Jeremy Rifkin wrote a
book about how the private and public sector are unable to support
productivity growth caused by technology. There is an abundance unskilled and
semiskilled laborers who find that their jobs are made redundant by advances in
machinery and general productivity. There are not enough service and "silicon
collared" jobs being created to balance the regular loss of jobs in the
manufacturing and farming sector.
He proposes strengthening the Third sector, or volunteer organizations, as
the means to care for the displaced and to create work. Indeed, the third sector
is perhaps, the foundation that brought success to America, yet it is
underrated in today's religions of free market capitalism and big government.
Rifkin briefly mentions a "social" economy based on volunteer work where the
currency is how much one spends time helping other people. Kind of like
communities looking out for each other on a national level. To do this the role
of communities must be strengthened.
Its hard to imagine such a life where work is not paid for. How can this
coexist with capitalism? Probably taxing the corporations and using the gains in
productivity and profits to subsidize the Third sector. Not a bad idea, but it
would take a grassroots paradigm shift. After all, our media is saturated with
capitalists perpetuating their dogma of consumerism and their rationalization
that only corporations bring innovation. It also flies in the face of the
individualistic tendencies of America.
The government cant lead such a project because it would die in red tape from
the massive bureaucracy. A decentralized effort will provide agile solutions to
societal problems that continue to plague the world. The world matters very much
to America: case in point as September 11. But this is greater than just
reducing terrorism, this is a chance for us to tendency to stop exploiting and
start empowering other peoples. If we see other people as not competition for
the world's resources, but as partners, we can usher in an age where everybody
mutually benefits. Such a world is richer than all of DeBeers diamonds and the
Saudi Arabia's oil.
I admit this is idealistic, but it is a good ideal to move toward. It
certainly beats consumerism.