Mammom 1; God 0

The resignation of Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral, is a clear sign that things may be about to get rather nasty for the economic justice activists claiming the church's sanctuary in the heart of the City of London. From the start he had welcomed their protest and made them welcome inside the church. The church hierarchy decided to to close the church to put pressure on the protestors - a decision that seriously backfired. Once it closed its doors a conflict seemed inevitable and Giles Fraser has been the casualty.

The worrying signs began with a news story, emanating from the cathedral, that it was losing £20,000 per day because of the closure. This immediately raised several questions: how could a house of God be so lucrative? Why had they voluntarily closed their doors to ensure that this income would be lost? And perhaps most important of all: what would Jesus have thought of all this?

Most historic churches now include a 'gift shop' which sells a range of tat to enhance church funds. While live chickens no longer change hands and the trade is always seemly and made in hushed, respectful voices, you still can't help thinking of Jesus overturning the tables of the money-lenders and questioning what should have been a house of prayer becoming a den of thieves.

This is a shame, because the various parts of the Christian church have a wonderful reputation for taking practical steps towards greater social justice. The fair trade movement arose originally from a Christian inspiration and grew up through the sale of coffee and tea on stalls at the back of churches. A more direct attack on Mammon was found in the work of the Jubilee 2000 movement for the cancellation of debt owed by poor countries, as well as the work of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice.

It seems that the final straw for Giles Fraser was a decision by St. Pauls to join in the legal action by the Corporation of the City of London to sue the protestors and achieve their eviction. We can expect ugly scenes in the City and huge damage to the reputation of the church, as those who are standing up for the poor against an oppressive economic system are battered and bruised on the steps of one of the nation's greatest churches.
. Tweet

Ten Ways to Challenge Capitalism That Wouldn't Frighten Your Grandmother

It appears that the salesmen of capitalism have not been entirely successful. Despite the many years of propaganda we have not abandoned care for our fellow man or woman. We still overwhelmingly support a health service paid for from taxation and would rather a decent pension for all was organized along the same lines than be left to the wolves of the financial markets.

Money is at the heart of the economic system that is not called 'capitalism' by accident, and this is the place where you can begin to extract your own life from that destructive and damaging system. It has also been most conspicuously displaying the tendency towards inequality that is the beating heart of capitalism in the past year.

Below I list some further ideas for challenging capitalism in your everyday life in practical ways. It is important not to be daunted and to maintain your awareness that, as you extract your energy and money, along with millions of others, you are weakening the system. From my perspective everyday actions against capitalism, aside from being less risky and more morally acceptable, are far more threatening than violent revolution.

Those who oppose capitalism have the advantages of creativity and imagination, as well as mutual support. It will always be impractical to oppose capitalism by taking on the state with violence, since the state will always be far better equipped in that department than we are. Such action will actually give energy to the growth dynamic, through policing and medical care of the injured, not to mention sales of weaponry.

So here are ten ideas in domestic subversion. Start today and within a year you can be in the clear for a large part of your daily life.

1. Arrange to buy your vegetables through the nearest organic box scheme
2. Switch all your bank accounts to the Nationwide or Co-op/Smile Bank
3. Shop at the Cooperativebetter still, join your local coop.
4. If you work in the private sector, cut your hours of work at least by half
5. Cook more at home, for yourself and your friends
6. Don’t vote, unless the party you vote for has stated anti-capitalist economic policies
7. Whenever you are talking to somebody involved in business, ask them if their business is a cooperative, and have something to back yourself up if they ask why you asked this question
8. Get an allotment
9. Cut down on your coffee intake, and make sure that what you do buy has been fairly traded
10. Before you buy anything ask yourself how much you know about who made it and how, and move towards products where you have more information and closer ties Tweet

Chinese whispers a siren song

Some surprise has been expressed by the discovery that the wealth that has been generated by Chinese workers making goods to sell to wealthy Westerners has become concentrated in a few hands. Even in an avowedly communist country, 'development' has led inevitably to inequality.

Or perhaps the surprise is rather that the government in China is concerned about this and is devising policies to deal with it. Because, aside from economists who create an increasingly unconvincing litany of metaphors involving water trickling down or raising boats, the reality is that inequality is an inherent part of capitalism.

Without the inspiration of the super-rich and the fear of joining the lumpenproles why would any of us reluctantly climb back onto the treadmill of work - so especially grim at this time of year and following the extended break most of us took with such alacrity (including this blogger!).

Unfortunately, it would appear that the Chinese are under pressure from the UN to follow entirely the wrong route. The problem is being framed in terms of inequality between the urban and rural areas. Urban incomes are three times as high as rural incomes, leading to suggestions from economists that farmers should become more efficient and China should abandon its policy of self-sufficiency in food.

The comparative figures are, of course, utterly misleading. Like all output figures they only measure what is bought and sold and innumerated in cash. Rural peasants in China do not need much income because they mainly rely on self-provisioning and mutual aid. Just as peasants in our own country did until a hundred years ago or so. The benefit or marketisation will not accrue to them and is more likely to increase real inequality.

More on a couple of programmes from the BBC documenting growing inequality here. Tweet

The Fat of the Land

More horrifying and frankly bewildering statistics about the increasing number of fat people in our society were fed to us with our cornflakes this morning. My main confusion arises from the fact that 'by 2050 most of us will be "obese"' which my mind automatically substitutes with 'by 2050 most of us will be dead'. Perhaps it's just the time of year?

You may have noticed that I refuse to use the word 'obese' outside protective quotation marks. This is because being fat is something we all understand: it is a normal human condition resulting from a combination of eating too much and not using up enough calories through exercise or thought (yes, I know, but indulge me!). Obesity, on the other hand, is a medical condition for which, down on the pharm, they are busy developing pills they can sell to us at vastly inflated prices creating fat profits to match their fat customers.

While fat may indeed be a feminist issue it is also decidedly a class issue, but not in the direct way we are led to believe. The relationship between over-eating and health has been found to be related to the structure of society under capitalism, rather than a class-related propensity for eating too many chips. In Britain on the Couch Oliver James argued that the competitiveness inherent in a capitalist economy and the hierarchy it generates leads to low serotonin amongst the ‘losers’ in society.

Later research has shown that the levels of serotonin in the brain are, indeed, lower in middle-aged men and women in lower social classes. A relationship has also been identified between lower serotonin and over-eating, as well as smoking and drinking alcohol to excess. In other words it is the unequal distribution of power, and the chemically based depression this creates, that is a central cause of the increase in obesity.

Food is the most basic of all human needs. Capitalism is failing to meet our need for food adequately. The food that is available is often so adulterated and so lacking in basic nutrition that it creates ill-health and cravings for other, more satisfying foods. The connection between food and the locality, the identity that is built through seasonal foods or local cuisines is being destroyed by a global fast-food culture.

More fundamentally still, the distribution of food between the West and the South is so poor that, we sit unhealthily on our sofas, obediently over-eating, while watching our brothers and sisters starve in Africa or North Korea. This is a fundmenteal indictment of capitalism as an economic system: it is failing in the central role of an economy, the efficient distribution of our most basic commodity, food.

Tweet

Warning the Frog

We are living in interesting times. Far from the fall of the Berlin Wall marking the end of history it has opened up all sorts of possibilities and freed our minds from the hegemony of capitalist ideology. The arena of debate has been released from the straightjacket of the false dichotomy between capitalism and communism. This is a timely turn of events, because we will need all our powers of creative thinking to solve the significant and urgent problems that we face as human beings sharing this beautiful planet.

Although problems such as climate change and global poverty are now figuring large in the public debate the penny has yet to drop that these are but two consequences of a wider problem, caused by the way our economy is organised, caused by capitalism. Many concerned citizens make commendable efforts with individual problems, when their time would be more efficiently spent addressing the source of those problems. This was my conclusion when I published a book during 2006. Much of the content of this blog is extracted from that book. If you would like to have it all in one handy volume you can buy it from me (details here) or my publisher (details here).

The book is called Market, Schmarket! But my opposition to the market is not total. I argue for a change in the rules governing what is a social institution like any other. And my opposition to capitalism does not make me a communist. There is no longer any need to characterise those who question the efficiency and ubiquity of markets as communist fellow-travellers. We have the liberty to explore an infinite range of different ways of deciding how our resources should be shared, how goods and services should be manufactured and distributed. Rather than ensuring the final victory of capitalism, in fact the ending of communist domination of Eastern Europe and its retreat in most other parts of the world has opened up the space for debating these different approaches to economics.

This is an urgent task for, let us be frank, the system we have is not a very good one. Any system that allows deaths from over-consumption in some countries and from under-consumption in others can hardly claim that it achieves efficient distribution. An economic system whose twin objectives are profits and expansion can no more claim to meet our most fundamental human needs for security and well-being.I have frequently been told that if I oppose capitalism I must be a communist. This sort of comment betrays a sad lack of imagination on the part of my interlocutor. My response is that I refuse to believe that a species that has produced the likes of Shakespeare and Gandhi can really not achieve something more exalted in terms of an economic system than capitalism. This is the challenge for us all, not least because if we fail to rise to it the planet on which we all depend will begin to fail to support us. It is a challenge which I make some effort to contribute towards in this book.

An article in the Economist used the metaphor of the frog in the experimental vat in a discussion of the problem of debt. The point about the metaphor is that, because the heat is turned up so slowly, the frog does not realize it is being slowly boiled alive. This sounds to me like the folk myth of the dog in the microwave, since I cannot believe anybody would be allowed to conduct the experiment required to test the idea, but as a metaphor for how our economic system is cooking us all without our really noticing it cannot be bettered. So the message of this blog is: ‘Wake up! Jump out of the vat!’.

Tweet