Wishful Thinking

The Millennium Villages project offers a bold, innovative model for helping rural African communities lift themselves out of extreme poverty. The Millennium Villages are proving that by fighting poverty at the village level through community-led development, rural Africa can achieve the Millennium Development Goals—global targets for reducing extreme poverty and hunger by half and improving education, health, gender equality and environmental sustainability—by 2015, and escape the extreme poverty that traps hundreds of millions of people throughout the continent.

With the help of new advances in science and technology, project personnel work with villages to create and facilitate sustainable, community-led action plans that are tailored to the villages’ specific needs and designed to achieve the the Millennium Development Goals.

About the Villages

Positive thinking can be a bad thing if it blinds you to criticism and ongoing problems. Pessimism, though, can be just as bad if it prevents you from seeing potential and the possibility of change. So when someone, person or organization, makes large claims it’s important to try to find some balance between skepticism and wishful thinking.

That’s why it can be so difficult to think though the idea that poverty could be eliminated in the same way that certain diseases have been eliminated over the last century. A century ago, of course, we did not know enough about the origins of diseases to really understand how we might prevent them. And, of course, we have only eliminated a few.

In fact, the very techniques we developed to fight diseases caused their own problems; bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. And new diseases have arisen, such as the AIDS pandemic, that may not be resolved, much less controlled, for decades or more. So when we say we can eliminate poverty we have to be cautious about what we mean.

Still, projects like the Millennium Villages illustrate that there is a lot of common sense yet to be applied to the problem of eliminating hunger and poverty. We save an enormous amount of energy– in every sense– if we buy food aide regionally rather than shipping it from the United States. African farmers are willing and able to grow their own crops.

Similarly, it makes sense to apply some sort of systemic thinking to poverty. That means considerations of sustainability and scale, as well as a focus on agriculture, education, health, and infrastructure. This is not your father’s Care Package, dropped by parachute when famine strikes. I think there is every reason to be hopeful about this new model.

That Vision Thing

The need for a new dynamic sector to generate an economic recovery is a perfect opportunity to promote high-speed rail and alternative energy research (and in far greater quantities than the Obama administration is proposing). Our banking system is being rescued with public money. Why shouldn’t the public get something in return for that, like publicly or cooperatively owned financial institutions that could provide customers with low-cost services and communities with economic development funds? And with the housing market not likely to recover for at least several years, why not experiment with different models of ownership? For example, instead of foreclosing on houses, why not turn them into limited-equity co-ops, which take the speculative motive out of that essential of life? These things won’t happen spontaneously; they need state action, prodded by organized and thoughtful activism. The public isn’t with us yet, but we’re a long way from the days when The Market seemed like a fresh idea.

A Post-Capitalist Future is Possible, Reimagining Socialism: A Nation Forum; Doug Henwood

Doug Henwood has a good sense of the timidity of the Obama administration. I think he’s right, too, the the problems is a lack of comprehensive vision on the left. It’s the same frustrations I have with academia. We should do more than create open source textbooks; we need to challenge the education industry.

It may be that too many people feel they have too much invested in the current system. I think, though, that any comprehensive vision of a post-capitalist system should begin with the work-week. That should be the strategic focus. We need a step by step plan to go from 40 to 35 to 30 hours.

I think that freedom from capitalism, to the extent it is possible, begins with a shortened work week and longer vacations. The goal ought to be the creation of a post-capitalist culture; literally, we need people who have better things to do. As long as we all running on the rat-wheel, we can hardly think, much less act.

The Long Daily Show Now

I am not very interested in topicality in the narrow sense; I’m more interested in the long now, the big picture, slow technology. That’s why I don’t try to write straight out of the news, and I never try to keep up. Those things are interesting in themselves, but they are also largely commercial processes that I think we should ignore whenever we can.

Still, over the last week or more I have been fascinated to watch the Daily Show take on CNBC’s financial and social recklessness, rightfully accusing them of abandoning the traditional journalistic role of watchdog. Stewart’s proximate target is the Jim Cramer, of the show “Mad Money,” but he also has bigger fish to fry.

The week before, of course, the topic of the moment was Rush Limbaugh’s role as de facto leader of the Republican party. On the one hand the media seems to be very defensive about Stewart, claiming that he can’t ‘have it both ways.’ He’s a comedian or he’s a lefty cultural critic; he can’t do that liminal dance that puts him somewhere neither here nor there.

On the other hand, Limbaugh, who’s much more of a demagogue than Stewart, and so by any measure has less credibility, if any at all, seems to be welcomed as a legitimate spokesperson. Limbaugh’s bombastic nonsense seems to go in one ear and out the other, to many media folk, but he’s still great news. Stewart, on the other hand, has to be brought down.

Stewart has a legitimate satirical and political problem. He built his empire by ruthlessly attacking the Neo-Conservatives. He’s credible because he’s funny and well informed. Now that Bush is history—until the trials—he has to figure out what to do next. Hypocrisy bashing has always been a strong suit; media hypocrisy bashing is proving to be both funny and insightful

Capitalism 101: Market Think

“Mixed Drive for Autovehicles.”

“Mixed Drive for Autovehicles.”


“Be it known that I, Henri Pieper, a subject of the King of Belgium, residing at 18 Rue des Bayards, in Liege, Belgium, have invented new and useful Improvements in Mixed Drives for Autovehicles…The invention…comprises an internal combustion or similar engine, a dynamo motor direct connected therewith, and a storage battery or accumulator in circuit with the dynamo motor, these elements being cooperatively related so that the dynamo motor may be run as a motor by the electrical energy stored in the accumulator to start the engine or to furnish a portion of the power delivered by the set, or may be run as a generator by the engine, when the power of the latter is in excess of that demanded of the set, and caused to store energy in the accumulator.”

Henri Pieper, quoted in Hybrid Cars, March 1, 2009

This is one of those choice little fragments of information that should become the set piece for any introductory study of capitalist economics. It’s so rich it’s hard to figure out what to say. It’s a good way to start deflating the myth of capitalist innovation and the market.

The hybrid car is still not common a hundred years after it was patented because there was so little profit it. It didn’t matter if it was or was not a good idea, a practical idea, or even an ingenious idea, or a visionary idea. The market takes up the innovation only money can be made.

The market doesn’t drive innovation, it drives profitable innovation. That’s why the idea that the market can fix the energy problem, to cite only one example, is so misleading. As the president makes clear, the government has to push and nudge and often shove the market to make it move in any reasonable direction.