To All Those Cheerleaders of Capitalism..

(Just a thought)

I promised myself that I wouldn’t let this image sit on my blog without some context for too long.  Since our lecture this week was a condensed one, I wanted to take this blog post as an opportunity to reflect on some of the larger concepts we’ve discussed throughout this semester and (hopefully) generate some thoughts to go towards my final paper topic for this class.  Recently, our discussions in class have seemed to concern themselves, to an extent, with the idea of a potential alternative/solution to capitalism.  For a long time, until a few weeks ago, honestly, I had resigned myself to the idea that there was no real alternative to capitalism, despite how much we may want there to be.  I mostly felt this way because of the ubiquity of capitalism, of which this class has only made me all the more aware.  As I thought about all of the areas of our lives that capitalism has extended itself into—technology, social mediation, information control, war, even education—escape seemed futile. 

            I’ve spoken a few times about the radical, brutal efforts that it would take to over throw capitalism, and for the most part I still believe this to be true.  Overthrowing capitalism does not seem like a likely solution to the inequitable, often exploitative circumstances often brought about by capitalism itself.  We are too ingrained in a capitalist system, too set in our ways.  If you think this mentality is part of the problem, then maybe I sound like a fatalist, but I am yet to see any evidence towards and kind of a real global insurrection against capitalism, so I’m erring on the side of pragmatism here.  So, if we can’t overthrow capitalism, how can we make it a more equitable and less exploitative system?  Is this even a possibility?  I am interested in looking at the idea of a democratic capitalism that can act as a counter example to some of the more virulent oppositions to capitalism such as imperialism, inequity, oppression and exploitation.  I would like to explore the notion of democratic capitalism, and other “types” of capitalism as a final paper or possibly as an extended future blog post.

Rebel Cities-- A Stagnant Revolution?

Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution examines the urban city as both a revolutionary landscape and a pseudo-utopia, where social and political dynamics are constantly at play in altering the space of the city itself.  Throughout the book, author David Harvey attempts to deconstruct the illusion of the city-as-utopia, and instead explores the overlapping social and political dynamics that make the city itself a space of capitalist accumulation and political impotency.  In regards to cities of the “golden era” Harvey states, “The traditional city has been killed by rampant capitalist development, a victim of never-ending need to dispose of over accumulating capital driving endless urban growth no matter what the social, environmental, or political consequences” (xv).  The implication here is that a once socially and politically active place, the city has fallen into a state of disrepair, in which its inhabitants’ primary interests are the maintenance and consumption of rampant capitalism.  The result of this new capitalist driven environment is ultimately, “[…]A totally different kind of city [made] out of the disgusting mess of a globalizing, urbanizing capital run amok” (xvi).  Ultimately, Harvey illustrates how the space of the urban city has declined from a politically charged site of social organization and changes to a complacent, politically stagnant shadow of its former self. 

While Harvey maintains that within the city there is still, “[…A]n impulse towards and longing for its restoration.” (xvii), he calls its restoration into doubt when he states that, “Any spontaneous alternative visionary moment is fleeting; if it is not seized at the flood, it will surely pass” (xvii).  The reasons for this, according to Harvey, are many—spanning from the capitalists’ grasp over the urban city to the apathy and lack of social awareness among youths and adults.  Are we really failures at changing the world we live in?  Are the days of grassroots social activism and citizen lead reform truly over?  The idea irked me to begin with, but what irked me even more was my immediate inclination to side with Harvey.  And that just opened up the floodgates, because I really, really do not want to side with Harvey.

For reasons I can’t quite explain, I have always been fairly obsessed with the idea of living in a large city because I always envisioned them to be diverse political and social spaces where residents could organize and enact a social revolution.  Another reason that Harvey’s statement bothered me (aside from the obvious ‘big picture’ reasons why it should bother me) is that I always had a bit of a fantasy that I was born in the wrong era, like I should have been a hippie in the 1960’s protesting the war and the economy and all of the other life-altering political and social issues that were going on at the time.  I wanted that since I was a kid, since long before I knew just what those issues actually were, simply because I have always had that sort of passion in me.  Harvey made me feel like I had completely and totally missed my chance to be a part of that kind of movement, which saddened me for reasons that surpass even my academic interests.  And I didn’t want to believe it, so I went in search of counter example of contemporary urban social movements that have had some kind of discernable impact on the world today.  

The urban monster and the citizen: Monstro Chamado Cidade.  The city is regarded as the monster, threatening the individual.  Notice the high rise buildings equivalent to the monster's teeth.  This piece is found somewhere in between Vila Madalena and Pacaembu and Sao Paolo. 

"Money Kills Culture"

A modest proposal?

Maybe organized social change has halted, for the moment, but even if that’s the case, we still see individuals persisting towards making their message heard.  I though that graffiti/street art was an interesting social practice to parallel with Harvey’s comments and the space of the city itself.  What struck me about street art was the fact that no one owns it—the canvas is virtually always “borrowed”, or more harshly stolen from the property owner to display their work.  The images I’ve included here specifically target capitalism within the space of the city.  Not only are these images rebellions against capitalisms’ message (compliance, consumerism, commercialism), they are also a rebellion against capitalisms’ purpose (ownership and maintenance).  And so, like a true urban optimist, I am far more inclined to believe that what Harvey points out in Rebel Cities is a deferral of restoration of the city, which needs to be remedied, but not an abandonment of the cause.

The Price of Patriotism

In his book Empire of Indifference: American War and the Fiscal Logic of Risk Management, Randy Martin explores the financial logic that dominated/s the war on terror in the United States.  While Martin discusses a number of instances in American history during which the thinly veiled motives of imperialists were made apparent through the act of war, I found his discussion of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” in general to be of particular interest.  Early on in the text, Martin suggests that the war in the United States ultimately results in a sentiment of indifference among citizens.  He states, “[During war time] the world is presented with another perverse form of domination, an empire of indifference.  Far from being accidental neglect, this indifference is a reaction to the diversity of experience and capacity that people have made for themselves, and an unwitting invitation on the part of the imperium to create more” (Martin 5).  Martin’s quote here immediately reminded me of George W. Bush’s economically underscored imperative to the American people to “shop more” following the attacks of 9/11.  In his post 9/11 and declaration of war speech, Bush attempts to enact this sense of indifference among the American people.

In his post 9/11 speech Bush is quick to remind viewers that, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.  And no one will keep that light from shining.”  He assures us that the freedom and opportunity that America represents will be well protected because, “Our military is powerful, and it is prepared,” a promise that is in intended to lull us into a [false] sense of security.  Viewers are praised for their bravery and their strength, and are reassured above all else that, “Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business as well.”  Even without a critical stance on the speech, Bush’s comment seems jarring.  Why would/should it matter if the economy is open for business tomorrow?  Well, for all those American’s who want to know how they can personally contribute to the war effort without actually enlisting, visiting ground zero, donating blood, joining relief effort, or even leaving their homes, President Bush has the answer—shop!

“This work begins with keeping our economy growing—and I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

It doesn’t take much of an in depth analysis to grasp Bush’s motives not only in his speech, but for the duration of the “War on Terror.”  The empire of indifference (i.e. America) is made susceptible to imperialist domination more and more with each “threat” to the nation’s safety/security/etc. and manipulated into endorsing capitalist interests in a way that, upon reflection—blood spilled, lives lost—is rather horrific.  However, Martin seems to suggest throughout the book that we are moving closer to this model, rather than further from it.