Capitalism Under Assault

The system is busted. That much is clear. Now many people are experimenting with alternatives. Roberto Mangabeira Unger has long been one of those on the cutting edge of fundamental reform. Finally he has the chance to change the course of history.
Capitalism Under Assault
Photo: Lalo de Almeida/Redux

Not long ago, Roberto Mangabeira Unger was leading a life of academic stardom, working as a professor at Harvard Law School. The 60-year-old had first joined the faculty at age 24. By 29, he became one of the youngest tenured professors in the school's history. His prominence expanded far beyond the field of law. Unger wrote prodigiously, churning out an endless stream of ideas about philosophy, politics, economics and social theory. He was, and he remains, a committed, radical leftist; he embraces the very idea of radicalism as a central pillar of his political philosophy.

But now Unger has the chance to change history's course. The Rio de Janeiro native was appointed last summer to be a minister in the government of Brazil. He has long been a critic of Brazil's various governing regimes, including that of the man who appointed him, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. But now Unger is working from within government, instead of as an outsider. He will be the minister for strategic affairs – a job many call the "Minister of Ideas." The question is whether his ideas will survive the cut and thrust of governmental politics, or be rendered as merely – in the most belittling sense of the word – academic.

Unger is more than just another academic-turned-politician, or another radical given a taste of power. His success or failure may very well determine the future of leftist movements around the world. His ideas represent some of the most novel approaches to dealing with the world's problems: how to reduce poverty, promote economic growth and strengthen democracy. So his appointment will test whether a leftist movement still has the power to transform the world.

By now, the war of ideologies has been won. Communism is dead in all but a few isolated pockets. Governments have largely acquiesced to the dictates of free market economics. Yet neoliberalism and the economic growth it's supposed to bring will not by themselves lift people out of poverty. And so the range of ideological possibilities has narrowed to a small spectrum within the realm of neoliberalism lite: free markets, but with a degree of social programs in place. The age of grand social experiments is over.

These are blinders that Unger refuses to wear. He rejects what he calls the "shrunken pragmatism" that has stifled debate. He argues passionately for alternatives, even against the growing consensus of people who say there are none. He also rails against the leftist model of his neighbor, the petro-dollar-fueled Venezuela, as well as that of the comfortable social democracies of Western Europe. It's not enough, Unger argues, to take money from neoliberalism's winners to buy social programs that aid its losers. There need to be deeper changes that make the market's benefits more inclusive. He believes there are still new ideas to be explored; indeed, these are the only hope for progress.

Unger's vision is what he calls "radical pragmatism." The shrunken pragmatism that's in vogue these days rejects the idea that there's some universal truth to guide our path to progress. There is no ideological holy grail. But Unger argues that this viewpoint makes it all too easy to turn our backs on new ideas. Chastened by the failures of bold transformations, societies come to believe that the status quo is an inescapable fate. "It is only by crazed ambition, perpetually arising from entrenched features of our situation, that we set our sights on distant objects," Unger writes in his most recent book, The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. Perhaps there is no preordained ideology to follow, but we must still unleash our creativity.

Instead of a tiny business elite dropping crumbs for the country's poor, a broad middle class of small business entrepreneurs would form Brazil's engine of growth.

Some of Unger's most revolutionary thoughts relate to the economy. For years, developing countries, and particularly those in South America, followed the prescriptions of lending bodies like the World Bank and the IMF. Social programs were scrapped, industries were privatized, and foreign trade and investment were encouraged to grow the economy. These measures made a small class of business people extraordinarily wealthy, while doing little but add pain for the poverty-stricken silent majority. And yet the agenda never brought about the sustained economic growth it was supposed to provide. Countries that ignored mainstream liberalization polices, like South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, achieved remarkable growth, while Argentina faithfully followed the liberalization path to the brink of economic collapse.

Still, one shouldn't get too nostalgic for the pre-liberalization days. Governments overspent, sending debt and inflation spiraling. Hyperinflation robbed people of their savings. State industries were grossly inefficient and corrupt – vital transportation, sanitation and telecommunications services suffered. No, salvation for the poor isn't going to come from big government, nor from big corporations. Salvation, Unger proposes, must come from Brazil's average citizens.

Unger rejects the paths that South Korea and China took to success. South Korea turned itself into an export machine by building around its big industries. The government gave exporters access to low-interest bank loans, money from foreign lenders and preferential tax rates. Meanwhile, Korea's currency was devalued to make its exports attractive to foreign buyers. China, on the other hand, harnessed its vast pool of cheap labor to become the world's factory floor.

But Unger doesn't think Brazil should compete against the likes of China by giving its workers ever-lower wages. And he rejects the neo-Korean model because he wants to start an economic revolution from the ground up, not top down. Instead, Unger proposes that the government both tax and invest heavily. Voting should be made mandatory, as should savings. These measures would buffer the economy from the influence of international investors. This flies against the textbooks that say governments should prostrate themselves to foreign investment. Growth would not come from big business then, but from Brazil's small enterprises. Instead of a tiny business elite dropping crumbs for the country's poor, a broad middle class of small business entrepreneurs would form Brazil's engine of growth. These small enterprises would get access to the credit and tax benefits that big businesses more typically enjoy. The benefits of the market should be shared broadly, not monopolized by big business.

In a way, the idea is very much free-market orthodoxy. Economic decisions would be made on a smaller, more local scale. Individuals know what's best for themselves and should be encouraged to pursue their own self interest. Why should people cede control of their own destinies to large, distant institutions, be they government, corporations or the World Bank? By giving individuals the tools and freedom to succeed, they can take charge of their own prosperity.

The test for Unger is not only whether his ideas will succeed in the real world, but also whether they will be implemented in the first place. Politics has a way of hammering down the nail that sticks out the highest. Bold ideas that are nurtured in academia get watered down with compromise. But Unger's appointment is the brightest hope in recent years that a new vision can transform the world. Brazil is an experiment worth watching.

38 comments on the article “Capitalism Under Assault”

Displaying 1 - 10 of 38

Page 1 of 4

mariosfru

Actually, in economic issues, I believe that Brazil is walking backwards, and selling its lands to bigger and bigger corporations, which will drag the country to a new, and "legally accepted", monoculture. Its social development is constantly increasing, but, instead of a crystalline increase, where the brazilians understand that it is the effect of their own efforts, we see a large scale fable. The government, in another way of what the article sustains, will have to struggle against the companies and the lords of the worlds' interests in order to start heightening the individuals conscience.

mariosfru

Actually, in economic issues, I believe that Brazil is walking backwards, and selling its lands to bigger and bigger corporations, which will drag the country to a new, and "legally accepted", monoculture. Its social development is constantly increasing, but, instead of a crystalline increase, where the brazilians understand that it is the effect of their own efforts, we see a large scale fable. The government, in another way of what the article sustains, will have to struggle against the companies and the lords of the worlds' interests in order to start heightening the individuals conscience.

Anonymous

It'a all very nice on paper, but the reality is that the brazilian government is a very inefficient machine, eating most of the (quite high) taxes just for it's existence, making it very difficult for small business to survive.
What would one think of a government that pays as prime interest rate over 12% to the year?

Anonymous

It'a all very nice on paper, but the reality is that the brazilian government is a very inefficient machine, eating most of the (quite high) taxes just for it's existence, making it very difficult for small business to survive.
What would one think of a government that pays as prime interest rate over 12% to the year?

Ben

I've long thought that many problems could be solved if instead of heavy taxation, the government instead took 10% of each person's and each corporation's earnings and redistributed it on an egalitarian basis, instantly. Every citizen, every year would get their share of the national economy in cold hard cash, like the rebate checks we just had in America, only not borrowed from anyone; like the income tax, only not given to government to spend, but instantly redistributed back to everyone. Children would have their share held each year until they reach 18 years of age, (or 21 if that works better) and get it all as a lump sum, enabling even children from the poorest families or with the most irresponsible parents to have some money to start out their own life with, to spend on education or to pool with others and start a buisiness or simply to establish a family. As the economy grows, so would each citizens share, automatically. Corporations would pay 10% of their income alongside citizens.

It would be hard to get such a program going, as it would require very few bureaucrats and no corporate contracts to establish. Sigh.

Ben

I've long thought that many problems could be solved if instead of heavy taxation, the government instead took 10% of each person's and each corporation's earnings and redistributed it on an egalitarian basis, instantly. Every citizen, every year would get their share of the national economy in cold hard cash, like the rebate checks we just had in America, only not borrowed from anyone; like the income tax, only not given to government to spend, but instantly redistributed back to everyone. Children would have their share held each year until they reach 18 years of age, (or 21 if that works better) and get it all as a lump sum, enabling even children from the poorest families or with the most irresponsible parents to have some money to start out their own life with, to spend on education or to pool with others and start a buisiness or simply to establish a family. As the economy grows, so would each citizens share, automatically. Corporations would pay 10% of their income alongside citizens.

It would be hard to get such a program going, as it would require very few bureaucrats and no corporate contracts to establish. Sigh.

Anonymous

Michael C. Ruppert said it best: "Until you change the way money works, you change nothing." Under the world-wide monetary scheme of debt-based money created out of thin air by central banks, the entire human race is little more than a herd of cows being milked for cash instead of the white stuff. As long as the banksters can "rent" money to us (which is what a "loan" really is) which they create with the flick of a pen, they will get richer while the rest of us get poorer. Every human who is part of a modern cash economy and pays taxes cannot escape this milking.

If Professor Unger is a real radical, he will put his effort into creating a debt-free monetary system that leaves the banksters out of the loop. Unfortunately, throughout history those who have seriously questioned debt-based money and fractional reserve banking have ended up assassinated. Banksters will kill to protect their racket.

Anonymous

Michael C. Ruppert said it best: "Until you change the way money works, you change nothing." Under the world-wide monetary scheme of debt-based money created out of thin air by central banks, the entire human race is little more than a herd of cows being milked for cash instead of the white stuff. As long as the banksters can "rent" money to us (which is what a "loan" really is) which they create with the flick of a pen, they will get richer while the rest of us get poorer. Every human who is part of a modern cash economy and pays taxes cannot escape this milking.

If Professor Unger is a real radical, he will put his effort into creating a debt-free monetary system that leaves the banksters out of the loop. Unfortunately, throughout history those who have seriously questioned debt-based money and fractional reserve banking have ended up assassinated. Banksters will kill to protect their racket.

Hal O'Leary

Anything Unger tries will be welcome. Anything that has any possibility of altering this insane capitalistic rush to oblivion will be welcome. My guess is that the more radical it is, the greater its chances are.
I would strongly suggest that the first step for any radical change would be the nationalization of all natural resources including the land. To think that any individual or group of individuals could lay claim to any part of the earth and its riches for personal enrichment is to me a most insane idea. The earth and its riches have been here for billions of years and must be utilized by each generation with genuine concern for the next. This wealth belongs to the people of any and all nations and of all times to come. Is that radical enough for all you neoprogressives?

Hal O'Leary

Anything Unger tries will be welcome. Anything that has any possibility of altering this insane capitalistic rush to oblivion will be welcome. My guess is that the more radical it is, the greater its chances are.
I would strongly suggest that the first step for any radical change would be the nationalization of all natural resources including the land. To think that any individual or group of individuals could lay claim to any part of the earth and its riches for personal enrichment is to me a most insane idea. The earth and its riches have been here for billions of years and must be utilized by each generation with genuine concern for the next. This wealth belongs to the people of any and all nations and of all times to come. Is that radical enough for all you neoprogressives?

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.