response to “The Green Fad” post

When I first read the introduction to Toolbox for Sustainable City Living (reproduced in part in the below post), my first reaction was, I’m so glad that someone else feels the same way that I do, and especially since they are far more eloquent than I am! In particular, the comments about the IMF and World Bank using tactics they term sustainable as “a euphemism for neoliberal economic development” rang a bell with me.  These international institutions intimate that following their proposals for economic development will actually help third world countries grow.

I have felt for many years now that their intimation is not true.  In my political science class in college, I wrote a paper about the hypocrisy I see in the leading international economic and political theories. The strongest economic countries in the world tell poor countries to produce in the same manner as they do – promoting the idea that completely free trade and neoliberal economic tactics will be enough to help any country grow out of poverty.  There are two big problems with forcing the implementation of this theory on others:

1. it doesn’t work.  Look at Jamaica for example – they used to subsidize their banana industry and export bananas all over the world.  They actually made money off of this strategy.  But then they got involved with the IMF because, yes, they were poor and had troubles.  Amongst other things, the IMF told them that they could not subsidize their bananas anymore.  Now, they cannot export bananas.  This money-making industry is completely gone.  Chiquita and Dole dominate the banana market; and most people know that these are some pretty skeazy operations.  Also, Jamaica is still in dire need.  So, did following the IMF’s rules actually help them? …

2. those strong economic countries are lying – they don’t even play by their own rules.  While the IMF forces Jamaica to no longer subsidize their bananas, the US is getting off scott-free subsidizing the corn industry here.  As much as I would like to start ranting about corn, I’ll have to save that for another day.  If you’re impatient, I recommend reading just the first chapter of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma and/or watching the film “Food, Inc.”

Going back to the Toolbox‘s comments, we can see here that the leading international political economic institutions force third world countries to navigate their economics away from tradition and toward new theories (that aren’t helping).  By changing their economic tactics, these countries are also forced to change their lifestyles – not only are they abandoning their traditional economic structures, but also their traditional life and culture structures.  Countries and strong cultural areas are losing their traditions, and they don’t necessarily have anything with which to replace that loss.   And this is how the “colonial trajectory” is maintained.  Kind of messed up, no?

Additionally, the Toolbox talks about the completely ludicrous new green consumerism fad.  The idea that we can buy our way out of our problems is utter bunk.  Firstly, because what we buy that is considered “green” or whatever probably isn’t, in reality; secondly, part of the reason we are in this environmental mess in the first place is because we produce far too many things.  Also, moving away from the environmental implications, this epidemic of consumerism is just messed up anyway.  Fuck consumerism.  The lives of people in this country are of full of things that they don’t need.  (Also, what is with the new bougie trend of fancy, expensive cupcake stores?  It’s sickening conspicuous consumption, in more ways than one…)

But still, after reading all of this and agreeing with most of it, and even after writing all of those criticisms and rants, I still feel it imperative to mention that I don’t think that capitalism is inherently evil.  Many people feel the same way I do about the situation(s) I wrote about above – and most of them believe that these problems exist because of capitalism and that capitalism therefore caused these problems.  My soft stance on capitalism may be because I studied economics at a small college whose limited economics department only allowed for so many professors and classes, and therefore most of the material presented was focused on one aspect of economics* – in this case, the current prevalent economic theory, capitalism as beautiful.  Capitalism as the answer to everyone’s problems.  Perhaps it is because of this foundation that I am inclined to not hate capitalism… but perhaps not.

The thing is, capitalism, in theory, is actually pretty wonderful.  Most things, in theory, are pretty damn wonderful.  When people try to implement the theory, though, that’s when things go awry.  The supposed beauty of capitalism, though, is that it is supposed to allow all the good and bad aspects of human behavior to shine through and everyone still be “better off.”  Yet, people are not “better off” – and because of this capitalist theory, wealthy people think that they can fix problems by buying things.  That’s my main problem with capitalism: as it is currently implemented, it promotes an unnecessarily high level of twisted consumerism.  In general, I am not a whole-hearted capitalist-basher, which can be difficult at times since I surround myself with company and literature that tends to hate capitalism.  Don’t get me wrong – I bash on capitalism frequently.   I also talk trash about marxism.  Depending on the day, I am a marxist or a capitalist; I identify with both, and with all other economic theories.  But here, I am supporting capitalism with three-quarters of my heart, so let’s return to rebuking the capitalist-trash-talkers.

In Toolbox, they write that capitalism “requires infinite expansion and consumption of material resources.”  I disagree.  I do not think that capitalism in and of itself asks for those things to occur.  I think that the seemingly infinite demand for expansion and consumption comes from one or both of two reasons:

1. the people that run the economics of cities/areas/countries are greedy and want to keep turning exponentially growing profits.

2. in the current capitalist system, people do not pay the true cost of things.

These two reasons, as well as those in my rant above about international institutions, just go to show that the current capitalist system is not actually a true capitalist system.  Hypocrisy plays a leading role here, and I wish that it got more recognition instead of people just immediately blaming capitalism.

In summary, I agree with basically everything in the introduction to Toolbox, and I think everyone should read it (even if it’s just the introduction and not the whole book) just to start thinking about real sustainability and why it may or may not be important to them.  Also, the Rhizome Collective (the group that created the book) are more concise than I, and they have a lot of great ideas.  I have, however, taken their comments about capitalism with a grain of salt.  Overall, I tend to appreciate literature/arguments more when I agree with most of it and disagree with some.  If I find no disagreement, then am I even reading a real argument?  Anyway, thank you Rhizome Collective, and I am looking forward to finishing your book, and to also creating my own vermicompost!

*(Don’t get me wrong, Austin College – you are a most wonderful school, and I recommend you to everyone!  I think I received a truly solid liberal arts education, and that the economics professors are some of the best professors and people I have ever met.  But still, I am looking forward to returning to school to broaden my understanding of this vast subject, since the topics offered were, indeed, a bit limited in scope.)