The main thrust of Diane Coyle's interesting take on the current revolution in capitalism is that it is a good thing, despite the massive protests in Seattle, Prague and Genoa. Her view, which echoes the liberals of the Industrial Revolution era, is that progress has positives that far outweighs its negatives and, if handled properly, will bring unparalleled benefits to mankind.
She dismisses the Cassimeres, who she says are taking an unseemly delight in the current travails affecting the IT sector in particular and the global economy in general, as missing the point.
She bases her defence on the simple premise that it took years for the innovations of the Industrial Revolution to impact on society as a whole and defuses traditional left-wing critiques by admitting that many of the benefits came about after long and passionate political and industrial campaigns to tame the wilder excesses of the free marketeers.
She also asks and answers the question on whether most peoples' living standards have improved massively with a simple "yes". Critics point out that inequality in the US or Britain is as bad now as it was in the 19th century, which is formally true. But even the worst slums in the developed world are a huge improvement on the ghettoes that festered within sight of the "dark satanic mills" of Victorian Britain.
Coyle argues that the critics, both young and old, anarchist and historic left, are basing their objections on battles fought under the auspices of the old economy and also on the enduring fear of technological advances epitomised by Frankenstein's monster or 2001's diabolical computer HAL.
Coyle argues forcefully that the opposition should accept that the main engine for change in the world is capitalism, echoing Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" argument, and that the critics, rather than standing on the sideline, should play in "the only game in town".
She says the internet has become an excellent tool for dissent, with many radical groupings organising protests and exchanging information in a fashion hitherto deemed impossible.
The Zapatista revolution in Chiapas made use of the internet to broadcast news about its struggle, bypassing the Mexican authorities that once would have blacked out all information and quietly clamped down on the area. The amount of electronic information pouring out of Serbia again illustrates the point.
The internet, as Coyle points out, provided the platform for the Drudge Report to break the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal and for Napster to challenge the hegemony of the giant music corporations. And the means to do so were provided by the IT revolution.
Her other main plank is that the new capitalism is based on the exploitation of human resources such as intelligence, flexibility and innovation rather than the traditional exploitation of material resources.
For the free market to continue to expand, it has to make allowances for this new paradigm, and tailor its requirements and expectations accordingly.
Highly bureaucratised, hierarchical and centralised businesses will not achieve as much as those who are in tune with the new realities.
Likewise, societies that are centralised and regimented - from the ones that are slightly so, such as Japan and Germany to those on the other extreme such as Taiwan - will not prosper as much as those that have balanced the paradoxes of individual liberty, social justice and market imperatives.
comidheach@irish-time.ie
