Posts Tagged ‘Capitalism’

Altruism for sale

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Have you noticed the new trend: “altruism for sale”? Yes, we are now we are selling out altruism to the corporations! Helping others, making a difference, the most crucial aspect in our feeling of fulfilment is being sold out. Altruism, so precious for our well being, has lately been suffering a crisis just as big, if not bigger, than our economy. We lose altruism, here comes 1984!

Buy a certain Gucci bag and 25% of the retail price will go to UNICEF (for the trick, check out the small letters: only if you buy it between 16 November and 31 December). Kate Spade’s new collection is featuring those cute mittens and hats, all hand-made by women in Bosina. Those women get $7 pro piece, which is, according to Spade, double of what they normal wages. Oh how nice! The small letters say: It is a day’s work to knit such a hat. Its retail price is $85. Is it great help, is it fair, should we really be proud to make people earn $7 a day, only 500km from here? How about teaching them to fish instead of giving them a (small) fish? Roberto Coin, jewellery designer is helping CARE. A percentage of every package of Pampers goes to some charity (sorry, no details, am not into diapers). If you subscribe to The Economist, they will plant a tree for you. And you can even watch your tree online….

The trick is new: they are trying to make us feel better about spending money on unnecessary, overpriced stuff and keep the vicious circle of consumerism alive by promising that our action will benefit someone. Instant clearance of consciousness. Instant great feeling. Of course, the ones that benefit the most are the corporations. Rich getting richer. The effect is sad: we are deep into learning to hand over our responsibilities, decisions, even feelings, to the corporations. We only need to consume and everything else will be taken care of. This distances us even further from the actual problem. We don’t need to understand what is going on, and why. We don’t have to consciously decide to help someone, we don’t have to chose whom and why. Gucci/Economist/Spade will take care of that. And nothing changes. Gucci keeps on making millions, we keep on slaving to afford a Gucci bag and women in Bosnia keep on living in poverty. But hey, now we feel good about it! Thank you Gucci/Economist/Spade/Pampers.

From (and for) Unibrennt (uni is burning)

Friday, October 30th, 2009

What fascinated me when I visited the demonstration/siege at the Vienna University (Audimax) yesterday was the fact that it was not only about education. I was extremely happy to arrive on time to listen to a speech by Corinna Milborn (author and journalist) who spoke about the multiple crises we are facing right now. She spoke about the fact that this is not only a financial crisis, but also political, environmental, educational, migration crisis. Among other speakers, Chistian Felber, the founder of Attack (the anti-globalization organization) in Austria, as well as Robert Misik, a renowned author and journalist were speaking in Audimax. Pity I missed them.

Felber will speak again on Monday at 17h at the TU (University of Technology).

I must say: congratulations to this great agenda! It makes the movement move away from being only about the education to being about the system in general. Because, hey, if the system was not about the corporations/profits/moneymaking but the people, high quality education would not be in question. The protest is expanding throughout Austria and support comes from unions (metal/textile/food workers) and political parties (Grüne/Green & SPÖ/Social Party Austria), as well as the Upper Chamber of Employment. If you want to support, want to listen to the speeches, or are just curious, take a look at the agenda at http://unibrennt.at/?cat=8&lang=en

Here the information on speakers:

Corinna Milborn

Christian Felber

Robert Misik

And here a few pictures from yesterday. Check out my favourite banner: “Rich parents for everyone!”

Div_2009 017

Div_2009 013

Div_2009 015

Proud to be (also) Austrian! II

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

I have been angry with Austrian students since half a year ago, when I’ve witnessed a class in which the students were asked to prepare 3min presentations with the topic “What moves me/touches me”.  27 out of 30 students started their presentation by saying “It was extremely hard finding something that moves/touches me”. I was mad!!! At the times of a major financial crisis, ongoing destruction of our environment, movements in Iran, two unjust wars, those young people who should be the intellectual elite of Austria were not able to find something that moved them?! Shouldn’t the students be the ones kicking-off changes in a society?

At the same class, many students were protesting against the freedom and spontaneity so untypical for the lectures at the Vienna University. The professor tried to teach through opening her students’ minds, and making them experience the lessons, not learn them by heart. Quite few people in the class didn’t like this.

But surprise, surprise! The past few days, we learned that there is something that moves them, after all. And – now they are fighting for more freedom!

Since five days, the University of Vienna is under siege by its students. The dissatisfaction began with the transition form the old system (Mag.) to BA and MA system. Apparently, the new system is more restrictive and unfair. Yesterday’s demonstration in Vienna was attended by somewhere between 10.000-50.000 people. The demonstrations expanded to Graz, Salzburg, Linz. And hey, they are loud and determined. And they know what they want. They want more freedom in their curricula, they want a free entry (which I do not agree with. I think one should prove they really want and are able to study. By letting everyone study everything, you crowd the universities and thus decrease the quality of education). They want to be freed from fees. They want 50% of women employed at the university (YES!). They want no discrimination. They want better, transparent financing of the academic system (true, if we have billions to rescue banks, why are we stingy with our most strategic area – education?). And a more transparent, democratic system. For a complete list please go to: http://unibrennt.at/?cat=8&lang=en (Have patience with the site, it is currently very slow.)

Yes, we have been bitching long enough about this new generation being too passive, completely apolitical and unwilling to demonstrate. I am happy and proud (hey, this is the second time in a week that I am proud to be also-Austrian!!!) that Austrian students showed that this is not necessarily true. I hope they will make a change (since Obama didn’t really)  and inspire the older generation to openly and loudly articulate their dissatisfaction. Because this world is what we make of it.

I am off to the demonstration.

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

14 companies on Austrian stock exchange paid their share holders €2,3 Billion for the year 2008, the crisis year which cost millions of people their jobs, savings, homes, quality of life. And in which governments paid billions of tax-payers money to save banks/businesses which are again making profits that flow into someone else’s pockets.

This amount makes out 4 payment rounds for 410.000 employees at those very same companies. But these employees are still being fired or made to work “Kurzzeitarbeit” – basically working a bit less for much less money.

All together ¾ of earnings are being paid out instead of invested or kept in the company. Every second company paid more to the share-holders in the crisis year 2008 than a year before.

Noticing anything wrong?

Hair II

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

Few days ago, I read a statement in Grazia (British fashion& gossip magazine) saying that women can relax because it is now “allowed” NOT to have a Brazilian – now we may leave a stripe of hair down there. This had left me strange feeling: I wondered who has the right to dictate how that what I have between my legs should look like. And then, I grabbed Spiegel, Germany’s highly respected political magazine, to find a three page article about the newest fashion dictatorship of body-hair removal. And yesterday, I had a body-hair discussion with two female friends. The topic was sparked by our visit to a newly opened, stylish and expensive waxing studio. We were all surprised to see the price list was divided in two identically big halves: women and men. Which made me angrily protest (again) against men depilating their body hair. Men with moderate body hair are sexy – hair gives them the manly touch that clearly differentiates them from women. There is something gayish (yeah, call it meterosexual if you like), insecure, even childish to shaved chest. And then there is something very uncharming to it when it starts growing and turns into tiny black, unattractive, stubbing spikes. Why the hell would you ever do that to yourself? Have women really been so successful in hiding the pains of hair removal and hair re-growth? Maybe we made a mistake – had we confronted men with our legs, arm pits, bikini-zones and arms full of black stubby hair, maybe they wouldn’t have been so stupid to start depilating their bodies.

But let’s get serious here. The discussion about the removal of male chest-hair is not a discussion about a beauty norm or personal preference. It is a discussion about manipulation, about distraction, about consumerism, about fake liberty. In today’s world, when we are rapidly tuning towards living in “The Brave New World” or “Matrix”, the discussion about male body hair is a very important discussion.

Men depilating their body-hair is yet another step towards continuously blurring boarders between sexes. With the identities of the sexes invisible and roles completely androgynous, the natural fundament of our society will be crashed. When men are no longer men and women are no longer women, one more fundament, one more orientation, one more natural-law will have disappeared. And nothing new will come to replace it. While men used to be strong, hairy and concerned with how to win the next battle and secure the survival of their family, now they are slim, smooth and concerned with which bottle of skin conditioner to buy. Something is foul here.

And then there is this pathologic need to “take things into our hands” which the post-modern society managed to train us into. Just as the neo-liberal capitalistic system managed to free us from all traditional values and rules in order to establish greed as the only valuable rule, it managed to make us feel free and responsible to reshape every single aspect of our being. It is that self-realisation aspect in which it is not the nation, the social class or the education that are responsible for our success and our life-stories – it is only and exclusively us and how we manage ourselves and our lives. The neo-liberal capitalism gave us the right, which has then unfortunately turned into a painful obligation, to construct and shape every single aspect of our existence, including our body hair. While this can be liberating and fun, it can also be frustrating and exhausting. And here’s the real danger – concerned with shaping ourselves and our lives, we cannot be concerned with shaping the world we live in.

Taking things into your hands can turn into a problem, when the “things” are not important and when the re-shaping process turns into a process of enslaving instead of liberating. Look at what happened with women: For generations, feminists have been fighting against treating women as objects which can be shaped and used however men, or the society, wants it. Unfortunately, today women have turned into objects more then they have ever been. They are literally blackmailed by the existence of a new virtual woman presented by the media: the Bimbo. She is airbrushed, siliconised and liposucted, über-naturally slim and toned, with huge breasts, plumped lips, not a trace of cellulites, body-hair, brain or any other natural “imperfections”. The appearance of Bimbo resulted with naturally beautiful women feeling frustrated, insecure and unhappy. It resulted in a rocketing rise in eating disorders, deaths through anorexia, plastic surgeries and of course, bought cosmetic products and services. But what is even worse, it resulted in women wasting an incredible amount of time and energy on their looks. And we all know that today, more then ever, there are more important things to be occupied with than looks.

And because half of the market cannot be enough, now it is men’s turn to become victims. Have their ego crashed and have them waste money on cosmetics and have them waste their time figuring out the newest depilation techniques! Sheep like that are much easier to manipulate. The male Bimbo is already a reality. Open any magazine and you will find a six-packed, completely shaved, wrinkle and grey-hair-free Ken smiling at you, selling you one of the newest products.

Finally, there is the hidden agenda to create a complete dissatisfaction with anything we are born with. Because if you are unsatisfied with everything you are born with, and if you believe you must take things into your hands to change it and shape it the way magazines told you it should be, you will be a fantastic consumer of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and various services such as waxing, hair colouring and breast-enhancing. It seems to work. Today, leaving anything untouched and unchanged seems like a proof of failure or weakness. And being  unhappy with yourself is good: self-secure and strong people might rebel. We seem to be safe from this: After you’ve spent 10 hours in the office, 2 in the gym and 1 reading about the newest diet, you will not have the capacity to notice the socio-economic system crashing, rich getting richer and the environment being poisoned to the point of no return. And even if you do, you will be way too tired to try and change anything.

This is why male body hair is important: To learn to love ourselves just the way we are. And to start working on improving the world rather then our unimportant little asses.

Angry. Again.

Sunday, July 12th, 2009

Last week, Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader resigned out of the blue, leaving his obligations towards the country and its citizens from one minute to the other. He escaped the sinking ship, many commented. Just like that. Now he is resting on his luxury yacht.

Bush destroyed a whole country of 27 millions inhabitants, killed hundreds of thousands (some estimate million) of people, all under pretence that proved to be false and just to occupy the oil fields (which were sold out to foreign investors last week). And as a reward, he is now happily retired on a ranch in Texas.

The investment bankers who invented toxic derivates and created the crisis which took millions of jobs and destroyed lives of millions of people are stealing again (look at what is happening with the oil price). The only punishment for the created crisis was sending Madoff to prison for 150 years. This was obviously just a symbolic act – other hundreds of thousands of same thieves are still stealing and earning their million-dollar bonuses.

Why is it that if I go and steal or destroy someone’s home and kill their family, I would immediately end in a prison? And those who do the same crime, but on a much larger scale get rewarded?

How can it be that the politicians, the ones who should serve and protect us, are the only group of people with a total immunity? Why are there absolutely no consequences to their wrong-doing? Shouldn’t they be the ones who should be especially critically observed and especially punished if they betrayed the people who elected them and gave them power?  Why are we accepting this? When I start a job, I sign a contract – if I am not fulfilling what I promised to or if I am stealing from the company that I signed a contract with, they will fire me, even prosecute me. Why do we treat our leaders differently?

What happened to the promised regulations of the financial markets? Where were the protesters at the G8? Why are we not able to get up and force the change? Are we already totally lobotomised?

Yeah, summer is here, let’s enjoy it. After all, we have more interesting topics to thing about. For instance, what did MJ look like when he died?

Aren’t we just great?

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Yesterday, UNODC (United Nations on Drugs and Crime) released the World Drug Report 2009. The Report shows that global markets for cocaine, opiates and cannabis are steady or in decline, while the production and use of synthetic drugs is feared to be increasing in the developing world.

Should this be strange? Every other person in our fantastic western society is on legal drugs: antidepressants. We don’t need cocaine, opiates or cannabis anymore – we have soma. And we even get it for free – they are covered by the health/social security. “Mine are very weak” said a friend few days ago, “they are for kids and teenagers.” Great, so now we even started legally drugging our kids and teenagers.

We should urgently start exporting antidepressants to the developing world. We get to earn money and they don’t have to “produce and use” synthetic drugs. A win-win situation par excellence.

The swines were sneezing on 1 May. Nothing serious, they only have a small flu.

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

I was expecting more action, more protests and louder voices on yesterday’s 1st May.
What happened?
Are we sleeping?
Are we scared of the swine flu?
Or do we think that it is still not that bad?
Sad but true – the crisis was a big chance for a change, but now we can say for sure that everything will stay the same. We’re just lame.
And I am going to a garden party….

Davos: You are the Crisis

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

Here my favourite banner after “Jump you fuckers” on Wall Street in November (see 6 Dec. 2008). It really needs no further comment.

davos

Consuming Love, or What is Left of It

Friday, January 30th, 2009

From The Vienna Review, February 2009

In two seminal books, Eva Illouz analyses the influence of modern capitalism on love and romance. A perfect topic for Valentine’s Day. Ana Tajder met Eva Illouz in Vienna.

Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism

Will you be celebrating Valentine’s Day? Will you buy roses, go for a dinner in a luxury restaurant, buy a little teddy bear with a big red heart? Or will you boycott that kitschy capitalistic product of American culture, condemning it as a crass celebration consumption?
Or will you simply be ambivalent?
Well, don’t be. As Eva Illouz shows in her two books about the impact of capitalism on romance and love, the topic is too interesting for ambivalence.
Professor of Sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Center for the Study of Rationality Eva Illouz is ready to challenge the most intrenched cynic. Her earlier book, Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1997) created a milestone in research of love and romance in capitalism. Following up on the topic was the 2007 Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism, a sampling of her ‘Adorno’ lectures.
Whenever you finally meet a person you had found fascinating by reputation, you will be surprised about how much bigger you often imagine them than they really are. Our brain projects the size of our fascination with the person on their physical dimensions.
When I meet Eva Illouz, this surprise stretched even further, to the nature of her personality. Her books are so well researched, so strong in their analysis, conclusions, theories and findings that you expect a very powerful, maybe even insistent personality. A rock. The reality is quite different. Eva Illouz is petite, gracious, and with the most gentle expression in her huge blue eyes. Contrary to my expectation, she does not project, in fact, at all; she absorbs. Still, the gentleness of her appearance cannot hide the immense intellectual power working in the background.
A lot has changed in the ten years between the two books, Illouz confessed, and with it, a major shift in perspective. “Choice!” she exclaimed. In her first book, she explained how the economic ideas of choice emancipated human relationships and gave them new possibilities. Commodities did not corrupt relationships and feelings, she believed but served as a way of enhancing and transmitting those feelings. But then came the Internet and a culture of choice.
“The problem is, people don’t know how to deal with choice,” she said. “Studies have shown that choice creates confusion, apathy and a shift from being a satisfier, a person who is happy with good enough, to a maximizer, a person who always wants more and better.
“The problem is that we do not have a natural mechanism to stop the processes of maximizing our life choices.”
In her lecture on Jan. 26 at the Bruno Kreisky Forum, Ambrustergasse 15, in Vienna’s 19th District, Illouz analysed the disenchantment and rationalization of love that were central to the discussion in Cold Intimacies. Three cultural phenomena are principally to blame for this, she said: The Internet technology of dating sites and social networks that has exploded choice; the emergence of popular science that influences our picture of love, and second-wave feminism that blames romantic love for deepening the divide between men and women.
“Feminism tore down male chivalry and female mystery, taking the enchantment out of love,” claimed Illouz.
So is it back to pre-18th century mode of arranged marriages? No, modern rationality is different, Illouz said. Two hundred years ago, parents made the decisions, based on a few basic criteria: good health, social class and an ability to provide. Sentiment and reason were kept safely at arms length.
Today, this rationality comes from ourselves and hinges on a long list of criteria – including emotional compatibility, sexual compatibility and social compatibility. It is ideal that cannot be reached, one that gets us stuck in a rut of endless refinement.
“We don’t have the cultural resources to reach the ideal.” Illouz says.
The problem of choice cannot be emphasized often enough. While in pre-modern times, love was accidental and the object of love not subject to substitution, now the sheer volume of choice forces rational and analytic criteria. Choice also gives potential partners the characteristics of consumer goods and partners can always be “upgraded” for someone newer and better.
So while choice has given us freedom, especially improving the position of women in our society, now that freedom again puts women at a disadvantage. While men still have the socio-economic power and love is still the way for women to gain a piece of this power, the disadvantage lies in the dimension of time.
Men can profit from the choice their whole life long, especially if they are well situated. Women have a choice up until their early thirties. But at that point, if they want children and family, they must take the first choice that is “good enough”.
Eva Illouz is currently a researcher at the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin. The topic for next book is “Why love hurts.” Now that’s a perfect Valentine’s present.