Thomas Homer-Dixon argued in his book Ingenuity Gap that in the West our "triumphalism is dangerously self-indulgent, and even delusional." He agreed that "capitalism, science, and liberal democracy ... have made extraordinary contributions to human prosperity and freedom" but our "triumphalism is partly based on a selective reading of the evidence." The problems that arise from this system are "downplayed or ignored" and we "assume agency where there may be mainly good luck." Therefore, we accept the current version of capitalism, where "economic and political processes are intimately entangled," as the final goal for humanity, giving no attention to its inherent problems -- hurting not just others, but ourselves as well.

There are many aspects that must be looked at, but I will discuss five specific problems with the current system of predatory capitalism or corporate globalization (domestic and international): technology, wage labor, specialization, labor market flexibility (worker insecurity), investment/intellectual properties, and Third World debt.

Modern capitalism according to Dixon has created "overlapping and fragmented realities" which had all become mere "extentions of our egos" -- meaning that "nearly everything we do and create through capitalism is made to the measure of our human needs and aspirations." The result of our isolated cities is that we "no longer care about, understand, or recognize the importance of this natural world." We can supply ingenuity through our technology but we fail to recognize that "they also produce self-absorption, introversion, and hubris."

Chattel slavery, to my understanding anyway, is when man is a mere property, subordinated to a higher being to which he has no influence over, and is without control nor the security that would make possible the exercise of creativity. It is important to remember that a century ago wage labor was regarded as no different from chattel slavery -- a view that was widely shared among mill workers, artisans, and even Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans alike. The logic of "gaining wealth forgetting all but self" was condemned as a demeaning vision of humanity -- a return to "monarchical principles."

According to David Ellerman, "the mainstay of capitalist thought [is] that the moral flaws of chattel slavery have not survived ... since the workers, unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary wage contracts." Ellerman counters that "in the case of capitalism, the denial of natural rights is [only] less complete," that the worker is only a residue of a "legal personality."

Ellerman offers a simple but cutting analogy:

"When a robbery denies another person's rights to make an infinite number of other choices besides losing his money or his life, and the denial is backed up by a gun, then this is clearly robbery even though it might be said that the victim is making a 'voluntary choice' between his remaining options."

Wage labor thus leaves the worker with three choices: sell their labor, become unemployed or compete in an increasingly centralized market in which monopolies are heavily subsidized with "corporate welfare," a choice that is inclined to become like the second -- a voluntary choice, but a severely limited one. It is like the American election: there is A and B, while C is barely a choice and D, E, F, G, does not even make an appearance. The normal counter would be to "accept it, it could be worse," while the idea of creating a more just system where free choice is truly exercised does not even arise.

It seems that this fundamental inequality, between the worker and employer, can be overcome by putting the control of production in the hands of the workers -- in turn, the important dimensions of freedom will be increased. Adam Smith, the purported father of modern day capitalism, perhaps the biggest lie ever told (that is if his real economic theory of "capitalism" matters at all) suggests that when a man becomes a mere tool of production, highly specialized to conduct a specific task, void of other skills, he "has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention." He can create the doors of a car, but is clueless and untrained about its other functions: the intricate structure of the engine, the sturdiness of the wheels, the safety standards it must adhere to and so forth -- all escapes his knowledge because he is "highly specialized." He "generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."

Notice that "specialization," as heavily promoted today in many school systems, does not adhere to the system of capitalism. In fact, this form of training is a gross violation of not only the principles of capitalism, but of humanity as well, in the deepest sense. It is a degrading notion that pays no heed to the intricate mental capabilities and needs of humans -- a man is left divided into mere fragments, demoralized, and discouraged to take control of his own life beyond the superficialities. He is an automaton of a higher will, subjected to perhaps the worst form of slavery, the other being "slavery by force."

For the sake of not being misunderstood or subjected to intentional incomprehension, it is important to point out that I am using the term "highly specialized" in a peculiar fashion. In my opinion, a teacher is specialized within his chosen subject, but whether he is a mere fragment or not is determined by the amount of security, control, freedom and creativity he can exercise within his chosen profession -- within this context, he is not "highly specialized" in the same way a cashier would be. It is not the job that is degrading (all workers are dignified in the work they do ... most anyway), but it is the fact that the worker is denied true control. Notwithstanding, I leave the reader to decide to what this term applies to.

Beyond these generalities, we turn to specific alternatives presented by many creative and practical thinkers -- those of the scholarly world, workers union, a factory foremen, and everyday working people.

We are exercising peace and freedom in chains and I refuse to boast, celebrate, and be satisfied with such a system.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood