctly. Even when the energy industry receives its wish to be rid of regulation, it is entitled to extra money because of the resulting rigors of market pressures.

John Amos Power Plant in West Virginia (photo by Harry Schaefer/National Archives)

John Amos Power Plant, West Virginia (photo by Harry Schaefer/National Archives)

The amount of government subsidies for nuclear (and for oil and gas) is far greater than that for solar energy, despite Right-wing attempts to exploit the Obama administration’s generous loan guarantees to failed California solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra. A primary source for Right-wing disinformation campaigns against renewable energy appears to be a report by the U.S. Energy Information Agency that lists direct federal government subsidies to renewables as significantly larger than for nuclear or for natural gas and petroleum liquids for fiscal years 2007 and 2010.

The report, prepared at the behest of three hard-line Republican members of the House of Representatives, was narrowly focused, and notes that it “do[es] exclude some subsidies.” And, as a snapshot, the decades of previous handouts to nuclear, oil and gas companies are not accounted for. Nor does the Energy Information Agency report account for legacy costs — solar and wind power, for example, do not leave behind tons of radioactive waste as does nuclear energy.

Numerous research papers paint a fuller picture. A Congressional Research Service report found that nuclear power had received $74 billion for research and development by the U.S. government for the period 1948 to 1998, more than all such money given for fossil fuels, renewables and energy efficiency combined.

A report by the venture-capital firm DBL Investors, Ask Saint Onofrio, reports that nuclear energy cumulatively has received four times more subsidies than solar energy in California, and that nuclear subsidies were higher than solar in 2011 and all previous years. Nuclear has received $8.2 billion in subsidies in California, while providing the state with three percent of its power in 2012.

The uneconomical state of nuclear power is a global phenomenon, not limited to any one place. A comprehensive study prepared for the Green Party of Germany’s Heinrich Böll Stiftung, The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update, reports:

“Up to now, nuclear power plants have been funded by massive public subsidies. For Germany the calculations roughly add up to over 100 billion Euros and this preferential treatment is still going on today. As a result the billions set aside for the disposal of nuclear waste and the dismantling of nuclear power plants represent a tax-free manoeuvre for the companies. In addition the liability of the operators is limited to 2.5 billion Euros — a tiny proportion of the costs that would result from a medium-sized nuclear accident.” [page 5]

The paper later says:

“Successive studies by the British government in 1989, 1995, and 2002 came to the conclusion that in a liberalised electricity market, electric utilities would not build nuclear power plants without government subsidies and government guarantees that cap costs. In most countries where the monopoly status of the generating companies has been removed, similar considerations would apply.” [page 51]

New plants are being built, with new subsidies

Significant cost overruns are the norm in building nuclear power plants, and it isn’t investors who are on the hook for them.

Three nuclear projects are under construction in the United States and two in Western Europe, a group that features an assortment of cost overruns and generous guarantees:

• The two new Vogtle reactors in Georgia are already $900 million over budget although their completion date is four years away. The largest owner, Southern Company, has received $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees. Overruns at this plant are not unprecedented; the two existing reactors cost $8.7 billion instead of the promised $600 million, resulting in higher electricity rates.

• The Watts Bar 2 nuclear reactor in Tennessee has seen its cost rise to $4.5 billion from $2.5 billion. (This is technically a restart of a unit on which construction was suspended in 1985.) The existing reactor at this site has a history of safety problems.

• The Summer 2 and 3 reactors being built in South Carolina have already caused rate payers there to endure a series of rate increases.

• In October 2013, British authorities approved a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point, England, that features subsidies designed to give the owner, Électricité de France, a guaranteed 10 percent rate of return on the project. Power from the plant will be sold at a fixed price, indexed to the consumer inflation rate. In other words, The Independent reports, “should the market price fall below that [agreed-upon] level the Government would make up the difference.” The agreed-upon fixed price is currently double the wholesale price for electricity.

• Olkiluoto-3 in Finland was supposed to have cost €3 billion, but by August 2009 its price had risen to €5.3 billion.

High costs despite high subsidies

There would at least be a small silver lining in this dark picture if the electricity produced were cheap. But that’s not the case. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power in France tripled and in the United States the cost increased fivefold, according to the Vermont Law School paper [page 46].

Then there are the costs of nuclear that are not imposed by any other energy source: What to do with all the radioactive waste? Regardless of who ultimately shoulders these costs, the environmental dangers will last for tens of thousands of years. In the United States, there is the fiasco of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. The U.S. government has collected $35 billion from energy companies to finance the dump, which is the subject of fierce local opposition and appears to have no chance of being built.

Presumably, the energy companies have passed on these costs to their consumers but nonetheless are demanding the government take the radioactive waste they are storing at their plants or compensate them. As part of this deal, the U.S. government made itself legally responsible for finding a permanent nuclear-waste storage facility.

And, eventually, plants come to the end of their lives and must be decommissioned, another big expense that energy companies would like to be borne by someone else. The Heinrich Böll Stiftung study says:

“[T]here is a significant mismatch between the interests of commercial concerns and society in general. Huge costs that will only be incurred far in the future have little weight in commercial decisions because such costs are “discounted.” This means that waste disposal costs and decommissioning costs, which are at present no more than ill-supported guesses, are of little interest to commercial companies. From a moral point of view, the current generation should be extremely wary of leaving such an uncertain, expensive, and potentially dangerous legacy to a future generation to deal with when there are no ways of reliably ensuring that the current generation can bequeath the funds to deal with them, much less bear the physical risk. Similarly, the accident risk also plays no part in decision-making because the companies are absolved of this risk by international treaties that shift the risk to taxpayers.” [page 17]

The British government, for instance, currently foots more than three-quarters of the bill for radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and for nuclear legacy sites. A report prepared for Parliament estimates that total public liability to date just for this program is around £50 billion, with tens of billions more to come.

Liability caps for accidents are also routine. In the U.S., the Price-Anderson Act, in force since 1957, caps the total liability of nuclear operators in the event of a serious accident or attack to $10.5 billion. If the total is higher, as it surely would be, taxpayers would be on the hook for the rest. As a further sweetener, the Bush II/Cheney administration, in 2005, signed into law new nuclear subsidies and tax breaks worth $13 billion. The Obama administration, attempting its own nuclear push, has offered an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees to underwrite new reactor construction, again putting the risk on taxpayers, not investors.

The Vermont Law School paper aptly sums up this picture with this conclusion:

“If the owners and operators of nuclear reactors had to face the full liability of a nuclear accident and meet the alternatives in competition that is unfettered by subsidies, no one would have built a nuclear reactor in the past, no one would build a reactor today, and anyone who owned one would exit the nuclear business as quickly as they could.” [page 69]

If we had a rational economic system, they surely would.

A path toward bringing banks under democratic control

The struggle to create a democratic economy based on human need requires finding a path to a drastically smaller financial industry. Banking should be a utility, under public control and existing to serve the productive economy, in contrast to its current incarnation as an uncontrollable behemoth that exists to extract wealth from all other human activities.

storm over banksGiven the stranglehold of financiers over the world’s economies, democratizing banks will be no easy task. But it can done. Countries such as Norway and Sweden have nationalized their banks, only to promptly hand them back to private owners.

As always, a word of caution is in order: Although the financial industry acts as both whip and parasite in relation to the productive economy (providers of tangible goods and services) — the whip spurring ever harsher working conditions and intensifying the movement of production to low-wage havens and the parasite extracting money from every possible human activity — there is no neat separation of finance from the productive economy in capitalism. Many manufacturers have financial subsidiaries, for instance, and corporate executives grow wealthy from stock-market bubbles inflated by speculators and other financial manipulations.

The giant piles of money thrown into speculation are the products by industrialists’ profits created through exploitation of employees. There is a symbiotic relationship between financiers and industrialists; together they constitute a globalized class that maintains power through a web of institutions while scrambling to manage the ceaseless instability of capitalism. Although the financial industry is powerful, nonetheless there is not a small cabal of bankers who somehow control everything, an idea rooted in Right-wing conspiracy theories that easily shade off into anti-Semitism.

Caveats in place, the power of financiers must be broken to make any meaningful progress toward a democratic economy. What would a real socialization of banking look like? Specifics would naturally vary from country to country, but the Left Party of Germany has put forth a plan for the socialization of the German banking system that can serve as an excellent starting point for discussion. The Left Party’s model is based on specific aspects of existing local German banks, but contains concepts that are applicable to any country.

The report, How a Socialization of the German Banking System Might Look Like, written by Axel Troost and Philipp Hersel, envisions a banking system based on credit unions (some owned cooperatively by members and others owned by municipal governments) and democratized state-owned banks. Private banks would be either closed or drastically shrunk, depending on their solvency. All banks would be responsible to supervisory boards comprised of representatives of community organizations such as trade unions, environmental groups and consumer associations, and citizens directly elected in community votes.

Requiring banks to provide only basic services

All remaining banks would concentrate on what the report terms the core “PSL” functions — payments, loans, savings. Socialized banks would ensure a “low-cost system of payments including a corresponding supply of cash”; finance public- and private-sector investment that is socially and economically useful; and be secure and sustainable places for savings to be held. In the Left Party conceptualization:

“[S]ocialisation should be regarded as the subordination of the financial sector to steering and control by society and the anchoring of the sector in society.” [page 6]

The report stresses that a reduction in the size of the banking system is unavoidable, both to curtail its influence and to eliminate speculation:

“The false principles which have become established in recent decades were primarily propagated by the financial markets: shareholder value, lean government, competition to attract investment and tax competition. This process needs to be reversed, and the financial sector needs to be reduced to the role of a service provider for the overall economy. …

The aim has to be to substantially reduce the size of the financial sector and to diminish its economic and political power. As a service provider for the real economy and society, the financial sector must not be understood any longer as a place where value is added on its own account, but must be regarded as infrastructure needed for the economy as a whole.” [page 5]

Toward that end, private banks would largely disappear, as far as possible through insolvency. Private banks that remain solvent after all liabilities are placed on the balance sheet and who are so interwoven into the larger economy that their immediate shuttering would unravel other banks and enterprises would not be eliminated, but brought under public control and drastically shrunk in size in a manner that would not cause a cascade of collapses in connected banks and enterprises.

All banks would have to put all liabilities on their balance sheet for inspection, including non-performing loans and bad assets; they would no longer be able to hide them. Those without enough assets to cover the losses would be shut down. European law insures all deposits up to €100,000, and that would remain in force. Shareholders would be wiped out, however, and creditors would absorb losses, not taxpayers.

Only if an institution could not be shut down without causing a cascade of losses in other banks and enterprises would any government money be injected, but in these (hopefully rare) cases, shareholders and creditors would be wiped out and the government would assume ownership. The government would then restructure the bank so it would only perform the core “PSL” functions described above.

Credit unions as the foundation for banking

The current German banking system consists of three “pillars”:

  • Public-law banks (municipality-owned local credit unions and state banks).
  • Cooperative banks (credit unions cooperatively owned by their members).
  • Private banks (which operate across the country and include dominant institutions such as Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank).

The municipal- and cooperatively-owned credit unions have have continued to function well since the economic crisis struck. These continue to provide loans to small and medium-sized enterprises and basic services to depositors, and do not engage in speculation. The state banks (banks owned by the state governments within Germany) were supposed to act like the municipal credit unions (on a larger scale) but instead mimicked private banks by engaging in risky businesses outside their original mandates, saddling taxpayers with covering losses. Private banks concentrated on speculation and have done the worst of the pillars; moreover, despite receiving bailouts, private banks provide the least amount of credit.

Putting all banks on the model of the municipal- and cooperatively-owned credit unions, prohibiting speculation and limiting them to the core “PSL” functions would be the outcome of a socialized banking sector. Simply making banks public is insufficient, the Left Party report says:

“It would appear that banks in public and co-operative ownership can at least partially evade the dictates of the desire for profit. However, public ownership alone is no guarantee that an institution will take this opportunity. But private commercial banks have no alternative to an unconditional orientation to profits, because the financial markets systematically enforce the dictate of the profit motive. In view of this, a socialisation of private commercial banks can probably only succeed if they have first been liberated from the dictate of the profit motive by being transferred to public or co-operative ownership.” [page 8]

A key to the success of the municipal- and cooperatively-owned credit unions is that they operate on a small scale and are anchored in their immediate city or region.

“[Germany’s municipal- and cooperatively-owned credit unions] tend to be small-scale and very much anchored in their region. This includes on the one hand the municipal or regional ownership or patronage, and on the other hand the networking with stakeholders like local chambers of industry, commerce and crafts, sports and charity associations, as well as leading local authorities from religious communities, trade unions and intellectuals. To put it another way: [the credit unions] are integrated into their local environment; they can be said to be territorially socialised. This fits in with the fact that these two pillars of the banking system adhere to a strict territorial principle.” [page 8]

Be socially useful, or be shut down

Surviving state-owned and private banks would be required to adhere to the same core “PSL” functions; those that do not go out of business because those functions would be largely covered already by the credit unions would provide loans for large-capital projects beyond the ability of any credit union on its own. But there would be strict limits on the size of any bank and no bank would be allowed to be a national business. Socialized state and regional banks would coordinate on the large projects. Those larger banks are foreseen as being owned by the credit unions to provide another check on their behaviors.

Limits on territory and legal orientation toward social usefulness are see as as keys toward the goal of converting banking into a utility serving society:

“The [municipal and cooperative credit unions] show that a bank can be very successful if its statutes stipulate that its purpose is not abstract orientation to profit, but the exercise of a certain business model in a certain region. … A socialised bank must be characterised by the fact that the core functions of payments, savings and loans (PSL) are stipulated in its statutes as the area of its operations and its business model, and that these activities are only carried out in a certain geographical area. The region covered by the business operations determines which geographical section of a society is responsible for the societal control.” [page 11]

Nonetheless, a federal system of strict regulations would be implemented, including much higher capital requirements, caps on executive salaries and a ban on bonuses and stock options, an extra tax on the highest earners in banking, a tax on all financial transactions, and a requirement that half of the supervisory boards of banks would be allocated to employees and their trade unions and half must be filled by women.

Although the Left Party model is based on existing conditions in Germany, the basic principles are easily adaptable to other countries. Credit unions, for instance, are common in many countries. At least 7,000 exist in the United States (ordinarily owned by members) and more than 300 exist in Canada, although in those two countries they are buffeted by capitalist market forces and face hostility for being an alternative to large private banks. Similar to Canada, the number of credit unions in Britain is declining as smaller ones in particular face difficulties.

Socialization of the banks includes community control, strict restrictions on financial activities, an end to speculation and an environment in which market forces no longer prescribe behavior. The point of a market is to serve humanity — a strong contrast to the current world capitalist system, in which human beings exist to serve markets. And markets are nothing but the aggregate interests of the most powerful industrialists and financiers.

The Left Party model for bank socialization isn’t a ready-made formula, nor does it purport to be one, but is does provide a valuable starting point. Socializing banks is one only component of the broader task of creating a better world. Viable plans such as the Left Party’s nonetheless explode the idea that the current economic system is the only way to organize society — which is just as much an elite-propagated myth as the idea that a monarch is chosen by God to rule over everyone.

It’s not science fiction anymore: Monsanto seeks to control world’s food

The ultimate monopoly would be control of the world’s food supply. Although not the only multi-national corporation attempting to achieve the ability to dictate what you eat, Monsanto Company appears the most determined.

wheatAlready infamous for toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Agent Orange and dioxin, Monsanto’s march toward control of the world’s food supply is focused on proprietary seeds and genetically modified organisms. No corporation or corporate oligarchy possessing a food monopoly would be desirable, but Monsanto is a particularly frightening contender. So powerful is the company that a special law tailored for it was snuck into a congressional appropriations bill funding U.S. government operations.

The Farmer Assurance Provision — better known by its nickname, the “Monsanto Protection Act” — was quietly slipped into an appropriations bill in March by a Missouri senator, Roy Blunt. The appropriations bill had to be passed to avert a government shutdown, providing an opportunity to do a favor for the powerful. Slipping off-topic special measures into bills hundreds of pages long is routine in the U.S. Congress.

Efforts to remove the language from the bill have so far failed. The relevant language is this:

“Directs the Secretary [of Agriculture], if a determination of non-regulated status under the Plant Protection Act has been invalidated, to authorize movement, introduction, continued cultivation, or commercialization for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status.”

In plain language, what the above passage means is the U.S. Department of Agriculture is required to ignore any court order that would halt the planting of genetically engineered crops even if the department is still conducting a safety investigation, and rubber-stamp an okay. The group Food Democracy Now! summarized the implications of that requirement:

“This dangerous provision, the Monsanto Protection Act, strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer and farmer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, citizens and the environment.”

The Monsanto Protection Act expires at the end of the government’s fiscal year, September 30, with the expiration of the appropriations bill of which it is a part, but the language could easily be included in next year’s appropriations bills. As outrageous as the special provision is, it is consistent with the basic methodology of public safety in the United States — new products are routinely put on the market with minimal testing (or the product’s manufacturer providing the only “research” and declaring it safe), and can’t be removed from sale until independent testing determines the product is unsafe.

Sell first, ask questions later

In other words, it’s not up the company selling a product to prove it is safe; it is up to others, after the fact, to prove that it is unsafe. This is the case with, for example, chemicals and pesticides. And it is the case for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). No corporation has more riding on GMOs than Monsanto. That is not merely because GMOs have steadily taken an increasing share of foods grown for animal and human consumption, but because of genetically engineered seeds. A report by the Center For Food Safety and Save Our Seeds puts the magnitude of this change in stark terms:

“The vast majority of the four major commodity crops in the U.S. are now genetically engineered. U.S. adoption of transgenic commodity crops has been rapid, in which [genetically engineered] varieties now make up the substantial majority: soybean (93 percent transgenic in 2010), cotton (88 percent), corn (86 percent), and canola (64 percent).” [page 5]

Seeds containing genes patented by Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, account for more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S. and 80 percent of U.S.-grown corn, according to a separate report by Food & Watch Watch. These seeds have been engineered to be resistant to insects or to withstand the application of herbicides. The report, “Monsanto: A Corporate Profile,” states:

“Monsanto not only markets its own patented seeds, but it uses licensing agreements with other companies and distributors to spread its traits throughout the seed supply. … The acreage on which Monsanto’s [genetically engineered] crop traits are grown has increased from a total of 3 million acres in 1996 to 282.3 million acres worldwide and 151.4 million acres in the United States in 2009. … Monsanto’s products constitute approximately 40 percent of all crop acres in the [U.S.]. …

“A lawyer working for DuPont, the next largest competitor in the seed business, said ‘a seed company can’t stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business, essentially they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do.’ ” [page 8]

DuPont is one of the world’s largest chemical corporations and a major competitor in many fields. If an enterprise as powerful as DuPont finds itself at the mercy of Monsanto, what chance does a family farmer have?

The reference to “Roundup Ready” in the quote above is a reference to a suite of Monsanto agricultural products (soybeans, corn, sugar beets and other crops) that are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Farmers growing these crops with Monsanto seeds can thus spray more herbicides on their crops. Unfortunately, as more pesticides are sprayed, weeds and insects become more resistant, inducing farmers to spray still more and thereby introduce more poisons into the environment.

Patents on life reverses precedent

As with the consolidation of seed companies, the rise of genetically engineered crops and the right to patent living organisms is a recent development. After decades of refusal by the U.S. Congress to allow patents on food-producing plants that re-produce via seeds, it passed a law in 1970 allowing patenting of “novel” varieties produced from seeds.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings in 1980 and 2001 allowing living organisms, including plants, to be patented, opening the floodgates to current corporate practices. A frenzy of acquisition of seed companies and a rapid expansion of patents on seeds and plants ensued. The report by Center For Food Safety and Save Our Seeds summarizes what these changes have wrought:

“As a consequence, what was once a freely exchanged, renewable resource is now privatized and monopolized. Current judicial interpretations have allowed utility patents on products of nature, plants, and seeds, without exceptions for research and seed saving. This revolutionary change is contrary to centuries of traditional seed breeding based on collective community knowledge and established in the public domain and for the public good.” [page 5]

The ETC Group, in its report, “Who Owns Nature?,” also highlights the privatization of a commons:

“In the first half of the 20th century, seeds were overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers and public-sector plant breeders. In the decades since, [biotechnology companies] have used intellectual property laws to commodify the world seed supply — a strategy that aims to control plant germplasm and maximize profits by eliminating farmers’ rights. … In less than three decades, a handful of multinational corporations have engineered a fast and furious corporate enclosure of the first link in the food chain.” [page 11]

Proprietary seeds now account for 82 percent of the world’s commercial seed market. Monsanto, according to the ETC Group, directly accounts 23 percent of the world’s seed sales by itself. Monsanto and the next two biggest seed companies, DuPont and Syngenta, sell almost half.

Once a farmer contracts with a giant seed company, the farmer is trapped. Standard contracts with seed companies forbid farmers from saving seeds, requiring them to buy new genetically engineered seeds from the company every year and the herbicide to which the seed has been engineered to be resistant. Monsanto aggressively litigates against farmers to enforce this provision, dictates farming practices and requires its inspectors to be given access to all records and fields. The company has even sued neighboring farmers whose fields unwillingly became contaminated with Monsanto’s seeds.

Doubts raised on ‘benefits’ of GMOs

Nobody knows the full effects on the environment or human health of these chemicals and GMOs. A recent study published in the journal Entropy found that residues of Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, are found in a variety of foods in the Western diet and in turn can cause cellular damage leading to several diseases, including gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. More than 800 scientists have signed a letter calling for a moratorium on all field trials of GMOs for at least five years, a ban on patents on life forms and declaring that genetically modified crops “offer no benefits to consumers for farmers.”

Genetically modified crops, of course, are carried along by winds and don’t stop at property boundaries. Last month, genetically modified wheat was discovered in the fields of a farmer in Oregon. The Guardian reports that the wheat has never been approved for human consumption and is a variety developed by Monsanto in an experiment that ended a decade ago. Several Asian countries responded to this news by banning imports of U.S. wheat and the European Union advised wheat shipped from the U.S. be tested.

Hoping to expand its reach, Monsanto (and three other corporations) are attempting to corner the market in maize in Mexico, the staple crop’s birthplace. The companies have applied to plant genetically modified maize on more than two million hectares in two Mexican states. Already, according to a report in Truthout, farmers near Mexico City have found their crops contaminated with genetically modified maize.

Sixty-four countries currently require GMO labeling, but such labeling in the United States is bitterly fought by Monsanto and other giant agribusinesses. The companies argue that GMOs are safe, but if they are so proud of their products, why do they resist them being put on a label for consumers to see? Nor does the revolving door between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Monsanto inspire confidence.

Corporate lawyers and others who have done work for Monsanto, for instance, subsequently moved to the FDA, where they gave approval for Monsanto products. Although corporate executives going to work for the U.S. government agencies that regulate them, then going back to their companies, is a common practice, Monsanto has sent an extraordinary number of executives to government posts.

Nonetheless, this specter shouldn’t be looked at overly simplistically as Monsanto being an evil company. It and its competitors are acting in the way that capitalist competition mandates they act — grow or die is the ever present imperative. All industries move toward monopolization (a handful of companies dominating an industry, not necessarily a “pure” monopoly of one); corporations grow to such massive size that they can dominate their societies; and the surviving corporations convert ever more human activity or traditionally public spheres into their private profit centers. This is the natural result of market competition and allowing “markets” to determine social outcomes.

Monsanto happens to be the company that is most ruthless at navigating and further developing these ongoing systemic trends, just as Wal-Mart is the company that is the leader among retailers forcing the moving of production to the lowest-wage countries, squeezing suppliers and exploiting workforces. That does not mean that we should be content to allow Monsanto to grab control of the world’s food supply or make life itself a commodity. Quite the contrary. The specter of any enterprise gaining a monopoly over food is too frightening to contemplate, never mind an enterprise so dedicated to squashing anybody who gets in its way.

The idea of Monsanto (or any other corporation or bloc of corporations) wresting control of the world’s food supply sounds like a bad science fiction movie or a crazy nightmare. But modern capitalism is heading toward that previously unthinkable place. The time is to organize is now, for we never have as much time as we think we do.

Greece’s depression is IMF’s idea of ‘progress’

The International Monetary Fund congratulated itself last week for the splendid job it is doing in Greece, declaring the country “is making progress in overcoming deep-seated problems.” With an unemployment rate of 27.2 percent, an economy that has shrunk by at least 20 percent and children going hungry, one has to shudder at the thought of what a lack of success might look like.

Temple of Zeus photo by Andreas Trepte (www.photo-natur.de)

Temple of Zeus photo by Andreas Trepte (www.photo-natur.de)

The depression in Greece is the logical conclusion of austerity, but while Greece is the first in Europe to arrive it is not alone — the composite eurozone unemployment rate reached a record 12.1 percent in March. The eurozone unemployment rate rose to 24 percent for men and women below the age of 25; the European Union-wide rate is nearly as high.

The IMF’s solution? Eliminate more jobs. In its latest report on Greece, issued on May 3 following its latest inspection visit, the IMF graciously mentioned that Greece’s wealthy don’t pay taxes:

“Very little progress has been made in tackling Greece’s notorious tax evasion. The rich and self-employed are simply not paying their fair share, which has forced an excessive reliance on across-the-board expenditure cuts and higher taxes on those earning a salary or a pension.”

But the IMF report quickly followed up by grumbling that:

“[T]he over-staffed public sector has been spared, because of a taboo against dismissals.”

Perhaps you will not fall off your chair in shock, but it is the latter of these two concerns that gets the attention when the IMF gave its verdict on what it expects the Greek government to do:

“A strong recovery will need to be built primarily on deepening structural reforms. … The government’s welcome public commitment to improving the business environment and accelerating privatization now needs to be matched with results.”

Diktats masquerading as democracy

Those bland-sounding words take on deeper meaning when we examine the “structural reforms” already imposed on Greece by the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank, the “troika” that dictates Greek policy. In February 2012, for instance, the Greek government agreed to reduce the already low minimum wage by more than 20 percent, to freeze all public-sector wages until the unemployment rate falls below 10 percent and to deep cuts in pensions.

The Greek minimum wage is €751 per month (equivalent to US$990 or £636). How well could you live on such a sum?

Overall, wages have fallen 40 percent and health care spending has been cut 25 percent. Meanwhile, most of the money released by the troika goes straight back to lenders, not for internal relief. As a result of this austerity, it is no surprise that retail sales in Greece have declined by 30 percent over the past three years and an estimated 150,000 small businesses have closed. Poverty has become so widespread that an estimated 10 percent of Greek’s children go to school hungry.

All this in a country where its biggest and wealthiest industry, shipping, pays no taxes — its tax-free status guaranteed in the constitution. Greece’s wealthy pay little or no taxes, stashing their cash outside the country. Government employees are the people who can’t evade paying their taxes — yet they are the ones scapegoated for economic troubles. (A common pattern in many countries.)

The IMF made no mention of its own role in bringing about this depression in the May 3 report, instead blaming a “lack of confidence” for Greece’s struggles:

“Looking over the period 2010–2012, the much deeper than expected recession was overwhelmingly due to a progressive loss of confidence. … With fiscal adjustment set to remain a drag on GDP growth for several years to come, the key challenge is to generate the improvement in confidence needed for a recovery in investment to begin to more than offset this drag. This cannot happen unless Greece can secure broad domestic support for the program and the political stability that would come with this.”

Yes, if only Greeks would believe that hunger is a sign of progress, everything would be better! In lieu of a sudden spasm of optimism, generating “broad support” for bleeding the country dry to pay back financiers who made reckless gambles might be difficult.

Ideology masquerading as economics

Although it might be tempting to note that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is unreasonable, reasonableness is besides the point here: Austerity programs are designed with ideology in mind, not with economics based on the real world. One clue to this is that “structural re-adjustment” programs invariably demand sell-offs of public assets — holding fire sales of state enterprises means private capital can scoop them up at very low prices, and profit nicely from doing so at public expense.

The neoliberal concept is that people exist to serve markets rather than markets existing to serve people. Entire countries have been harnessed to the dictates of “markets.” This has long been the pattern imposed by the North on the South through institutions like the IMF; now the stronger countries of the North are imposing it on their weaker neighbors. Taxpayers in those stronger countries are on the hook, also, as some of their taxes go toward the bailout funds, for which bailed-out countries are merely a conduit to pass the money to financiers, often from their own country. Much of the money Europeans lent to Greece was used to bail out German and French speculators.

The race to the bottom, of which austerity programs and the continual shifting of production to locations with ever lower wages constitute crucial components, represents an intensification of market dominance over human life. It is also a result of a scramble to maintain profits, which have been under continual pressure from the economic crisis.

But neoliberalism is not the product of a cabal “hijacking” economies or governments; it is the natural progression of a system that insists “markets” should be the arbiter of all human problems and the model for social relations and institutions. Capitalist markets are not neutral abstractions perched loftily above the Earth; they are the aggregate interests of the wealthiest industrialists and financiers as expressed through the corporations and other institutions they control.

“Markets” dictate that school children faint at their desk due to hunger while billionaires grab ever more. We can do better than this.