Many people do not realise that the Occupy movement is pro-democracy and pro-equality. Pro-equality does not mean taking everyones wealth away and sharing it out equally amongst everybody. That would be communism - and Occupy is not a Communist movement. In additional, contrary to the claims of much of our right-leaning media, the Occupy movement is not anti-capitalist. Capitalism is accepted as an inevitable result of allowing people to own things and to trade, which is a vital pillar of modern society. Money is the best way of facilitating trade and people can accumulate money if they so choose - thus you have capitalism.
However, contrary to what a large swathe of neo-liberal conservatives (AKA neo-conservatives) preach about economic policy, the recent recession has shown that capitalism does not regulate itself effectively, if at all. The naivety of this theory propogated by a small but highly-influencial group of wealthy individuals is absurdly obvious to most people after recent events. These market-fundamentalists genuinely believe that minimising regulation and letting the market manage itself entirely will make us all more wealthy and make the world a better place. You may have encountered this propaganda regularly in the popular press in some of the following forms; 'removing red tape', 'reducing regulation to improve competitiveness' and 'reducing taxes to make Britain the best place to do business'. These may sound like reasonable and logical demands, but the regulation and taxes exist for an important reason; to protect people from the negative aspects of capitalism.
This over-simplified and unsophisticated view of economics has its appeals, but fails to reflect reality - that the markets can fail and regularly do fail. It also fails to reflect the fact that unrestrained capitalism can quickly corrupt democracy. As an example, if one extremely wealthy individual is allowed to purchase all of the popular media companies (think News International), they can then effectively control public opinion and can charge whatever price they like for products (i.e. TV). They can hold politicians to ransom over which party they will support in the next election and can easily influence government policies to suit their needs. Think of Russia's oligarch-owned media and gas companies. Unrestrained capitalism also restricts people's freedoms. If one company became large enough to be the only employer in a region, then it could effectively pay whatever wages it wanted to its staff and make them work extremely long hours just to afford basic necessities. The result would be an extremely wealthy group of capitalists owning all companies, and a large majority of individuals struggling just to pay their basic bills, i.e. vast inequality.
It is government regulations that ensure capitalism works effectively to profit everyone in society (not just an elite group who possess the capital) by protecting peoples freedom and welfare even when they have less financial power. It is the Competition Commission that ensures large companies do not buy up their competitors and establish a monopoly which can fix prices, profiteer and influence politicians. When politicians become too close to wealthy private interests (read: Rupert Murdoch and David Cameron/Gordon Brown/Tony Blair) then these valued institutions of democracy can be side-stepped (i.e. News International's attempt to purchase BSkyB without having to apply to Ofcom). This effectively means that some citizens are able to assert more influence over politicans through financial means than their single democratic vote allows them. This is corrupt because it impairs democracy (where everyone has an equal say).
Another fallacy is that total 'market freedom' is best for encouraging competition and will always result in higher wealth and lower prices. In the example above you can see that once a monopoly or a cartel becomes established, competition is removed and prices increase, making ordinary people poorer (think of train companies). Whilst competition is accepted as a good thing, it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that the markets remain competitive and diverse. It is governments that protect important national industries and large employers. It is government that ensures everyone in society has a fair chance to become rich and successful, whether their parents are rich or poor. Unrestrained capitalism (AKA 'free markets') does not ensure this. It would result in an unfair, unequal and inefficient autocracy that is similar to communist dictatorships, where 'ordinary' people have very little influence, lower wealth and considerably less freedom.
Although it has failed to convey its messages clearly, Occupy is opposed to the worst aspects of corporate greed and corruption exercised by the 'super-rich', in tandem with our politicans. The movement believes that politicans such as Tony Blair and David Cameron became far too close to private vested interests to avoid conflicts of interest when governing the country, and thus served the interests of the super-rich ahead of everyone else. Occupy has noted that a disproportionate share of our top politicians over the last 20 years have attended the same Oxford University college and a handful of elite private schools. It also notes that many of our top politicians have previously worked in large banks or media companies that have subsequently been impacted by crises and scandals, prompting collossal public bailouts and moral outcry.
Occupy has opposed the inherent hypocracy in modern neo-conservative economic policy, which is marketed upon 'increasing wealth by maximising people's freedom, via market forces'. However, it is clear that not everyone can have total freedom, and the freedom of one person will impact upon the freedom of another. It is fairly transparent that right-leaning economists are actually referring to the freedom of the 'super-rich' to increase profits and infuence. The goal of 'enhanced freedom' is a thinly veiled justification for an unethical cause; serving the interests of this group by reducing regulation and lowering taxes to suit them. However, the majority of these regulations (minimum wages, working hour regulations, health and safety laws) are designed to protect the freedom of the poor and middle-class majority from exploitation and vast inequality in society.
A large number of Occupy's demands are easy to discount as unworkable, but it is a shame to allow its core economic arguments to be contorted by the media. Poor ethics and structural failings by our politicians and finance professionals led to a dangerous recession that almost sunk the global economy. Occupy's core messages have resonated with the public and yet our media has refused to engage the movement constructively. It is not clear why.
No comments:
Post a Comment