Connect: 'Replace capitalism with something nicer," suggest billboards currently advertising this newspaper.
There's a thought. The ad, however - perhaps unconsciously - almost immediately undermines hope by requesting: "Any suggestions?" There are, especially given that we speak English and are situated between the US and Britain, few realistic alternatives to a capitalist Ireland at present.
Still, that ought not mean we have to import the most repulsive aspect of capitalism: boundless greed. Yet, along with the benefits produced by that economic system - dynamism, choice, wealth - we appear to have taken on board its inevitable shadow side too. Economic success has made Ireland coarser, destroyed community and made too many people more selfish and greedy. Ask anybody. Ask yourself.
A Catholic Ireland in a Protestant northern Europe was one thing; a socialist Ireland, say, in the era of capitalist globalisation is practically impossible and unwanted anyway by most people. In that sense, while the billboards are, in advertising terms, suitably "subversive", they are ultimately, probably against their better intentions to promote thought, self-serving. They're self-serving in, even if unwittingly, proclaiming that while capitalism isn't always nice, it's an inescapable reality.
So, the ad promotes the sort of shrug-your-shoulders attitude designed to increase hubris. People become deterred from complaining about inequality, exploitation and the excessive power of money. Those without money and possessions are "losers"; fogeys in their 20s talk of "property portfolios"; and it's considered "sophisticated" to know a little about wine but nothing about grammar. Compassion is for wimps, and the gross, cartoon-ish attitudes of Dynasty prevail.
It would anyway need a revolution - almost certainly bloody - to "replace" capitalism. Few in Ireland could want that. Nonetheless, with political will, capitalism could be better managed and made less coarse and brutal. Thus "any suggestions" to "change capitalism into something nicer" might be more relevant even if it made for weaker advertising.
Perhaps there's the point. Weak advertising, even if it adheres closely to the truth - indeed arguably because it might adhere closely to the truth - is unwanted. It doesn't shift "product". Punchy, provocative and contrasting language is required. Thus "replace" and "nicer", that "nicer" subverting itself by its own irredeemable effeteness, slushiness and weakness. "Nicer" really is a pinko word.
Anyway, there are certain aspects of production that, at least at present, are arguably best left to market forces. Shoes, cars, chocolate and most other consumer goods are produced, not without exploitation, but at least a case can be made for current production practices. The market is, if nothing else, dynamic. But what of health and education? Should these be for sale?
Consider health. Why should a wealthy person - sometimes but not always with wealth fairly gained - be able to buy a life-saving medical operation while a poorer person must wait and sometimes die waiting? Why is this? Or, to use the language of the ad, "any suggestions?" Does the wealthy life - especially if the wealth was made from hideous exploitation - deserve this?
Of course, sources of wealth are not a medical matter and doctors cannot be overly concerned about them. They, like lawyers, offer their services to people as they present themselves. But like a lawyer who, while observing due process, gets a guilty criminal off a particular charge, doctors must be aware that unsavoury types will continue to prosper while decent people die. Capitalism increases this likelihood.
Or consider education. More and more people feel compelled to give their sons and daughters an academic advantage by sending them to fee-paying schools, by getting them grinds or by enrolling them in cramming institutions. Meanwhile, an increasing proportion of youngsters in underfunded schools in blighted areas leave without being able to read or write.
Thus the gaps in medical and educational issues are widening. In these areas Ireland, because it has largely adopted a similar economic model, is becoming increasingly like the US. This is both good (for the wealthy) and bad (for the poor) but it's unfortunate when it's unwittingly strengthened by advertising merely doing its job.
Sure, it's just an ad - one among thousands out there competing for our attention. In its favour, it doesn't, like so many others, use sexual imagery to grab awareness. But in, even inadvertently, making capitalism and reality synonymous, it reflects a growing theme of globalisation: there's only game in town now and that's market economics.
There's a sense of deja vu about all of this. When the Catholic Church was the dominant power in Ireland it proclaimed that a different game - based more on a promised afterlife than on this life - was really all that mattered. We can expect the era of intense market economics to pass too.
Until then, though, perhaps we should try to ensure that capitalism doesn't become tyrannical for too many. Certainly most Irish people are wealthier than in the past but must feel let down that there's so little correlation between wealth and happiness. If, for instance, you're three times as wealthy as you were, say 20 years ago, are you three times as happy? If not, "any suggestions?"