Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Ethical Capitalism Possible?
In response to the current ecological and financial crises, the call for a more sustainable and fairer globalization is gaining momentum. Building this alternative must begin with a spiritual, moral and ethical understanding of our society and economy
We live in a time of transition, a time when all is changing and being challenged - weather systems, ecosystems, our interaction with nature, our understanding of other beings. We now understand that we are all interconnected and interdependent. Somewhere along the line, our actions as human beings have created enormous instability to the planet and the millions of species who reside here.
Much of which is familiar to us and deemed the ‘norm' is no longer working and is being challenged. Sometimes change brings with it destruction. Sometimes destruction is beneficial. It can alert us to practices that do not work. With destruction also comes new birth, and new avenues open wide to be explored. There are many choices as to which route to take; the issue is which route is the one that will provide life for all. The golden opportunity presented by the current ongoing crises is to make the right choices that will affect the long term future for us, our descendants and our planet.
There is no denying the fact that we are in a serious state of crises, a crises of our own making, all of us and not the bankers alone. They responded to what we wanted: cheap, available, unregulated money and loads of it.
They in turn were responding to the neo-liberal agenda of the so-called Washington Consensus: Privatisation, deregulation, market forces, liberalisation, low taxation, free trade, and one glove fits all policies and more. No regards, no respect for different cultures, civilisations, religions and history. What is good for America and the West, then, must also be good for everybody else, regardless of all other factors, we were told again and again.
The tragedy is that we have now discovered that what we were pushing on others, which we thought was good for us - the so-called market-forces driven Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism - was nothing but a huge cancerous cell which at the end brought the house of cards down. The emperor has no clothes, so to say.
What to Do Now?
The current global economic crisis is deeply complex and perplexing. Many world politicians, business people, academics, activists, and civil society representatives, as well as religious and spiritual leaders, have called for a new kind of "ethical capitalism" - a moral, spiritual and virtuous economy. People everywhere are calling for an international framework of standards for an equitable and sustainable global economy to replace the current economic system of unbridled growth and increasing ecological degradation. While some look for quick short-term solutions that would perpetuate the current economic model, others see the need for more fundamental changes of the model itself. Our challenge is great. In a time of continuing crisis and polarizing viewpoints, can the world agree on an ethical approach to the global economy?
I propose a comprehensive examination of the major attempts to integrate economics with ethics and spirituality, along with an exploration of the theoretical underpinnings of these activities. In considering the need for bold economic initiatives, we must keep in mind the deeper questions that rarely find their way into political debate or public discourse.
We should explore the emerging economic issues as well matters that are deeply ethical and spiritual:
- What is the source of true happiness and well-being? What is the good life?
- What is the purpose of economic life? What does it mean to be a human being living on a spaceship with finite resources?
- How can the global financial system become more responsive and just?
- How can the world make the global trade system more equitable and sustainable?
- What paths can be recommended to shift the current destructive global political-economic order from one of unrestrained economic growth, profit maximisation and cost minimisation, to one that embraces material wealth creation, yet also preserves and enhances social and ecological well-being and increases human happiness and contentment?
- How can society overcome poverty and scarcity with limited natural resources?
- How should we deal with individual and institutionalized greed?
- What are the requirements of a virtuous economy?
- What religious or spiritual variables should be considered in economic/business ethics and economic behaviour?
- How are these components to be integrated with economic theories and decisions?
- What role should universities play in building an integrity-based model of business education?
- What should be the role of the youth?
- How might the training of young executives be directed with the intention of supplying insights into the nature of globalisation from its economic, technological and spiritual perspectives, to build supporting relationships among the participants that will lead toward action for the common good within their chosen careers?
- Indeed, is ethical, profitable, efficient and sustainable capitalism possible?
These questions and more need to be reflected upon, debated, and ultimately, answered and put into policy formation, guiding us to a more humane globalisation.
A concrete framework for understanding what has gone wrong and possible remedies, including both broad perspectives on policies and specific recommendations, must include not only an economic perspective, but also a spiritual, moral and ethical understanding.
Steps can be taken towards a sustainable economy, to turn the current crisis of casino capitalism into an opportunity for a successful, sustainable and everlasting change, where all people, wherever they may be, can live fulfilling, healthy, and yet more ecologically compatible lives.
Here are the steps I suggest:
1. Begin a Journey to Wisdom
Economics and business are all about human well-being in society and cannot be separated from moral, ethical and spiritual considerations. The idea of an economics which is value-free is totally false. Nothing in life is morally neutral. In the end, economics cannot be separated from a vision of what it is to be a human being in society.
In order to arrive at such understanding, my first recommendation must surely be for us to begin a journey to wisdom, by embodying the core values of the Golden Rule (Ethic of Reciprocity): "Do unto others as you would have them to do to you". This in turn will prompt us on a journey of discovery, giving life to what many consider to be the most consistent moral teaching throughout history.
It should be noted that the Golden Rule can be found in many religions, ethical systems, spiritual traditions, indigenous cultures and secular philosophies. Applying this universal principle can provide an enabling mechanism for the dialogue and development essential to resolving the challenges we face globally, nationally, and locally.
2. Now is the Time for a Revolution in Economic Thought
"An economist who is only an economist cannot be a good economist". Therefore, the focus of economics should be on the benefit and bounty that the economy produces, how to let this bounty increase, and how to share the benefits justly among the people for the common good.
Moreover, economic investigation should be accompanied by research into subjects such as anthropology, philosophy, politics and most importantly, theology, to give insight into our own human mystery, as no economic theory or no economist can say who we are, where have we come from or where we are going to. Humankind must be respected as the centre of creation and not relegated to short-term economic interests, as has been the case for the past few centuries.
3. Don't Repair the Economy, Change It
The current financial meltdown is the result of under-regulated markets built on an ideology of free market capitalism and unlimited economic growth. The fundamental problem is that the underlying assumptions of this ideology are not consistent with what we now know about the real state of the world. The financial world is, in essence, a set of markers for goods, services, and risks in the real world and when those markers are allowed to deviate too far from reality, "adjustments" must ultimately follow and crisis and panic can ensue.
To solve this and future financial crises requires that we reconnect the markers with reality. What are our real assets and how valuable are they? To undertake this readjustment requires both a new vision of what the economy is and what it is for, proper and comprehensive accounting of real assets, and new institutions that use the market in its proper role as servant rather than master. We have to first remember that the goal of the economy is to sustainably improve human well-being and quality of life, not the promotion of materialism, consumerism and "shop till you drop" values - especially when they are done with borrowed money!
Ultimately we have to create a new model of the economy and development that acknowledges this holistic context and vision. This new model of development would be based clearly on the goal of sustainable human well-being. It would use measures of progress that clearly acknowledge this goal. It would acknowledge the importance of ecological sustainability, social fairness and real economic efficiency.
Ecological sustainability implies recognising that natural and social capital are not infinitely substitutable for built and human capital, and that real biophysical limits exist to the expansion of the market economy.
Social fairness implies recognising that the distribution of wealth is an important determinant of social capital and quality of life. The conventional model has bought into the assumption that the best way to improve welfare is through growth in marketed consumption as measured by GDP. This focus on growth has not improved overall societal welfare, which is why explicit attention to distribution issues is sorely needed.
4. Recognise That the Economy Is Part of the Biosphere
A comprehensive economic plan must be based on the scientific fact that the global economy is a subsidiary of the natural order. Economic policies should be attuned to the limited capacity of Earth's biosphere to provide for humans and other life and to assimilate their waste. Photosynthesis and sunlight are as essential to the framework for economic budgets and expenditures as the laws of supply and demand.
5. Acknowledge That We Need New Institutions
An economic renewal tailored to the 21st century would establish institutions committed to fitting the human economy to Earth's limited life-support capacity. We need something like the central reserve banks which will look after shares of the Earth's ecological capacity, not just interest rates and the money supply. Money should be recognised as a social licence for using part of Earth's life-support capacity. Some functions of governance will have to operate at a global level through a federation modelled perhaps on the European Union, with enforceable laws designed to assure that individual nations don't overrun Earth's limits. The rules for the developed countries that are responsible for the current ecological crisis should be different from those of developing ones.
6. Fairness Matters
A "right" human-Earth relationship would recognise humans as part of an interdependent web of life on a finite planet. The economy must recognise the rights of the human poor and of millions of other species to their place in the sun. In a world awash in money, addressing poverty only with growth reflects a tragic lack of moral imagination. Indeed, in pushing for more "free" trade as it is currently understood, we would entrench an ongoing addiction to consumption, pursued in a manner that often ravages the bio-productivity of developing countries.
7. Expand the Discussion
The new knowledge that will forever mark this period in human history is the overwhelming scientific evidence that we are over-consuming the planet and accelerating toward ecological catastrophe. The short-term approaches of most ministers of finance and professional economists don't account for how the planet works, or even that the economy exists on a finite planet. Scientists morally committed to protecting the global commons and researching ecological limits to the global economy need more funding and influence in policy-making.
8. Look beyond Neoliberal Education and Short-Term Fixes
We must begin a serious debate on the role of education and what education is all about. We must greatly increase investment in educational and civic institutions that teach that we are not "consumers," but citizens of the Earth and guardians of life's prospects on a small, beautiful and finite planet. In today's largely decadent, money-driven world, the teaching of virtue and building of character is no longer part of the curriculum at many of our universities around the world. The pursuit of virtue has been replaced by moral neutrality - the idea that anything goes. For centuries it had been considered that universities were responsible for the moral and social development of students and for bringing together diverse groups for the common good.
Given the above, it is clear that we need a new economic model, enabling us to deal with new challenges, rather that rescuing and bailing out a discredited and bankrupt model, philosophy and theory.
The long-term solution to the financial crisis is therefore to move beyond the "growth at all costs" economic model to a model that recognises the real costs and benefits of growth. We can break our addiction to fossil fuels, over-consumption, and the current economic model and create a more sustainable and desirable future that focuses on quality of life rather than merely quantity of consumption.
It will not be easy; it will require a new vision, new measures, and new institutions. It will require a redesign of our entire society. But it is not a sacrifice of quality of life to break this addiction. Quite the contrary, it is a sacrifice not to.
- Posted in



264 Comments so far
Show AllWhile it can be argued that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933 didn't go far enough toward achieving ethical capitalism, it got closer than any other attempts.
Unfortunately, the US has spent the past 30 years dismantling the New Deal. Dusting off the New Deal and restoring it to law is the first step in creating ethical capitalism.
Don't fall for the banksters' myths that the New Deal is obsolate and stifles innovation. The banksters' are committing the same crimes their ancestors did in 1933, 1920, 1890...
Is ethical capitalism possible?
Apparently not.
For quite a few years I was lulled into thinking it was, but the last ten years have thrown me back to the positions of my youth.
At the very best, only heavily regulated welfare-state capitalism can keep man's inborn greed in check.
But our so-called leaders have abandoned this path.
Marx had it right, at least as concerns human cupidity.
Tear down the wall.
These articles that say - the bankers are good people - they just gave us what we wanted is BULLSHIT!
just as unbelievable as " Obama wants to do the right thing but those darn republicans are soooo mean"!
the banksters enroned the damn system ON PURPOSE! they took all the debt off the balance sheets - any accounting 101 student knows that's WRONG!
then when the system showed signs of distress most states Attorney's Generals wanted to investigate and the BUSH ADMIN said "NO IT"S ILLEGAL TO INVESTIGATE WRONGDOING"
and Obama's answer? give the same people even more power!
the vampires have gamed the system....plain and simple......
time to tax any incomes over 3 million a year at 80%....
which - by the way - is less than the republican eisenhower raised the rates up to.....
the economy is a zero-sum game.....the more the wealthy have the less everyone else has....
tax the vampires into either shaping up or leaving the country...
better yet 90% tax on incomes over 3 million - and make it a flat tax on wages over the 3 million....no more loopholes...then you create an incentive to NOT make more and more and more money..thru hook, crook or deceit....because why bother the government will just take it....
Thank you mtdon, you are completely right on.
The banksters gave us what we wanted when they steered people (mostly minorities) who qualified for standard mortgages into sub-primes with unpayable balloon payments? When they hid the traps in fine print on page 17? When they bundled junk mortgages into junk bonds and, with the help of corrupt accountants, sold them as triple A, while they themselves were selling them short. And, oh yes, when they peddled unsustainable loans, usually embezzled by dictators, to third world countries so that they could break and capture their economies?
No one who thinks that the banks "gave us what we wanted" has any business talking about economics.
You are right also about 90% taxes without loopholes for incomes over $3,000,000. That channels money to middle class jobs in two ways; first through government public works, and second through the corporations themselves, who will now make a greater profit if they channel funds from millionaires to workers.
Two conditions are needed, however, for a just tax system to be realized and maintained. First, publicly financed elections which excludes corporations, and second, worker representation (co-determination) on corporate boards of directors, as exists in Europe. The EU requires large corporations to have 30% worker representation on boards, and Germany requires 50%.
Without these two democratic controls, one political and one economic, the capitalists will begin again their spiral of more money = more power = still more money, and on and on to Reagan-Bushism.
Only a vast acceleration of union and community organizing will allow us to even begin to stop the capitalist juggernaut.
no
"Is Ethical Capitalism Possible?"
In a word: no.
Capitalism is an economic system that is only concerned with restricting and/or redirecting the accumulation of wealth towards the wealthy. To do this, it relies upon taking wealth (or capital) away from the vast majority and concentrating it in the hands of the few oligarches.
In addition, capitalism has the internal structure of feudalism: groups of subordinate power centers in satellite orbit around a central power figure to whom they owe momentary (and monetary) fealty. There is no rule of law, there is no notion of equality nor room for ethics. Capitalism is, in fact, amoral - that is: morals are simply irrelevant.
Our problem as a society is that we continuously conflate capitalism with democracy as if, somehow, they were the same. They are not - they are antithetical, capitalism will always seek to subvert democracy in favor of a central power structure, in contemporary American life, corporate fascism.
Until we, as a society, understand this, the capitalists will continue to plunder unchecked.
They are NOT the same, but still related. It's called globalization.
"Is Ethical Capitalism Possible?"
The answer to that question, like many others, depends on how the terms of the debate are defined. Is "value-negative" capitalism really capitalism? In fact, capitalism is merely an economic theory, just as democracy and republicanism are theories of governance and sovereignty.
Putting any such theory into practice requires an overall societal and ethical framework. Nor should their operation under the existing U.S. framework be regarded as definitive. To the contrary, if current U.S. perversions in practice were so taken, all three theories would need to be condemned.
With repect to capitalism in particular, even Adam Smith recogized that its only inherent "ethics" were strictly utilitarian and insufficent as such. If anyone doubts it, see the latest revelations concerning criminality even under the minimal legal constraints that remain in place in the U.S. - http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03152010.html
Ethical capitalism is only possible if those that use it are ethical. So the question is can we as a species actually be ethical?
Move away from the Dominator model and embrace the Cooperator model. The Dominator model is turning the whole planet into a global Haiti.
I like that.
In a great book he wrote in 1902, Mutual Aid, Peter Kropotkin demonstrates that the cooperator model had been historically predominant across species. His book was mainly a refutation of social darwinism as the natural order of things.
I seem to recall a quotation that a professor once used on the subject of the purpose of education. The originator was, as I recall, an educator of some renown at one of England's premier universities but the name escapes me.
I cannot recite the quote perfectly but can express its essense: it is not our (the University's) mission to create good doctors and lawyers and captains of industry; we can only make good men and they in turn will become good doctors and lawyers and captains of industry.
I'll put this author's question another way. Can we produce good people who can be effective leaders of business?
q
PS It's also important to understand that capitalism and free enterprise are not the same thing.
"free enterprise" or its euphemism, "free trade" is the problem.
So with what would you replace free enterprise?
q
First, try Capitalism and see... and in the end of the experiment, all systems are mixed.
So, Talking about world economics without any mention of the War Economy is an evasion for political correctness or some crap ...this article could have been written for the War Collage news.
At least it mentioned the old Golden Rule.... the new rule though is "War is Peace".
War is now the good... look around at what our economy produces and what we buy.
It has been a no no for published economists to face the War Economy or talk about it.
I say, get over this little bump and the rest will follow.
When was the last time you saw the term "War Economy" used in the media?
This is a problem.
Is ethical destruction of the planet possible?
"Indeed, is ethical, profitable, efficient and sustainable capitalism possible?"
In a word: Yes.
Of course it can. Capitalism is nothing but an economic system. Ethical leaders and ethical laws, rules and regulations produce ethical capitalism.
Efficient" As long as it is capitalism and not the corrupt version that allows bail out of companies with the cry of "too big to fail" and overcompensation for executives.
Sustainable: Of course. Its the only economic system that HAS sustained itself. A demonstrable fact.
Unethical or ethical it can be profitable. The important question is who benefits from those profits.
At the moment, its the executive class that declare the profits their own.
Ethical capitalism dictates that the owner get a fair and lucrative return for his risk and work, the executive and management receive pay in proportion to their labor and expertise and the employees share fairly in the profits with living wages and benefits. The other side of the coin is that all must share the pain in bad years too. NOT something happening now with this corrupt perversion.
Profiteering is turning out to be a deadly evil. Some examples are insurance companies and for profit doctors holding critical treatment and procedures hostage all for the want of profits, military contracting companies cashing in on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fast food chains poisoning more people with their "cheap" trash just to boost their profits, manufacturers hiring cheap workers and going cheap on their material just to maximize their profits even at the expense of casualties due to defective products, etc... Profiteering is the heart of capitalism and while capitalism may feel good at first like it used to, in the end you get more than what you bargained for. That good for nothing Obama who promised to spread the wealth is bailing out the capitalists instead and forcing the rest of us to share the pain !
Stanley1979
Your post is pretty much what my whole argument about capitalism is. In my view we don't have it now. What we have now is "free enterprise" or "free trade" as I call it. That is capitalism, but a form where it is unfettered by government. There really are no rules and regulations to protect citizens from the abuse of the system. Or to protect people in other countries.
Whart you have without (honest) government oversight, laws, rules and regulations is sort of like the Old West. Money is the gun and the best man with it makes the rules. Thats not what I call capitalism, thats what I call criminal.
And you are correct, Obama is following the path of RBCB (the last for Presidents) in allowing and even encouraging that abuse you and others rightfully point out.
"The important question is who benefits from those profits."
Unquestionably ONE of the important questions. I would submit, however, that an even more fundamental issue is whether ANY private profits should be derived from services that actually detract from the commonweal. A case in point would be insurance industry profits derived from "skimming" monies that are denied for the delivery of real health care.
I call that process "value-negative" capitalism. Others, perhaps more accurately, have referred to it as "corporate communism", or perhaps even as "organized crime" sanctioned by the state.
RV
Good point. A denial of benefits for the purpose of profit would be a case where ANY private profit SHOULD be denied.
Thats why we need the restoration of the protections that were removed and a few more added to stop some new abuses. This is the one thing government SHOULD be doing right now and it seems to be the only thing they are ignoring.
I like "organized crime" sanctioned by the state." myself.
It's worse than that. Owners can get a lucrative return under capitalism while doing no work or producing any value at all -- and even by destroying value and stopping other people from working (which is the idea of having high unemployment to drive down wages).
Given the choice between increasing general wealth and losing little profit or decreasing production and general wealth and gaining a little bit of profit, the corporation is required to do the latter, and the greedy owner is incentivized to do that through the culture of greed. Capitalism is set up to hurt the many for the benefit of a few.
"Capitalism is set up to hurt the many for the benefit of a few."
Simply not true. It is true however that it can be diverted to that purpose as I believe it has been by Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama.
We can redivert capitalism back to good version Japanese style. I recommend everyone take a trip to Japan to witness an excellent example of regulated capitalism where ethics and morality are for real and we're not talking the James Dobson version of "morality" either.
It is true: the core of capitalism is to maximize profits by privately owning and controlling access to the means of production; to get wealth by having wealth instead of by producing more through labor. That wealth has to come from the labor of others -- by skimming off a percentage or getting it through interest beyond reasonably expected increases in efficiency or risk investment (and also to eliminate or minmize the risk by transferring risk to the community).
This is what capitalism IS -- at the essential root. It's getting money not through work, but through having power over others.
You have never been in business, thats obvious. Most business is small business and you work like a dog.
In our country if you want to start a business producing something you generally just do it. No one tries to stop you.
Whats wrong with getting wealth through capital if its done fairly or by interest for that matter. No one is obligated to borrow money.
Business is not the same as capitalism. Capitalism is not making money by working -- but by having and controlling capital. It also is not the same as beng able to freely start a business -- in fact, under capitalism it's not uncommon for big business to have so much power that it has laws made to stop someone from easily starting a business, or even having a complete monopoly.
You are confusing these terms and ideas. You can go into business in a socialist or other non-capitalist system, and many people do just that. Capitalism does not mean democracy and it does not mean business or self-employment, and it does not mean freedom. It means getting money by NOT working or producing, but by investing capital.
Edit:
I'll try to clarify. Someone who starts a business and works hard to make money is not being a capitalist, but a worker. The capitalist lends money to someone who starts a business and then makes money off that guy's work, or opens a business and hires a manager and workers and makes money off of their work without working himself. He is supposedly 'making his money work for him' although in reality money does not do work -- people do work and the capitalist gets money for their work by 'gaming' the system -- rent seeking -- wielding power -- but not by working.
RichM
"Your reasoning that "Ethical leaders and ethical laws...produce ethical capitalism" is fundamentally bogus, because if the system itself rests on unjust foundations"
The bogus claim is that it rests on "unjust" foundations. First you'd have to define unjust. For example Marxist would of course agree with that as they view equality of outcome as justice.
Generally speaking when you have ethical men working within ethical laws and regulations you will get ethical results. There is no 100% guarantee of result for any system. So far, this is the only successful one. Till its replacement is found, its the game.
"Actually, no, it doesn't at all "dictate" that. You might get away with "fair," but you overreached with "lucrative." Capitalism offers no guarantee whatever that the owner get a "lucrative" return."
Actually you are correct here, I should have added "successful". An oversight on my part, not a contradiction.
"while at the same time insisting that owners are naturally entitled to "lucrative" returns." An executive is not usually an owner. And yes an owner should get "lucrative" results, he is the one that took the risk and it should be he that takes the loss if he fails. No business is "too big to fail" in a real capitalist system.
Some things I assume are taken for granted and at this point I should know better. :)
Capitalism is not the same as feudalism and slavery. I have been to the Far East and in a lot of those nations, regulated capitalism is looked at very favorably and people can distinguish yuppie style capitalism from regulated. That is not to say that there aren't people who prefer yuppie over regulated. There are and just like in nations where there is a lot of debate and conflict of socialism vs capitalism, there are similar debates and struggles on regulated vs unregulated capitalism. Capitalism, unlike slavery and feudalism, doesn't always start on bad foundations. Japan is a shining example of a nation that embraces capitalism whereby corporations cooperate with society, pay their fair share, and treat customers and employees with respect. The same CEO of Toyota here in the USA would not be able to get away with ruining the company the way he can do it here because in Japan, regulated capitalism trumps yuppie style capitalism whereas in the USA, a lost soul nation, the reverse is true. Have you been to the Far Eastern nations? In those societies, while there may be a lot of patriarchal style traditions, there is also some level of societal fairness with which regulated capitalism resonates. People in America who oppose socialism misunderstand it because they are the victims of corporate socialism for the well to do where only the "best" get all the goodies while the risks and losses are socialized for everyone else. People who oppose capitalism are not distinguishing between regulated and unregulated capitalism and are the victims of the latter. There has to be some way to embrace Japanese style capitalism without depression and suicide of course.
RichM, I take it that you must have been to Japan for a lot longer than 10 days because that is quite a long term historical perspective that I had overlooked on my visit there. I don't know how to say this but like India and China where support for yuppie style capitalism is more obvious than in other countries in the Far East, I could see where other countries are also following the US. From what I perceived, the people supporting socialism and some reasonable traditions, albeit conservative, were pushing back unlike the US. What drives me nuts after I came back is how the hell can a lost soul such as the USA even think of being a world leader when in fact our nation should sit down for a few years and learn from other cultures before destroying them not only for their own good but our own as well. A few years ago, I had already started to see the ill effects of other nations in the Far East pandering to yuppie style capitalism when my wife was in total grief over the death of one of her uncles who was a farmer in India and was bankrupted to the point of committing suicide. At that time, such news would be a shocker but today even as it continues at an alarming rate, the news media there hides it just like the US media hiding the truth. I don't know how this country or any other nation can get back the fairness you described when there are younger people still feeling star struck with yuppie capitalism and some of the older people blaming socialism for joblessness and suicides in the past and scaring some of the younger people on it. I met this young college student in Mumbai who bragged endlessly about the benefits of going yuppie on capitalism and no matter what my wife and I tried to tell him, he kept defending it by saying that socialism is communism and that thanks to capitalism he sees less beggars on the street compared to 15 years ago. I asked him about the suicide rate increases among farmers and he laughed about it and said that they're not responsible enough ! Even on wars, people are mixed on it and think all these peace talks are easing tensions when it's all dumb shows in the background. I don't know but there some cool things about these cultures but I also fear that they are falling for some of the same delusions this cursed lost soul of a nation had and still has. I take it that I would have to stay in each of those nations for at least a few months each to figure out what's with these behaviors and oddities. Thanks for your feedback.
Frankly they are better off with us than they ever will be with China. And thats the only likely replacement.
Inn any case I was curious if you saw Japanese prisons while you were in Japan? Or heard anything about them? How different the guards are?
Thanks
I strongly object to any capitalism at this point. Some on this site have written and proven very well why even the nicest forms of capitalism often drown into disaster capitalism and they are dead right. Every nation that has gone from deadbeat capitalism to shining socialism has truly recovered. Venezuela is flying high thanks to Hugo Chavez and socialism prevailing and even the capitalists are jealous about it. This nation and most of all, Middle America, is bleeding straight because of capitalism. Before we can invent some "ethical capitalism", this nation must put a 10 year moratorium on capitalism altogether and allow SOCIALISM to prevail in its place. I challenge anyone to explain to me why they believe a 10 year moratorium on capitalism with socialism to step in won't save Middle America.
You have a great point.
It is the explaining part about socialism that doesn't seem to work.
The Profiteers and Banksters have Socialism for themselves because they don't explain it.
When things get bad enough that there is no need to explain, that is when real change happens.
Revolution Happens.
sierra7
Humankind is supposed to have a conscience; capital has no conscience.
If society is to proceed for the benefit of society as a whole, we must have a sturdy "firewall" between the maniacal flows of "free global capital" and the progressive needs (not especially desires) of society.
Regulation is the firewall; even Adam Smith admitted to that which is rarely mentioned along with the "invisible (finger)hand" of the marketplace.
As far as contemporary political times has it, neither political party (of presidents) has the political will to make mew inroads for the good of our society.
Take to the streets. Stop consuming except for food. Don't travel; re-use anything you can (recycle), etc., etc.,.....
Learn from history.
In partial defense of Adam Smith (equaled only by Karl Marx in being misunderstood), his Invisible Hand was supposed to be constrained by "Moral Sentiments," (see The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759) which was to provide the ethnic underpinning to his later works, _including_ Wealth of Nations (1776).
In Moral Sentiments Smith divided his philosophy into Propriety, Prudence, Benevolence. Self-love, Reason, and Sentiment. The pseudo-Smithians see only self-love/selfishness as motivation. Ignoring the rest.
Gary
"And gradually they're beginning to recognize the fact that there's nothing more secure than a democratic, accountable, and participatory form of government. But it's sunk in only theoretically, it has not yet sunk in completely in practical terms."
-- Wole Soyinka
sierra7
in addition:
Wall Street no longer needs anyone to "invest" in their stocks; they are and have been creating a "virtual" trading world led by the very banks the taxpayers bailed out with trillions of our dollars; they now have in place super-computers to play their game at the same time sucking or retaining the capital that could be productive in the marketplaces....so they really don't give a SH#$ what we do.....
They are "front/back loading" the markets...they can't loose, and we are loosing everything.
WAKE UP!!
Can you negotiate with a psycopath? Can you train a hyena to be a vegetarian?
This article is a train wreck...
Often we hear the apologists regurgitate such mumblings as, "It's not capitalism that's the problem it's..."
"Monopoly Capitalism", "Corporate Capitalism", "Crony Capitalism", "Disaster Capitalism", "Unbridled Capitalism", "Green Capitalism" and on and on and on...
Just more talk from the liberal fetish cult of a kinder-gentler form of capitalism which always exists just around the corner and nowadays ya' gotta have a Prius to get there.
Sorry folks but the bodies are piled a mile high from the real Beast, CAPITALISM, and all the the above imagined "variants" are nothing more than the standard operating principles of this Beast.
You'll have better luck trying to reform sharks into vegans.
Here's some advice from a friend:
"Everything has to be overturned. There aren't any half-measures that are going to accomplish anything. Those are being thrown out there by people so they can avoid the truth and distract others from the truth. There is not going to be any health care reform, global warming is not going to be stopped, jobs are not coming back, wages are not going to improve. There is no way to reform the system, there is no way to make it work, there is no way to fix things.
The degree to which critical commentary on any issue leads people to see that it all must come down, it is constructive and powerful to that degree. The degree to which it leads people to think that we are or could be "doing something" to "solve" that particular problem in isolation, without challenging the entire system, is the degree to which it is destructive and reactionary.
There are not some good things about the system that we need to worry about saving, with some bad things that need to be "regulated" or overcome through "doing something" or making personal changes. The self-censorship (or denial) that so many are indulging in, supposedly in order to persuade people without "offending" them, to avoid "alienating potential friends and allies," and the whole idiotic "winning friends and influencing people" approach must end.
It all has to come down, and there is no reason to hesitate or be cautious in our critical commentary, no reason to entertain the "on the other hand" stuff that people put out there to mitigate our criticism - actually to oppose our critical view in a covert and deceptive way. Attack every aspect of it everyday everywhere with everyone. Capitalism has distorted, corrupted, and perverted all of our social relations and arrangements, everywhere. Nothing is free from its clutch. Nothing positive can exist within it. It all has to come down, it all must be overturned.
All of the "OK I see what you are saying, and agree with you, but what is your plan?" responses are also covert opposition and are reactionary. Here is the plan - it all must come down. Would we tell people to not treat pneumonia until and unless they have a plan for the rest of their lives, or a guarantee that the disease will be eliminated once and for all by their plan and that everything will then be perfect? The society is ill, the disease is Capitalism, and it has spread to all parts and is destroying everything.
"But can't we just keep a few slaves, and ban whipping and shackles?" No. It all must come down."
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."
-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
If the author is serious about radical changes he/she might look into power relations and leave the "wisdom" and "spirituality" to the realm of philosophy and religion. The owners in charge don't give a damn about ethics, wisdom or how enlightened anyone may be. They care only about power. Until that's broken all other talk spins off aimlessly into the wind.
I'm with mcoyote on this one. I used to be a fool to get suckered by the capitalists but look what happened to all the small businesses vs the big businesses. Small businesses got crushed and big businesses got to do anything they wanted. Even when big businesses were failing, they could count on Washington to bail them out. I know this may sound crazy but socialism actually fosters competition because it gives more power to small businesses and no business can engage in hostile takeovers. Capitalism on the other hand makes us feel powerless and too neutered to fight back.
Marxism's only caused a few genocides and over 100 million people to die.
Lets try it one MORE time. Retards, change doesn't come with some "liberation" of wealth, it comes from individuals. Theres nothing stoping you from taking in a homeless person, feeding him and helping him out.
Do you do it, have any of you idiots with your silly visions of a utopic socialist world done that .... No, magic governments supposed to be able to do it. Fact is no one defects into a communist state.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it only takes one Mao with his "Great Leap Forward" to cause mass starvation and death.
I invited a homeless individual into my home where he stayed for five months until he found a job and was able to move out on his own.
How about you? Got any money to go along with the mouth?
Keith you sound like you're channeling Ayn Rand.
Too bad you stopped short of conflating Stalin with Marxism. Oh wait.
Those "Made in Ohio" history books have washed a lot of brains.
Try again Keith.
In fact, the underlying societal disease is greed and it's prevalent everywhere under all kinds of systems, not excluding communism or any other.
Some kind of positive incentives for individual initiative are necessary in any social contract, but U.S. society and the practices it sanctions under the label of "free enterpise capitalism" are much more accomodating of that disease than most.
Is "People are Evil", the cornerstone of Liberal thought?
For that matter, is it the cornerstone of Progressives, Conservatives, Libertarians, and American political thought in general?
If the word, "evil", is the wrong one, then how about, "greedy", "stupid", or any other similar descriptor?
Every discussion about Progressivism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Capitalism, Foreign Policy, you name it... seems to come down to "human nature". This "nature" also seems to sit at the core of virtually the entire debate, though it is described differently each time. Sometimes quasi-religious "original sin", other times pseudo-scientific "hard-wiring", here thinly veiled Social Darwinism, there insistent promotion of the wrong "lessons of history" - always relying on a "general agreement" which is gossamer thin and defies examination - is that all there is?
Is the only real disagreement in American Politics, the question of what to do about this "self-evident truth"? Is the entire spectrum of "policy", from the need for "personal growth", to the maintenance of independent bodies and institutions which are somehow abstracted from those very same people (law, religion, the state, civil society), to the "recognition of reality" which underlies every defense of the nature of economic society, is every political construct grounded in this jive-ass cynicism, without a shred of supporting evidence?
And, if that is true, how can anybody who advances this theory exempt themselves?
If the people are "sheeple", why aren't you bleating?
"... jive-ass cynicism, without a shred of supporting evidence?"
Huh? To what, then, would you attribute capitalism's prevailing endurance if not its successful exploitation of "human nature" in general and greed in particular? And what, pray, is the supporting evidence for the likely success of some utopian alternative?
Please stop with the pejorative use of "Utopia" to avoid the meat of the discussion.
They are still looking for "human nature" as it simply doesn't exist in the terms described here.
How in the hell did humans survive this long if everyone is "by nature" so damn greedy? Capitalism has not been around for that long BTW.
A rose by any other name ...
I suppose human survival might have something to do with very ordinary survival instincts including some competitive aspects (both inter-species and intra-species), but I hesitate to be more explicit lest you regard it as a condemnation of non-existant "human nature."
According to the economic scholar Karl Polanyi we can date modern capitalism to starting in 1834 when a competitive labor market was established in England. (This puts an interesting light on Marx's work.) Yet look how it has eaten into the fabric of our world society.
BTW I may be off-line for a day or two. So have fun and play nice.
Gary
"Dream more than others think practical."
-- Howard Schultz
"How in the hell did humans survive this long if everyone is "by nature" so damn greedy? Capitalism has not been around for that long BTW."
I wrote on this point awhile ago. The very short answer is societies invented regulatory devices called norms and mores, which together form the basics of ethics and later became the basis for law. The how this came about part takes several hours of lecture to convey, which I don't have time for now. Then the part about how it's all come undone takes a similar amount of time. And then there's the how are we going to fix it part, which is more the nature of the current thread. To really take a good stab at the fixing part, however, one must know the info contained in the other two parts. And at the end of it all, the answer one gets entails draconian acts, if one is serious about changing humanity's current course. I regret leaving just this short answer. But I will leave a clue--Take a deep look into the nature of humans, then look closely at the natural societies formulated by humans and their organization, and finally assess what increasing levels of complexity does to the basics you just investigated. Lots of prior knowledge is assumed on the part of the investigator, which is to say the task isn't easy or quick. I'll be back later to see what musings this prompts.
The vast bulk of mankind's history -- his producing, trading, living together, surviving and progressing -- has been without capitalism. With capitalism we have seen the rise of empires -- and then their crashing, not enduring. This has nothing to do with utopia, but with basic collective survival, starting with the family and the clan and the tribe. Humans are social animals who depend on each other to survive: that's the predominant nature of humans when not brainwashed by a warped culture controlled by sociopaths.