The System - An Idea Project, by Ed Whitfield

The system is basically how our society is run. The governments and institutions, the ideologies and general discourses, the flow and displacement of currency, and of course how the little people are dealt with, how to occupy their time so the system runs according to the governors.

The system that is relevant to our case and soon, probably, most of the world, is the Western system of the USA and Europe. Politically the system is run by representative democracy. This is where small, local leaders are voted to represent the voice and opinions of their constituency. They do this in a larger, national forum, parliament or the Dail, by voting for a leader, the prime minister or taoiseach. Usually this leader is the head of a large party, larger parties having more chance of candidates getting elected to the parliament, therefore having a larger voting power and installing their leader to do their bidding. The unfortunate thing is, however, being involved in a national party you tend to come to the community with a set agenda, therefore there may be little relevance between the community and who they vote. In which case the party pumps money into the campaign and seeing as people like colourful, shiny objects they tend to vote for the most colourful and shiny candidate, not so dissimilar to a beauty pageant

Now the leaders of a system always follow an ideology, the socialist communists of Russia, the social democrats of Britain in the fifties and sixties, the liberals of the seventies. The current system runs along the neo-liberal ideology. The principals behind this idea are that of the individual's right to pursue their own wealth, in contrast to the overly mothering government of the social democrats, which liberals believed created a lazy nation. The liberal agenda wishes to reduce governments' responsibilities it has over a nation, creating, eventually, an almost anarchic state, the only governing force being the economy.

For the past century American foreign policy has been doing its best to ensure that nations around the world are complying with this economic/ political structure. Institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation lend money to countries. In exchange the countries must adhere to their economic policies, ranging from opening up their borders to monetary flows (so investors don't have to pay taxes), installing slave labour camps and free trade, diffusing labour unions and privatising public services such as public transport.

This idea is not that bad, if you think about it, lessening the responsibilities of the government and giving more power to the individual. No that bad if the world wasn't already so economically divided. What is so terrible about liberalism is that it makes even greater the division between the rich and poor. This fact gives the world little choice but to comply, however. The poorer countries must accept these policies or suffer drowning in the economic sea that some of the richer ones have created, and the richer ones must adopt them to stay afloat and competitive on the global market. Countries must open up to America's policies of free trade or suffer the consequences, which, in the past, have been drastic and shocking.

"I spent most of my time being a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short I was a racketeer for capitalism." - General Smedley Butler, American Marine Corps.

This military hero, one of the most decorated in the USA, was sent to "make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903". In 1909 he helped 'purify' Nicaragua for banks and the Brown Brothers. Smedley paid Mexico a visit in 1914, making it safe for American oil interests. 1916 saw the Marine Corps 'intervening' in the Dominican Republic on account of American sugar interests. And "in China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

The American government called this 'intervention'. Remember that word when you hear on the news that America is at war with yet another country. Intervention in the name of foreign policy. Translating as brutal invasions in the name of America's economic empire.

"We have expanded into Asia, we have attracted the fragments of the Spanish dominions, and reaching out into China. . . We are penetrating into Europe, and Great Britain especially is gradually assuming the position of a dependency. . . The United States will outweigh any single empire, if not all empires combined. The whole world will pay her tribute. Commerce will flow to her from both east and west, and the order which has existed from the dawn of time will be reversed." - Historian, Brooks Adams, 1902. (The above quotes can be found in Tom Hanahoe's 'America Rules', 2003)

You think things might have changed since then, but if you look at the patterns of globalisation you will find they ring similar to Adams' prophecies.

The liberal ideology is used like a tool. It is the explanation given, the new attitude one must posses. It reminds me of 'The Emperor's New Coat'. Except it's 'The Corporation's New Empire'. The story goes, it's not really an empire, it's just the only way the world works, and you are a naïve fool if you believe otherwise. Now that we have examined our system we still must ask the question why? Why do some people feel the need to expand an empire across the globe in this day and age? Why do some feel the need to control, to own and posses, to have people under their thumb, squirming, knowing that there's no way out? You could say pure greed, or even pride. You could say fear, that they are afraid that if they don't hold the upper hand another will. But these don't cut it for me. It doesn't make sense to go as far as America does out of greed, pride or fear. It doesn't make sense to do it at all.

Now to look at the little people that live within the system. These being, of course, you and me. It is such a vast system that many of us can't imagine any other way, we were born into it and we will die under it. We are like fish in a bowl, unable to see past the glass. People who do see past the glass have often been classed as mad, insane, and then institutionalised for fear of these new, imagined existences spreading to others. The vast majority of us seem to be cornered down streets at protests, allowed have our talks and express our grievances, and then urged to go home before our mothers begin to worry about us. Nice and safe outside government buildings, where they can keep an eye on us. Most of us see different types of worlds beyond the glass and we end up fighting amongst ourselves, as America persuades the taoiseach to sell yet another of our amenities to power hungry private owners who may lower costs at the beginning but only to wipe out competition. Afterwards, of course, they will begin to bump up prices, lower wages, sell lower quality foods, and so on.

And the little people live, day in, day out, running the shops, driving the buses, earning, spending, consuming, dying. Their choices are restricted to the glass bowl they live in, never having the time or chance to look beyond it for fear of drowning in this new, fast paced liberal system. The dynamic changes one must make to keep ahead of the competition. Oh but this is my fifth night course in two years! When will I ever have that 'job for life' my father told me I'd have after college? When will I ever be good enough for the constantly shifting labour market? This is the twenty-first century. This is liberalism, individualism. This is the American Empire. This is our system and these are our lives.

These are also the reasons to begin thinking about changing the system. What do the victims of invading empires normally do? What did they do in the past? I remember Ireland fought. They fought their asses off back in the day. For what? To let Britain back in? For them to invade once more, only this time, instead of making us work on their farms, they have us working in their supermarkets and computer factories. (Remember what Adams said a little over a hundred years ago, about Britain assuming the position. They were smart, and still are. England is the rent boy for America, an unholy marriage, they go hand in hand, dominating and influencing, and we, amongst others, are the page boy.) So, I will ask again, what did our fore fathers fight for?

Another question is what do we do after having looked outside the bowl? What do you do after you no longer want to stand at protests in the cold, hand in hand with many hypocrite, liberal capitalists, no longer having the patience for boycotting, realised already that giving money to many charities only prolongs the problem, and sick to death of the squabbling between people you know ought to be fighting on the same side? What do you do then? The unions have either been dismantled or are chock full of corrupt members. How could unions be of use now anyway, that the liberal agenda has achieved this stage, where to remain competitive you must be dynamic. Meaning the labour market is no longer what it used to be in the industrial era. We are now living in the post industrial era, where blunt collective effort couldn't cut through butter, let alone the American Empire!

'Bus Drivers Go On Strike!' For what? What use is in complaining to a government they voted in? A government who had long ago sold the buses when they signed privatisation agreements in exchange for promises of investment and a kind, economic eye? The government holds no power in regards to these issues. The government was bought just as the unions were. Just as the buses were. This is what I mean when I say blunt collective effort.

It is the dawning of a new era, a new chapter in the liberal book. Post industrialism. Apathy is rank, drugs are cheap, people are selfish. Where is Jesus Christ to run amok in the market place? Within the bleak era of post industrialism, the town may look less like something from a Dickens' novel, that dreariness has been transferred to our lives, our souls. No longer are we human and no longer do we worship god. Our temples are now centres of commerce and we are now consumers. The glorious forfeit is that we gave up human choice for consumer choice. Aren't we lucky?

-- Ed Whitfield, March 2004

Back to An Idea Project Index • More of Ed's Opinion Columns