Market Domininat Majorities
You might want to read World on Fire. There is more to it than blaming globalism.Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
I see the essential elements of Chua's World on Fire as a potential conflict between capitalism and democracy. Market dominant minorities exist. You cannot deny them. Remaining ignorant of their nature and influence will not make them vanish.
US policy is to export both capitalism and democracy. There is very good reason for doing so. Both systems are, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst systems ever developed, except for everything else that has been tried.
The two systems - capitalism and democracy - can create a stark division of power. A minority often gathers much of the wealth. The majority can elect the government. The resultant power struggle can be resolved in many ways. Saddam and many other tyrants slammed the door on democracy. In the Philippines, the wealthy have to hire private security, as the elected officials and police are often far more concerned with the interests of the native majority than the Chinese heritage economic elite. In the Balkans, and in Africa, the poor majority resorted to genocide and ethnic cleansing as a means to redistribute wealth, power, land, culture, etc... The conflict takes different shape in each country. Historical forces do not dictate an inevitable progression, though I'd bet on western style feedback systems in the very long run. Marx's view of class struggle was and remains absurdly simplistic. Amy's view reflects a far more complex modern reality.
I don't blame any one political group for all these very different troubles, but the concept of 'market dominant minority' allows one to see the common themes shared in the many diverse trouble spots. It provides a framework for understanding what is happening. It ties together the economic, ethnic, religious, territorial and military themes. Next time you research a new world trouble spot, look for rich elites, poor majorities, and struggles between them which likely include a long history with many overlapping elements. (Mutter. Mutter. Israel. Iran. Cheznia. Tibet. Somalia. The Congo. Bolivia. Mutter. Mutter.)
One 'solution' to a capitalist / democratic conflict between two forms of power, as practiced in the West, is using labor unions and the power of the majority through democracy to place limits on division of wealth. These limits must suffice such that no one feels it necessary to seize autocratic power or commit genocide, but cannot be so strong as to stifle economic growth. This is easier said than done. Maintaining this balance is one of the primary jobs of the US two party system. One can argue that even the United States doesn't hit the balance particularly well. Still, this is the valid part of Chua's criticism of US policy. In exporting democracy, we do not encourage the export of the results of years of conflict between labor and management, between rich and poor. The systems we tend to encourage tend towards laissez faire, which tend to benefit global corporate campaign contributors more than the people of the country being advised. There are ways to balance the needs of industry and people. As industry currently has more of a say in how our government runs foreign policy, the version of democracy and capitalism the US government encourages does exasperate foreign conflicts.
But I would not go so far as to blame US foreign policy on everything. Each and every one of the world's trouble spots is a local problem, often centuries in the making. Huntington's civilizations have been pushing populations back and forth across shifting borders forever. Often, the aggressor civilization finds itself in the 'market dominant minority' position, with political and economic dominance over the native majority.
With the Cold War over, these old troubles, long deferred, are going hot. While democracy and capitalism are all the rage, they create rage too. Cultures inexperienced in democracy get into trouble all on their own. How many Republics did France go through before they finally got it, ahem, "right"? (Sorta, almost, more or less, maybe.) I would expect democracy to fail a few times before it takes hold, but it does eventually take hold. The first few times around, the various world rulers don't need our help to get it wrong. Chua argues that the US could provide better advice and guidance. Still, the conflict between wealthy elites and poor majorities has to be fought one country at a time. Replacing Bush 43 with some grass roots globalist friend of labor would not make the world's problems go away. Such an individual would have to work hard to make much of a difference.
But ultimately, I think this mythical person will have to be found, and will have to do the hard work. Amy Chua's perspective may be the true one for perceiving the global crisis. (I will mention also Huntington's civilizations, Toffler's waves of civilization and of course Strauss and Howe's cycles as other perspectives I keep in mind. One shouldn't get addicted to any one perspective, but if you ignore one of them totally, one is schrod.)
She is young for the job of Gray Champion, but keep an eye too on Arundhati Roy of India to fill a Sam Adams / William Lloyd Garrison sort of radical instigator role. While Amy Chua is an academic writing from behind a desk at university, Arundhati Roy is marching in the streets organizing protests. I hardly think Roy has a perfect agenda, but she is definitely someone to keep an eye on if you think a global crisis likely on 'market dominant minority' based issues.
By the way, Arundhati's perspective echoes one of my own great fears. In every prior crisis, the power that benefits most from the status quo attempts to resist change and perpetuate injustice as traditional and proper. Such powers are traditionally overthrown by the Gray Champion and his progressive faction. Arundhati is focusing on US corporate culture as the great enemy, though she sees the people of the US as what the rest of the world might strive to become, rather than as the enemy. Still, she is nigh on as ticked off at her own government's corruption and inefficiency as our Military Industrial Complex.
With the Crisis coming, keep an eye on the radicals, as well as the spirals of violence.
The other side tangent is that any model accepted in a short form from a hostile reviewer is apt to be simplistic to wrong. If one reads Huntington wrong, one might get the impression that Islam will inevitably fight Christianity because that is what civilizations do. One misses much important data in Clash of Civilizations about the ethnic, political and military interactions of the late 20th Century. Similarly, a too enthusiastic interpretation of Toffler's waves will tell you that Industrial Civilization will surely trample Agricultural Civilization. Toffler can get enthusiatic about the future and change. If one gets married too deeply to S&H's cycles, one might believe crises occur inevitably and on schedule, and there is nothing one can do about it. One might get so tied up looking for common themes four score and seven years apart, that one doesn't stop to smell the gunpowder.
I find all these models useful as reflections of a complex reality. I'll acknowledge that a shallow knee jerk reading of any such model might be counter productive. Certainly, a hostile reviewer, or a reader addicted to his or her own world view, can find reason to ignore what an author is saying.
Which means one ends up rejecting a lot of useful information and structure.
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- Cove Hold, Carver, MA
- Posts
- 6,431
Believe it or not, it wasn't an intentional slap (as it was the when I coined it many moons ago).