Freedom depends on economics

Freedom depends on economics

Capitalism, political policies constrain ‘little people,’
support rich

Tax the rich / feed the poor / ’til there are no / rich no
more.

– some ’60s songwriter, "I’d love to change the world"

Are you free? I certainly am, but frankly, I’d rather be
expensive and get paid for this column. However, as many students
know, taking an unpaid position is often the best way to gain work
experience that may help lead to a paying job. This form of
voluntary, uncompensated labor abounds at UCLA, and it favors those
who already have access to resources and don’t need to be paid.

In ancient Greece, political office was unpaid for the longest
time. It was one of the most progressive reforms to give salaries
to politicians, since this meant that those without their own means
could finally hold political office.

Free is defined as "not bound or constrained; at liberty." We
talk about ourselves as if we are free, yet simultaneously it is a
matter of course that we are under constraint and obligation, that
one cannot do whatever one pleases.

But one can’t have it both ways. The ancient Greeks recognized
the demands of nature as a great constraint. Only those with enough
money to free themselves from such concerns were considered to have
freedom (typically wealthy, adult males).

Today, the wealthy are also free from taxes. As Leona Helmsly
once said, "Taxes are for the little people." We live in the
ancient regime again, where revolution is anathema and where the
privileged pay negligible taxes.

At the same time, the government can’t seem to find funds for
its programs, the economy continues to suffer and malnutrition and
typhus are returning to the American ghetto. Upward social mobility
is now greater in Europe than it is in the United States according
to the Feb. 26 issue of Business Week. The bottom 40 percent of
workers saw their incomes decline in real terms during the 1980s,
while the wealthy saw dramatic increases in income.

In this perverse economic system, instead of providing relief to
the poor, technological innovation further impoverishes, because
increases in productivity ultimately tend to reduce the number of
workers needed for any given task. These tasks are the workers’
lifeline in a society in which human beings exist for the system,
and not vice versa.

However, those courageous Republican freshman have discovered
the true problem that is ailing our society: the laziness of
welfare mothers. Even the "moderate" Democrats agree. We need to
get tough and send them into the workforce. They need to pull
themselves up by their bootstraps and stop their "dependency." Thus
will the children of welfare mothers learn virtue as they come back
from school to an empty home.

But seriously, it’s really odd that we are urging welfare
mothers, who may or may not have a high school degree, and who have
the extra burden of caring for an average of two children, to get a
job precisely at a time when students with college degrees are very
alarmed about the chances of ending up working at McDonald’s. Even
if jobs were just waiting for welfare mothers, they would not cover
the cost of child care.

In any case, only in wartime has the American labor market
provided everyone with a job, whatever economists’ equilibrium
theories claim about the possibilities for full employment. In
Economics 102, I was taught that unemployment is caused by workers’
exorbitant wage demands, and that the solution is to get workers to
accept lower wages. If only the minimum wage were lowered! Maybe we
will have to bring back the 14- to 18-hour workday of the 19th
century – also a wonderful product of the "free" market – just so
one can live on a lower wage.

In any case, Aid to Families with Dependent Children served
13,625,342 people in 1992 and cost the government $22 billion, or
1.5 percent of total government outlays. The children supported by
the program numbered 9,200,516. The average monthly payment to a
welfare family in California was $606.34 according to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Three people must live on
that income for a month.

Of course, the Republicans have better ideas. Newt Gingrich was
promoting orphanages last year, suggesting that the First Lady
watch the Hollywood movie "Boys’ Town." Never mind that orphanages
are high cost "institutionalization," a complaint one is used to
hearing from Republicans. When did fact and fiction become so
blurry?

There are surely many good orphanages out there. But horror
stories abound, from 19th century Europe (many orphanages had 80
percent mortality rates) to present day China (where large numbers
of orphans die of neglect).

Or how about in Romania? Since the collapse of Nicolae Ceausescu
and the onset of "freedom," many families simply could no longer
afford their children. Overworked and understaffed, and no longer
receiving ample support from the state, the caretakers at
orphanages have resorted to tying the children to their beds all
day long in a sort of dirty, prison-like existence. These are the
fruits of capitalist efficiency.

Speaking of which, we must mention Russia. In another wonderful
revolution from above, some Russians are wealthier than ever and
are now driving BMWs. Meanwhile, total production has declined
massively in all sectors (perhaps it’s at half of what it was under
socialism). Population growth has plummeted. Prostitution and crime
are booming. The recent wave of Russian (and Eastern European)
women has given German prostitution rings a new slogan: "Fresh meat
from the East."

The mass of people languish in poverty as the Communist Party
and nationalists like Zhirinovsky mysteriously get more votes – by
magnitudes – than the "reform" parties. Hence, the bitter joke in
Moscow a few years back: "What has capitalism accomplished in one
year that communism could not in 70 years?" Answer: "It has made
communism look good."

And the Republicans are out to accomplish this very mission.
Their support for family values (read: patriarchy) is notorious.
The three options of the abused housewife (move back home, go on
welfare or put up with abusive husband) are thus reduced to two at
best.

The party of Big Business will also inadvertently create new
conditions of poverty: "When there is great poverty, the capitalist
finds many people who will work for small wages, which increases
his earnings," says Hegel. "The emergence of poverty is, in
general, a consequence of civil society; from which on the whole
poverty necessarily arises." (One might also read Schumpeter’s view
of the functions of unemployment.)

The poor must also take the blame for driving society into the
ground with their bad morals and their poor work ethic.

This is the richest country on earth. We live in prosperous
times; the Dow Jones industrial average and profits are up. Las
Vegas, the true cultural capital of the United States, stands proud
in the middle of a barren desert as a symbol of conspicuous
waste.

There is a solution to the maldistribution of wealth; only the
will is lacking.

(For starters, vote for Greenpeace or Peace and Freedom.)

Osman is a fourth-year history student and invites informal
response by e-mail at [email protected]. His column appears on
alternate Mondays.

Comments to [email protected]