Late Capitalism: Reclaiming One's Life

Part One: Reclaiming One's Life – Reason and Logic

Here I want to paint a picture of how late capitalism affects language, thought, and emotions. Awareness of this topic is necessary not only because democracy is at risk, but also the welfare system and fundamental human rights. It is important to note that this is not a critique of capitalism – only its neoliberal free-trade form or late capitalism, which grants this economic system a kind of totalitarianism in human society and will run counter to all ideals of freedom. It is often assumed that we are free and live in a free society. A prerequisite for being called free is to be aware of one's own choices or the choices others make on our behalf. The democracy we are supposed to live under is based, among other things, on the freedom to choose who and what ideology should govern. Politicians now have the option to sell this freedom of choice of their citizens, and thereby democracy – or not. The recent debate about socialism in Iceland is a clear sign that people are beginning to perceive this danger, and that is good.

To give an example, I have randomly chosen the report of the financial company GAMMA,Infrastruct­ure Invest­ment in Iceland(2016). I refer to this document because it most clearly expresses the spirit under discussion here. The report is in English, although it discusses Icelandic state institutions. It can be assumed that the report is intended to court foreign corporations as well as Icelandic officials.

***

The propaganda that colors the report is the same as that of neoliberals (neoliberal apostles) in general. It is based on the ingrained dichotomy that reason and emotions are separate categories. In this discourse, it is common to find terms such as reason, rationality, and logic when it comes to their governance. The fruit of such governance is so-called economic growth and stability in economic affairs; progress, development, and growth are also mentioned here, while opponents create chaos and destruction. The opponents are emotional and unscientific; entrusting them with the helm heralds economic disorder and unemployment. The right-wing forces then often rely on advertising philosophy when it comes to spreading their message: say it often enough. A good example is the economic growth propaganda chanted around all talk of free trade agreements. The fact is that such agreements will result in less economic growth than we currently experience and increase unemployment and various social problems. For example, the UK, Germany, and the United States generated the most economic growth behind tariff walls (Ha-Joon Chang 2017).

It can be mentioned that science itself has undermined the dichotomy of reason and emotion quite some time ago. Antonio Damasio (Descartes' Error, 2005) and other neuroscientists and neuropsychologists have shown how the human brain is precisely the opposite. Rational thought is based on emotion; brain damage to emotional centers deprives people of the ability to think rationally. Rational thought is not what the old dichotomy was about. Those who first settled in Iceland believed that man thought with his heart. Recent science has shown that they were right.

Neoliberals know that humans are emotional beings. If humans were rational beings, neither advertisements nor propaganda would work. The message here is simple: it is in light of this that capital has power over people, and the way out must lie in awareness of this system's power over emotions. In the spirit of duplicity, or double standards, on the other hand, constant reference is made to Adam Smith's so-called economic man, homo oeconomicus. Man is presented as a perfectly rational being who only does what is best for himself, only buys what is best for himself, and rationally thinks about himself and his own interests. These are, of course, good arguments for private enterprise to absolve itself of social responsibility. Atli Harðarson criticizes that in Einar Már Jónsson's Örlagaborgin (2012), this view of humanity is taken too literally, that the economic man is merely „a model of one side of existence“ and no one is saying that man does not have other sides as well (Þjóðmál 2012, 8:81). Atli's fallacy appears in the fact that decisions about increasingly more aspects of human society are made on the basis of this view of humanity. Therefore, it must be taken seriously.

Now to the GAMMA report. Historical arguments for private enterprise are cited. During the Roman Empire, private enterprise flourished, for example, in road construction. Secondly, Margaret Thatcher is hailed as a great savior of the British economy (p. 22). Here, historical context is disregarded; conditions and governance among the Romans were undoubtedly entirely different from those in today's global market system. People still remember Thatcher; she said „There is no such thing as society“, she has been called „the most hated politician in English history“. It seems to me that the core shines through immediately here; GAMMA wants to be like the Roman Empire – the methodology is Thatcherite.

The GAMMA report is structured like an academic thesis at first glance, and at length discusses Iceland's shining economy to attract foreign investors. The most important arguments for increased involvement of private companies in public institutions are, firstly, that this is a „trend, on a world wide scale“ (p. 20), and that „governments are constantly seeking out new ways of financing infrastructure...a common practise is to turn to market solutions“ (p. 22). This is an important rhetorical point that appeals to the emotions of officials, suggesting that Icelanders must not fall behind, that everyone else is doing this, and we must follow the trend.

The first fallacy is to call a two-hundred-year-old ghost a „trend,“ and here facts are twisted in such a way that not all the catastrophic examples of such involvement or takeover of state institutions by private companies in various countries over the last centuries, and not least the last decades, are mentioned. Suffice it to mention the writings of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman concerning America, Arundhati Roy concerning India, Ha-Joon Chang concerning Asia, Bernt Sofus Tranøy, Asle Toje and Dag Østerberg concerning the Nordic countries, and not least the aforementioned book by Einar Már Jónsson, Örlagaborgin, from 2012, concerning the Western world. I also assume that most people still remember the autumn of 2008.

GAMMA cites successful projects where private companies have been involved in state projects. They list so-called PPP-Projects (Public Private Partnership). These projects are explained as: „public-private partnerships, a form of joint investment that gives a privately run firm the right to provide a public service in exchange for an ini­tial invest­ment“ .

An example of a PPP project in road construction in Norway is given: „Grim­sta­d-Krist­i­an­stad road in Norway“ (p. 23). This refers to road construction between Grimstad and Kristiansand. This single example must suffice for a short article; other examples in the report are in the same vein. After detailing such projects, GAMMA writes:

„Most infrastruct­ure companies in Iceland are publicly held, but with a wider debate tak­ing place and with success­ful invol­vem­ent of pri­vate entities in other ventures, the sale of shares held by public bodies would be a log­ical next step“(bls. 43)

Here, first of all, one can see the rhetoric based on the old dichotomy; it speaks of a „logical next step“, where the logical creates associations with rationality and science. The same is evident in comments attributed to GAMMA in Fréttatíminn: „logical for Iceland to sell state-owned companies“. This is meant to make us believe and trust that scientifically thinking people are at work, and not people of primitive emotions.

Rhetorical tricks are one thing; more serious is the fallacy in the argumentation. It states that successful PPP projects, such as those in Norway, should lead to the sale of state-owned companies to private entities: „the sale of shares held by public bodies“.

Upon closer inspection, PPP projects involve something entirely different from selling state institutions. In this case, the Norwegians should then have sold the road in question or the State Road Administration to private entities. What this and other such projects are about is that the Norwegian state, under the banner of Statens veivesen, has advertised bids for a specific project for private entities. The work involves building and maintaining certain road sections on the E18, with contracts lasting 20-30 years. A detailed contract is made with the private company, which receives payment from the State for each year of the contract. As soon as road maintenance decreases or is unsatisfactory – the state's payment to the private entity decreases proportionally. He can be terminated if he does not perform.

When asked, the project manager for such projects at the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Bettina Sandvin, states that it has never been considered for the private entity concerned to buy into Statens veivesen or own the road they build. The road section and the road construction are and will remain 100% owned by the Norwegian state; anything else has simply not been discussed. The private entity is strictly bound by the rules of the Road Administration; people call this necessary oversight. By selling state assets, such oversight would, of course, not be possible. Bettina says that there is not enough experience yet to determine whether such agreements are favorable.

Such practices, which can be found elsewhere in the report, are called sloppiness within academia. As a university BA thesis, the report would have received a failing grade. Since it is stated that some of the authors hold university degrees and one of them is even a professor, it is clear that this is not about laziness and sloppiness, but rather conscious lies. The lies in question here are often called 'doublespeak' in professional jargon, and are defined as such by Edward S. Herman:

„The ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsci­ously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts sel­ect­i­vely, block­ing out those that don’t fit an agenda or program“ (Beyond Hypocrisy 1992, 3).

Here it matters not whether it is called lies or distortion of facts in the name of propaganda. Works of state and municipalities put out to tender on the open market in neighboring countries are used as an argument for the „logical“ right of private entities to buy up state-owned companies. But, of course, there is only one obstacle before GAMMA can take over state-owned companies:

„In some cases leg­islation changes would need to be made in order for pri­vate investors to become sharehold­ers“ (bls. 43) eða „an amend­ment in law“ (bls. 45).

Back to freedom of choice and democracy to understand what this entails. Those political leaders who do not resist such encroachment with legislation will not only sell Iceland from under themselves and the democracy of its citizens, but also their own power. At the top of the list of GAMMA's important clients is the Prime Minister's Office, which says something about the seriousness of the situation. If we stick to the road construction example, GAMMA would not want to be involved unless they could own the roads that were built or the Road Administration, like other state institutions. If they own the roads, no one will be able to dictate their work, criticize, apply regulations, or refer to a decent road network. It will not be enough to shout at one's MP. It doesn't matter what you vote for. It doesn't matter what you complain about. Then the sacred right to property will lead to the death of democracy. It is easy to foresee road tolls on the country's national roads following the same curve that the public has seen rise within the housing market – something that GAMMA and other investment companies are responsible for. The 'owners' of the roads will be autonomous regarding maintenance and construction. It is almost certain that it would not be in line with the demands of road users. According to the report, GAMMA and their friends at Global Konsern & co. thus want to buy up Keflavík Airport, the New National Hospital, Landsvirkjun, Orkuveita Reykjavíkur, build power cables to Britain, etc., etc.

It has become clear that beneath GAMMA's „logical“ and rational surface, an emotion called greed simmers. The example was chosen randomly, but the same naturally applies to other companies with similar intentions, and not least, this applies if officials sign free trade agreements like TiSA or TTiP – the difference is that then one is dealing with global corporations. Until now, Icelandic officials have said yes and amen to such agreements and avoided all discussion.

There is still a possibility for ordinary citizens in Iceland to influence their reality, but the „sútandtæ“ men work day and night on their agenda. But then we come to the core of the matter, which calls for another article: It will hardly happen as long as the system controls the emotional reality of voters.

Part Two: Late Capitalism's Existence Depends on Citizens Not Asking Questions

One of the things George Orwell wrote in his futuristic dystopia, the novel 1984, was that Big Brother owned everything except the cubic centimeters within the citizens' skulls, referring to the brain. The question that the main character Winston asks himself above all else is whether he can have an opinion that goes against Big Brother and whether that opinion can be right – and the other a lie. The Party's struggle is to conquer this last „possession“ of Winston. He must begin to love Big Brother.

Although we do not live under a totalitarian horror as Orwell describes, the question becomes increasingly pressing whether we, as ordinary citizens of late capitalism, own our brains – our thoughts and emotions rather than the nature around us. It can, of course, be argued that all political systems influence people's thoughts and feelings to a greater or lesser extent; what is new in late capitalism is the system's power: the scope of the market area and the encroachment on the citizens' prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is the sensitive brain area of primitive man, an area of emotions and rational thought that is so easy to entice and manipulate, and which the disco boys of consumerism have made their dance floor.

It has emerged in scholarly analyses that the system of late capitalism depends for its existence on citizens asking no questions. That one does not ask oneself why one's daughter would rather look in shop windows than open a book on her day off from school, why one would rather go to a tile shop than visit a sick relative. The system keeps citizens from the fundamental question „does it have to be this way?“, and dulls feelings of discomfort, among other things, by „consumerizing“ citizens through encroachment on the prefrontal cortex and by systematically extinguishing our millionaire-like feelings related to community and solidarity. Consumerization serves to keep people from fundamental questions; the encroachment on the brain lobe keeps people from historical awareness, their emotions, and rational thought; the suppression of social sentiment reduces the risk of any kind of rebellion – the prerequisite for all societal changes is, after all, for people to unite.

While citizens in Orwell's state are kept securely down by so-called „unconsciousness“, a kind of terminal point for the tendencies mentioned, consciousness is a prerequisite for change in Bertolt Brecht's political play, The Decision. Those who announce changes to the starving labor slaves of China should not show empathy or intervene in their lives in any other way than to inform them that life does not have to be this way – they will take care of the rest themselves. Brecht assumes what Orwell predicted would disappear: independent thought or the consciousness of citizens; and even if that consciousness was inactive, it could always be brought to life, enlightened. It is possible to agree with Brecht rather than Orwell, but it is undeniably more complex to deal with a system that has taken root within oneself, rather than living under external authority and oppression as in the example of the Chinese. In older systems, man wielded the whip around the party – late capitalism has turned the whip on man himself.

Political and economic discourse in Iceland often revolves around criticism of those officials who have prioritized special interests over the common good, even though most people know that this is in line with their ideology behind doublespeak and election promises. Based on the discussion premises set here, the arrows would also be directed at oneself, and whether one has any other emotional reality and moral ideal to rely on than that which springs from rampant market and consumerism – and in the spirit of Winston: whether one truly believes in that reality, even though it is increasingly often associated with what is old-fashioned and unthinkable. Thus, the discussion would not revolve around the sighs of social democrats about having „failed“, but rather ask: do they themselves believe in the social democratic ideal they are supposed to preserve in human society? Key aspects of market morality can be touched upon: that man is an individual and not a group being, he is a universal consumer who thinks primarily of his own benefit (a newly tiled bathroom is more important than friendship), that everyone should be in competition with each other, that all human life and nature should be auctioned off in the marketplace of private enterprise, that the „best“ and „strongest/richest“ may seize everything while others get little to nothing, that shareholder profit is superior to all life and all ideals, that private enterprise has no social responsibility.

If an emotional reality other than this becomes increasingly distant, and the contemporary emphasis on the here-and-now continues to weaken historical awareness and promote illiteracy, then the question is what to fight against? Winston works for the Party, fabricating history anew so people forget their true past – but he still remembers fragments of that past. In those fragments lies his hope.

I have dwelled on Orwell's futuristic dystopia to draw clear lines of discussion. But to understand that what is discussed here belongs not only to an uncertain future but also to the past – with the exception of the aforementioned power of encroachment – it is not out of place to look to Greek philosophers. I am annoyed by the current over-veneration of the Greeks, but since proponents of neoliberalism and unrestrained market fundamentalism frequently speak of reason, logic, and rationality, and since Adam Smith constructs his image of the economic man based on the outdated rationalism of the ancient Greeks, it is right to examine what they themselves said about rational and irrational governance.

In Book 4 of Politics (chapters v-ix), Aristotle discusses what should be sought and avoided when it comes to the governance of states. In line with his ethics on the golden mean (which can also be found in Hávamál), Aristotle speaks of the state faring best where the middle class is strongest, where there is the least risk of the highest oppressing the lowest, or the lowest constantly rebelling against the highest. The most rational state is based on as many people as possible living with equality and similar conditions. The opposite of such a democratic state is a dictatorship (tyranny), with an oligarchy in between. There, the problem, says the philosopher, is that the few who govern must then be good and honorable men. It then emerges that the highest goal of governance is integrated with the ideal of ethics, to provide for the „inner life of thought“ among the citizens.

Aristotle says the most irrational constitution is one where a small oligarchy rules, or where such an oligarchy is itself governed by a few wealthy families (Book 4, chapter v). Such an arrangement borders on tyranny, and there „men become more important than laws“ and special interests are prioritized over the interests of those governed. There, the middle class often disappears. He describes the outcome of such a constitution in an English translation: „The result is a state cons­ist­ing of sla­ves and masters, not of free men, and of one class envi­ous and another contemptu­ous of their fell­ows. This condition of affairs is very far removed from fri­end­liness“ (chap. iv, 6).

The social order of unrestrained market fundamentalism has given rise to an oligarchy of the so-called financial elite, where less than one percent of the world's population owns more than all the others combined. Iceland could be called a miniature of the global situation. The takeover of this elite in the sphere of politicians' power is at different stages in different countries, but the power of the financial elite is steadily increasing. If one follows Oxfam's figures, this elite will have become a group of a few hundred people before long. We often assume that democracy will ensure checks and balances against capital, but democracy, unfortunately, is also on the market – and indeed goes on sale with free trade agreements like TiSA. Attac and Changemaker are at the forefront of the opposition, but more people are needed there.

In Iceland's case, one might perhaps speak of an oligarchy governed by wealthy families. This is an irrational constitution according to the Greek philosopher. There, friendliness and social sentiment disappear. Society is characterized by the elite's contempt for the lowest, and the envy of the lowest towards the highest.

It is strange to read this 2300-year-old text and at the same time feel that it manages to describe the situation in Iceland anno 2017 better than any contemporary text. One's feeling is that far too many are striving to enter the elite of the rich. And while the masses strive for such, the system's thought is „invisible“, becoming something accepted and taken for granted without question. If it is true that the ideology of unrestrained market fundamentalism has begun to take root in the emotional reality of Icelanders, then the discussion must take this into account. A certain insight into the human psyche says that one cannot talk oneself away from an emotional reality with argumentation or common sense (cf. writing a logical article); such things, for example, do not help a psychologist. My only way to understand the events of recent years in Iceland is through emotions. Armed with reason and logical thought, one understands nothing.

Historical awareness is related to emotions because, as cognitive psychology has shown, the past resides in every person primarily in the form of emotions. The Chinese in Brecht's example were breaking free from a 2000-year-old tradition of oppression. Aristotle touches upon this aspect of tradition where he says that, unfortunately, it can become a „standard habit“ within societies not to strive for equality and even to let others govern them (Politics, IV, ix, 12). In this spirit, it can be understood that the Icelandic populace has a long tradition of being governed from outside, and that without making any demands for equality. Whether it is a Danish aristocracy or Danish-Icelandic, trade monopoly or serfdom, or whether it was a few settlement chieftains who ruled like petty kings over Celtic slaves – if this is the emotional reality that resides in the majority of people, it is no wonder why people so eagerly and uncritically follow the messages that come from outside – now in the form of neoliberalism. The emotional heritage of history should preferably begin to be included in the discussion. Einar Ólafur Sveinsson once wrote that the great thing about the Icelandic Sagas is that they were never a „blind imitation“ of a foreign model. Now people compete to imitate great nations and forget their unique characteristics.

If there is any truth to this, one would need to delve into that emotional reality and question its validity based on other emotions, such as old moral sentiments, human dignity, social ideals, respect for nature, in addition to historical awareness. By old moral sentiments, I mean, for example, the ethics of our heathen ancestors that „each shall be responsible for their own fire“, that each bears responsibility for their own choices and actions, which would undoubtedly be a healthy ethics for the financial world. Much would be saved if such ethics were legalized. It should be remembered, as anthropologists have highlighted – that this vulnerable and exposed species, Homo sapiens, survived for millions of years precisely because the group stood together. We are taught to think that dreams of social ideals end in the Siberian Gulag, while individual dreams lead to paradise, as the Swedish Nina Björk writes.

If one, for example, dreams of living in a democracy that has supreme control over economic forces, one can expect to hear neoliberals call such a dream a fantasy and a utopia. It is precisely the rule of right-wing forces across the globe that is increasingly uncritically associated with „reason“ and „logical thought“ – the others are childish dreamers who are governed by emotions. Precisely here, a little historical awareness would expose the lie: that all changes in human history can be traced back to dreamers; the „rational“ ones float with the current like dead fish. I would rather say: more dreams, more utopia, and that before the memory of a more beautiful human life is gone. The discussion about socialism in Iceland in recent months should be welcomed.