I am constantly surprised by the disingenuous defences offered for the often unforgivable practices of capitalism, where some (including some on Thought Leader) even claim that a company’s concern for ‘its market’, instead of its blind pursuit of profit, is simultaneously a concern ‘for others’.
Capitalism is driven by the profit motive, and by nothing else. If, in the course of doing business with this in mind, managers also, incidentally, show in concrete terms that they care for people — not just their own staff, but the public as well — it is a rare bonus, and does not derive from the nature of the beast (capital), but rather from the (well-nigh futile) attempt on the part of the individuals in decision-making positions, to ‘give capitalism a heart’.
There are indeed managers and CEOs like this (I know of some), but they are far and few between. This explains why Joel Kovel remarks in The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? that the soft-hearted are pushed off the corporate ladder early on in their careers, and that the CEO who does not work single-mindedly to increase profits (because of concern for consumer hardships, for example), will be quickly ‘swept aside’.
Don’t get me wrong — it is everyone’s right and inclination to do something to make a living. The guy in the corner store, although engaging in ‘free enterprise’ which, strictly speaking, is seamlessly connected with capitalist practice, is doing nothing wrong as long as he or she treats customers fairly while making a profit for the sake of surviving and, if possible, prospering.
The capitalist beast rears its ugly head when monopolisation (or outright exploitation, or barefaced profiteering) occurs — when all the small people in a certain line of business are bought out by the wealthier companies, so that in the end the few with the monopoly control the product in question, with all the usual attendant ills, such as price fixing and exploitation of the public. And this tends to happen even in countries where competition is encouraged. Witness South Africa where, over the last few years a number of price-fixing deals among producers of bread, milk, cars and other products have been exposed — deals that netted the producers in question millions of rand, but left the public as the losers.
Or witness the United States, where banks, in their zeal for still greater profits, have been directly responsible for thousands of American home-owners losing their homes, without themselves (the banks) really suffering much in the process. I am talking about the sub-prime crisis, as it is known. It resulted from, among other things, the banking practice of ‘steering’ clients in the lower income brackets towards home loans specially tailored for them, that is, loans at a very low repayment interest rate for a limited period. This enabled many people who would not otherwise have afforded a home of, say, $200000, to buy one.
Those who did not read the fine print carefully were shocked to find, after two years, that their repayment interest suddenly went up significantly, so that the percentage of their salaries spent on loan repayment shot up to unaffordable levels. Many of these home owners had no other option but to sell their homes, or they were repossessed by the banks. Naturally, some of the banks ended up in trouble too, because of clients’ inability to make the repayments, after initially making huge amounts of money from them. They needn’t have worried. The Federal Reserve handed over, if I remember correctly, a cool $200 billion to the banks in order to save them from liquidation. But thousands of ordinary home owners lost their homes, and this because of unscrupulous profiteering practices on the part of banks.
The biggest culprits are the corporations, however. Here is what Joel Bakan says about them in The Corporation (on which the award-winning documentary by that name is based):
‘Over the last 150 years the corporation has risen from relative obscurity to become the world’s dominant economic institution. Today, corporations govern our lives. They determine what we eat, what we watch, what we wear, where we work, and what we do. We are inescapably surrounded by their culture, iconography, and ideology. And, like the church and monarchy in other times, they posture as infallible and omnipotent, glorifying themselves in imposing buildings and elaborate displays. Increasingly, corporations dictate the decisions of their supposed overseers in government and control domains of society once firmly embedded within the public sphere.’
Roosevelt’s New Deal of 1934 in the US was aimed at restricting the power of corporations, and the decades-long period that it lasted in America has been referred to as the time of ‘decent capitalism’, for good reason. However, with the oil crisis in the early 1970s, the world economy returned to neoliberal principles, according to which the market is taken as the sole organising principle of the economy (and therefore also of society), in effect subordinating the state to corporate power. This need not, in principle, be the case, of course. The state could easily, through legislation, subordinate corporations to considerations of the public good. It does not take a genius to guess why this has not occurred. Money endows one with tremendous power, including the power to ‘buy’ politicians. Hence, corporations have asserted their dominance in no uncertain terms. In fact, judging by what Bakan says in The Corporation, it seems to have reached pathological proportions:
‘The corporation, like the psychopathic personality it resembles, is programmed to exploit others for profit. That is its only legitimate mandate. From that perspective…millions of…workers across the globe who are driven by poverty and starvation to work in dreadful conditions for shocking wages, are not human beings so much as human resources. To the morally blind corporation, they are tools to generate as much profit as possible.’
The Corporation is an undilutedly critical and thoroughly researched book (and film documentary), and would probably disillusion readers who still adhere to the fallacious conception, that corporations are our benefactors in both behaviour and production. Bakan is relentless in his exposure of corporate greed and unscrupulousness, and he is especially ruthlessly critical where the welfare of workers and consumers is concerned.
I do not here have the space to discuss the majority of the shocking case-studies referred to by him, so one will have to suffice (discussed below). What it illustrates well is that, as far as corporations are concerned, people and nature are reduced to mere ‘resources’ which are quantified in monetary terms to be able to determine companies’ policy towards them.
It is not difficult to conclude from Bakan’s discussion of these case studies that corporate decision makers have to suspend their ‘normal’ or ‘private’ moral principles (assuming they claim to have such) to reconcile themselves with certain decisions. A telling example focuses on a cost-benefit analysis report on the safety of a certain GM-model car based on actual, reported collisions, as compared with the projected cost to the company of settling claims resulting from court cases where people are likely to be killed or maimed in fuel-fed fires related to a less safe, cost-saving car design. The report dispassionately stated that building the smaller, comparably unsafe model would save the company money, compared to the cost of the projected (larger than before) number of court settlements with victims of fuel-fed fires relating to these vehicles.
What one may conclude from this, is that the humanity of people is conveniently ignored by the corporation. What really takes one aback though, is Bakan’s reminder that it is illegal for a corporation to go beyond its only legal responsibility (at least in America), namely to generate profits for its shareholders, by giving ‘too much’ priority to social and environmental concerns, because these would undermine optimal profits. In his words: ‘Corporate social responsibility is thus illegal — at least when it is genuine’.
In other words, when corporations profess social and environmental responsibility, it is not because of a genuine concern, but because it amounts to a PR exercise which is ultimately aimed at netting them more profits. Joel Kovel makes the same point (in the book referred to earlier) regarding the notorious Bhopal industrial accident of 1984 in India where, because of corporate cost-saving procedures — a lack of maintenance of pesticide-producing equipment — a disaster was precipitated that left thousands of people dead, with many more dying painful deaths in the course of the months that followed.
It would be silly to advocate the wholesale abandonment of capitalist economic practices at present, however. For the time being it is the economic system within which we live. But unless people start waking up to the excesses of capitalism’s abuse of people and nature, and resolve to practise it in a more humane, responsible manner, many more humans and other living beings will endure unnecessary suffering. To their credit, there are some writers on this site (including Khadija Sharife and Chris Rodrigues) who have courageously exposed excesses of this kind. Their example should be emulated.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
33 Responses to “The excesses of capitalism”
Great article - I find it perplexing that people are still duped into believing that corporates are committed to social & environmental responsibility. Most of the time their actions are, as you state, merely a PR exercise. Many examples exist of such ruthless activity, including illegal pharmaceutical testing in Africa, so called “sweat shops” in Asia and plundering of natural resources in third world countries around the world (diamonds, copper, rubber etc.)
Human greed knows no boundaries, and in current times of stiff competition it would seem most corporates are morally bankrupt.
This leader is another example of the chattering classes finding it oh so very easy to lampoon capitalism and yet so hard to condemn the more evident excesses (thought the term “excess” is far too mild here) committed in the name of socialism.
The largest historical experiment in socialist theory and practice (aka the USSR) is manifest proof that the ideology of beneficial state control of the “governing heights of the economy” should indeed (to use the phrase so beloved of the dialectical materialists) be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Bakan’s book is an eloquent rant listing numerous evils committed by large companies. Both Bakan and Olivier however inhabit an amnesic world in which the list of crimes committed in the name of socialism and communism has been conveniently shredded.
It is perhaps as a result of ignoring the historical record of the two competing ideologies, that Bakan and his ilk are unable to provide any sensible guidelines on how to arrive at a more compassionate alternative to past economic orthodoxies.
Perhaps there is a confusion of cause and effect here? Do the roots of the problem lie with human nature rather than Capitalism itself?
Humans by nature seek power. In a capitalist society this translates into the accumulation of financial resources, while in a communist society the quest is for position and authority.
I would submit that both are destructive to people and nature. In fact I would go as far as saying that capitalism in the content of democracy is less destructive that communism due to the checks and balances to that power that have developed over time in democratic nations. Take China as an example of capitalism in the context of an authoritarian one party state where there are seemingly no restrictions on the pursuit of profit and development whatsoever.
Why must one consider any other failed system when saying that Capitalism is a failed system? That’s like saying “hey, it’s alright to murder minorities because Hitler did it, too”
As for your knee jerk reaction against socialism, I’d like to point out that large parts of Europe (such as the scandinavian countries, France, England) have numerous socialist aspects to them - such as a basic income grant (dole) and universal health care. I’d also like to point out that China is a communist country and yet they’re achieving far more on the ‘Capitalist’ market recently than any other developing nation.
What’s more, since the “Fall of Communism”, Capitalism has been left as the ‘remaining ideology’ (or so They would have us believe). As such, it is particularly important to point out the flaws in the dominant system since that is the system that currently affects people. There are books and monuments to the “evils” of communism. The Merrykins just unveiled one. But it’s not socialism that’s protecting the status quo and trying to prevent the emancipation of mankind. Not anymore - if they ever were.
I am a closet socialist too! Thank God that the corporations are actually running South Africa though. Can you imagine a South Africa without private healthcare, private armed response companies and corporate sponsored pointsmen on duty when the traffic lights fail! Our dear government clearly just isn’t up to the task!
Gav, don’t look to the USSR as a model for socialism, that’s communism - big difference.It is really annoying when people confuse socialism with capitalism. Rather look to the Scandinavian countries, France and the Netherlands for inspiration. They were less hard hit by the recent economic meltdown. Sadly, with globalisation and refugee seekers, there are now too many “beneficiaries” and those beautiful socialist systems are under severe pressure.
I believe in a welfare state for the sick, the weak and the elderly. Alas, in South Africa we run a luxury welfare state for the greedy, fat and spendthrifty struggle buddies of the revolution while the sick, weak and elderly rummage in the dustbins of the wealthy. That’s not socialism, that’s robber-baron capitalism!
This is Africa, and while socialism is a beautiful humanitarian system, it won’t work here. Reality is, we live in a self-centred society and we have American style consumerism to thank for consumer behaviour. It is pathological. People will rather watch their fellow citizen die of starvation as long as they have the nice house, car and designer clothes. Cheap labour corrupts. Manners and decency have been replaced by branding and corporate culture. That’s just how it is.
Welcome back to the future. Socialism was a humanitarian ideal that only lasted for about fourty years or so. Before that, there were other periods of exploitation even in Europe as recent as the Middle Ages, the “vile” Victorian era etc.
Oddly enough, the greatest apologists for our current robber-baron style capitalist system are the ordinary folks who get screwed the most by the corporates because they believe the “anti communist” propaganda from America. Why does America do this? Because that’s nothing more than a sales schpiel coming from a country that wants you to buy their artificial life style and goods.
Why pay R200 for a R5 Chinese T-shirt with an American brand stuck on the outside? Ask yourself that question. Because we want to show our friends and everyone else that we paid R200 for a R5 T-shirt. Is that greed or stupidity? Stupidity I think! We only have ourselves to blame.
The ’sub prime’ problem was started as activists (Jesse Jackson) vocally supported by politicians threatened the banks against ‘red lining’ (not loaning to the poor, read Blacks,) and they buckled ie politics caused the problem.
Bhopal - never reported is that the Indian Govt. owned 51% (in socialist India of the time no outside company could own a majority) so they were also responsible. Also the original plant was many miles from housing but over time planned and unplanned housing crept right up to its fence. When Union Carbide complained the Govt told them to bug out and leave the running of India to Indians. So any mishap is 51% Govt. and 49% capitalist, please apportion blame fairly.
In the 70% i worked for a huge multi national and the ultimate head person visited the SA plants. He was with us for 3 hours and the only subject discussed was what plans we had short and long term to uplift our African, Coloured and Indian employees. So much for your contention that the nasties shove out the goodies in companies and only the baddies get to the top.
All companies consist of ordinary (good and bad) people like you and me, no more no less so stop rubbishing thousands of poeple you have not even met.
Well said Gavin Rome. However, the fact that corporates can, and do, ignore everything in search of profit is undeniable and certainly not justifiable by comaprison with Socialism. That said I cannot help thinking that the answer to this problem does not lie in atacking an economic system but in changing what is acceptable in the name of business. Only consumer activism can do that. On that note, has anyone tried doing their monthly grocery shopping and not buying anything brands owned by, say, Unilever, or avoiding products tested on animal or made by companies that test on animals. It will open your eyes to how much “competition” or “free enterprise” their really is in SA. Both of those are, of course, fundemental to Capitalism.
As soon as a monopoly rears its ugly head, it can no longer be regarded as a free market. Capitalism is about free enterprise and creating wealth. Monopolies have more in common with socialism in that one power (and not the market) dictates the prices, prevents competition and controls its market - often through legislation and political pressure.
But the proof is in the pudding. By comparison, the standard of living in Hong Kong (currently considered a textbook laissez faire capitalist economy) is considerably higher than the standard of living ever was in the socialism of the USSR.
Similarly, in the socialist-riddled Latin America, one country managed to bolster itself through many economic crises because of their laissez faire capitalist, market driven economy - namely Chile.
It is really, really dangerous to have a government interfere with the market. South Africa stands as proof, both during apartheid and currently.
In a laissez-faire capitalist system, there is nothing that prevents would-be communists from conducting their own, private experiments, as they did in New Harmony, Indiana (a dismal failure) and with Scandinavian socialism (a great success, because it is voluntary).
However, a socialist system does not provide enough individual freedom for those who would want to be capitalist. It reduces all the would-be Bill Gates’ to the next average joe who studied IT, as it does not allow nor provide monetary motivation for excellence.
If I read your post correctly prof, you seem to criticise what is called state capitalism. I agree with you on that note, because the same criticism is valid for socialism/communism. The common beast here is the state. A government forcing people to fall in line with any ideology is rarely successful and never sustainable.
The solution is a laissez faire system which allows enough individual freedom for both the self-reliant capitalists and the skirt-tugging communists to live side by side. Of course, in theory this is another Utopia, but in practice it’s better than any socialist dystopia.
Interesting article Bert although the word “Capitalism” is really a Socialist/Leftist created brand word by which the tactic used by lefties, is to emphasize what they perceive to be the focus of industry ie it’s avarice. It is so at the moment but as I will argue this is really because we have greedy socialist forces at work and not those of free and fair enterprise. As an engineer the business focus is usually creative, but in the un-free market the greedy marketing and economic services become the honoured functions of a business.
Really free enterprise should be labeled as fair enterprise where protectionism is strictly prevented otherwise it is not free enterprise. By allowing the protectionism of socialism to occur, it violates free and fair enterprise. Therefore monopolies are really the result of passive state policies, allowing protected monopolies to arise to the benefit of the state elite. Monopolies are strictly of statist benefit and in reality a trademark of socialism or pseudo free enterprise governance. So monopolies are really socialism in disguise.
Socialism relies on collectivism which in my opinion is avaricious. I quote article written by Glenn A. Clepper (Writer, Book Author and Historian: “Hence the use of unearned force to take property away from its rightful owner (this is usually called theft: in the case of the government, backed up with the police force, it is called “income tax”) and redistribute it to the needy. This creates a “society of beggars” because the distribution is in favor of failure (which entails needs) and not in favor of success.”
Having spent 40 years as part of the corporate / capitalist world I find myself increasingly disenchanted with its excesses. At the same time I have little faith in the alternatives that have been tried but failed.
I share your disdain for the much touted corporate responsibility initiatives which are nothing more than smoke and mirrors
The future lies in the hands of the philosophers who must come up with a new model that is unique but does not discard those elements which make it possible for modern societies to survive and flourish.
I suspect that some time in the future we will see the evoluation of something quite new that retains the best elements of the discredited systems of the past. I have no idea what it will look like but I do think that current upheavals in financial markets might prove to be the catalyst.
Well, Gavin, in the of decent enterprise there was modern slavery (which was of totally different character than say the Egyptian model of slavery), which found an ideological expression in modern racism (and the various justifications, such as civilizing the brutes). We are still licking the wounds of that.
There was the industrial revolution, in which infanticide became a way of survival in parts of England. It is on that country’s government records, so feel free to check.
Ireland. Potato famine. Need I say more?
Then of course we can cite some German companies which made a killing out of extermination camps. After all, the Zyklon B had to be manufactured to name but one aspect of it. The Holocaust was quite profitable for a select few.
We want to believe Gordon Brown is interested in the fate of ordinary Zimbabweans, while our judgement says he is not - but anything is better than the Great Bob, so he must be interested. Of course this is a fallacy.
I really don’t see that there were two economic models at work, but just two different versions of capitalism. One model that was (is) less centralized and as a result more innovative, and the other centralized, but extremely narrowminded. In the end, a narrowminded capitalism loses out to a more openminded and innovative one.
In fact in the USSR the state was the governing capitalist. Why should we ascribe more credibility to the words of the leaders of a nation we do not agree with than to the words of leaders of nations and corporations that we do want to agree with is beyond me; unless of course we want to use those words to our advantage (mostly to reduce cognitive dissonance - after all, when you drink Coca-Cola, you don’t want to be reminded of the dirty role of that corporation in the politics of Colombia).
Capitalism is an economic system, and communism would be a way of organising the economy to cater to people’s needs instead of primarily the capitalist’s needs. We can judge from the practice in the USSR that that never happened, just as we can judge from practice that it does not happen in SA, the USA, the UK, and what country not.
The same thuggery that took place in the USSR, took places in more “entrepreneurial” parts of the world (Spain, Italy, Germany, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, East Asia, the USA [native Americans]). In most cases, force against the dissidents was legalised, so I can’t see why it would be not okay to slaughter USSR based dissidents, but why it would be okay to slaughter anti-Franco dissidents, Native Americans, people from the Indonesian archipelago, institute colonial regimes for the economic exploitation of the riches, etc.
If I were to judge any system by its worst excesses, then I’d say that civilization is nothing but a curse.
But even if consider the “successes” of today such as the USA, India, China, UK, France, then it is obvious that even the success stories fall way short of any decent standard of morality. The world simply repeats the same atrocities over and over again.
Governments have a duty to hold the galloping horse of capitalism on a suitable length of rein. If governments, acting on a mandate from ALL the people(not just those who voted for them), does its job properly, capitalism has proved itself the best and fastest way to advance everyone.
If capitalism is reined in too much, or is given too much slack by a poor government, everyone suffers.
AntonS, can you elaborate on how these socialist institutions came into existence, especially in those allegedly free market nations such as the US? And I can’t see how pre-WW2 Japan was socialist in the slightest.
In most Western societies such as the US, it is the lower income groups, who are paying taxes (such as tarrifs on tobacco, gas, etc.) to pay for all kinds of subsidies to the big industries (25 billion dollar to big farming, another 20+ billion to beneficiaries of the Iraq war, etc).
In Europe tbe onus seems to be a bit more on the middle class, but social systems apparently are being destroyed there for the sake of global competitiveness.
It is rather the proponents of free enterprise, that keep their trade barriers up, and destroy the competition from Africa with protectionist measures, such as subsidies on uneconomic activities. They are just big and organised beggars, who are getting much more out of the USA than its citizens in social benefits.
That is why we need to end the system of fractional reserve banking and the money system based on debt and interest.
Monetary reform is pivotal to addressing the power of the financial corporations in particular. Who issues and controls the money supply is of central importance.
Compound interest is the driving force behind exponential growth on a finite planet.Therefore we need an interest-free money system and full reserve banking to achieve a steady-state economy which ends further degradation of the environment and depletion of all life-giving resources.
Central planning and command economies are not the only answer to the failings of capitalism . We can have a market economy based on fair exchange and an honest money system.
Please read “The Grip of Death” by Michael Rowbotham , or the “Future of Money” by Bernard Lietaer.
Capitalism is a swear word coinded by Karl Marx so in chattering class discussions it should not be used unless the ‘Capitalist’ are allowed to call collective societies Marxist/Fascist.
The terms should be a Free Market mutli party system, with an accent on the multi (as all are included and compete for ideas) vs a Communist one party system
All chattering classes should now and again be forced to answer non intellectual ordinary peoples questions, anyone give a simple answer to this one!!
why do millions of people, legally and illegally, bash down the doors of the Capitalist evil USA whislt bypassing the heavens on earth of socialist Cuba and Venezuela?
Gavin - If you call Bakan’s book ‘an eloquent rant’ you clearly don’t know the difference between mere raving or venting, on the one hand, and informed, backed-up-with-evidence writing. If you can refute any of Bakan’s claims, do so. Besides, I don’t hold a brief for ‘pure’ socialism or communism - everyone should know why they failed - but, as Sarfeffriken rightly points out, there are several countries with a good mixture of socialist and capitalist principles, and they are the ones to emulate.
Brent - even if it is the case that the sub-prime problem was triggered by the banks’ initial responses to black activists’ demands, this does not change one iota about the way they implemented a lending plan aimed at profiteering from black and hispanic home-owners. And whoever actually managed the Bhopal pesticide facility, it was still in the name of multinational Union Carbide. Ergo - it was run on principles that accord with Marx’s dictum, that ‘capital always tends to degrade the conditions of its production’. For a comprehensive account of the Bhopal disaster (among other things), read Joel Kovel’s The enemy of nature - The end of capitalism or the end of the world?’
Eh? Who says that capitalism presupposes democracy? Before general suffrage was granted, most “multi party systems” used strict income qualifications, to determine whether one might have a right to vote. Of course, we could not have women voting …
Just look at the years, and it is clear enough that capitalism arrived way long before democracy as we know it. Or are we going to argue that most of Europe became capitalistic after 1918?
Bert,
I actually meant to say: “It is really annoying when people confuse socialism with COMMUNISM.”
Thanks for raising this one:
“And whoever actually managed the Bhopal pesticide facility, it was still in the name of multinational Union Carbide. Ergo - it was run on principles that accord with Marx’s dictum, that ‘capital always tends to degrade the conditions of its production’.”
I also wanted to point out how robber-baron style capitalism works at destroying its own physical environment - mining corporations the world over are guilty of killing, destroying and poisoning every living thing in their path if not regulated by government environmental agencies or other private non-interest groups. You can’t eat the salmon caught in Ontario’s lakes or the cabbages grown near Randfontein or drink the borehole water in South Durban to mention a few. Self regulation never works because the profit motive is stronger than ethics or morality. Who cares if corporates kill the goose that lays the golden egg when you are a faceless shareholder in another country?
That’s the point of the original article; a return to a gentler, more morally accountable free market, “decent capitalism”. Not this dog-eat-dog screwup of a world that has been free-wheeling since Thatcher & Reagan’s era of “greed-is-good” capitalism! (Remember the uber yuppie in American psycho?) That would take a mindshift on the part of the doe-eyed consumer as much as the “running dogs of capitalism”!
I liked what I saw in France…A good mixture of socialism, intellectualism, egalitarianism and free market capitalism. All the isms. Australia also looked good although less intellectual and more free market from what I saw. Both countries have different requirements and I think South Africa also needs a better home grown mix than the one we currently have.
I concur, we are degrading the means of our production at a dizzy rate, mainly through short term profit management and unbridled greed.
Capitalism has reached extremes and somewhat has become a way of life in developed countries. Unfortunately it has become a norm and has found its way in various other sectors of society, be it religion, culture, education etc.
Now we are looking at African countries which are now being haunted by the extremely power-hungry political leaders who would stop at nothing to stay on the top while the grass suffers, and in many cases that is achieved with the coporations funding. The threat of humans being left in the dark (especially in Africa)can never be overemphasized, thats why we need more Articles such as yours to educate poeple thereby creating awareness about imperative issues such as Capitalism.
The point I’m trying to make here is that, the consumer can still reverse this cycle of merely being raw materials for producing money for the corporation. However, that can only become if consumers are well-informed on this issues, not only capitalism but various other social ills such as systematic corruption by governments (which is one of the biggest problem we facing as African citizens right now).
If there is a proper distribution of of educative information then consumers will be in a better position to make decisions which would benefit them as well. We first need to win the information war, if we are to have any chance at less harmfull sustainable human and environmental development!
Once again great Article, Please keep them coming!
Capitalism has reached extremes and somewhat has become a way of life in developed countries. Unfortunately it has become a norm and has found its way in various other sectors of society, be it religion, culture, education etc.
Now we are looking at African countries which are now being haunted by the extremely power-hungry political leaders who would stop at nothing to stay on the top while the grass suffers, and in many cases that is achieved with the coporations funding. The threat of humans being left in the dark (especially in Africa)can never be overemphasized, thats why we need more Articles such as yours to educate poeple thereby creating awareness about imperative issues such as Capitalism.
The point I’m trying to make here is that, the consumer can still reverse this cycle of merely being raw materials for producing money for the corporation. However, that can only become if consumers are well-informed on this issues, not only capitalism but various other social ills such as systematic corruption by governments (which is one of the biggest problem we facing as African citizens right now).
If there is a proper distribution of of educative information then consumers will be in a better position to make decisions which would benefit them as well. We first need to win the information war, if we are to have any chance at less harmfull sustainable human and environmental development!
Once again great Article, Please keep them coming!
If you think Bhopal was bad, you obviously hadn’t seen the many hundreds of unfiltered, untreated, smoke-belching state-owned factory chimneys behind what was once the Iron Curtain at a time when strictly-enforced clean-air regulations in the capitalist West kept their air much cleaner.
I gather that some little spike has flattered me with the title of ‘the anti-capitalist clown’…in more than one respect it is a compliment. In days of yore, the clown, in the related guise of the jester at the King’s court, was the one who was allowed to speak the truth - so thank you, little spike. Today the master’s discourse is that of the capitalist, and one of the reasons that most people don’t seem to realize its claim to unadulterated, unscrupulous mastery, is because it disguises itself so well as the true fighter for democracy, etc. In truth, it is only for the ‘free market’ that it really fights; the political meaning of democracy escapes most capitalists…as one of the titans of French thought (Jacques Lacan) has put it, it (capitalism) has adopted the discourse of the ‘hysteric’ - the one who pretends to be the severest critic of the master, for example of the reasons for environmental fallout of capitalist oil production in Third World countries. But make no mistake - the bottom line remains the same: profit at ALL costs, including thousands of dead in Iraq, for the sake of establishing the free market there. (Read Naomi Klein’s account, in The Shock Doctrine, of the delight on the part of private security firms, that they encountered a situation well-suited for their profit-oriented operation in Iraq.) If, in the guise of the clown/jester, I can bring this truth to light, little spike, I am gratified.
Sarfeffriken, The Artikl and others who have supported my argument and amplified it, thanks for your contributions - they make a lot of sense. I am very glad that there are at least some people around who are not blind to what I have termed the ‘excesses of capitalism’. I concur on what you say about France, Sarfeffriken - Naomi Klein says much the same thing in The Shock Doctrine, namely that such a mix is the best option we have. What I find really disturbing, however, is the fact that the damage done to our natural environment by unbridled economic ‘growth’ (a euphemism for rapacious capitalist development, of course: go and see what they are doing to the once-beautiful countryside around Broederstroom) has perhaps reached the point where it is irreparable. If the information provided by Khadija Sharife on the Brazilian rain forest is correct, that 30% deforestation is the ‘tipping point’ (for un[self]sustainability), and at present it stands at 22% (if I remember correctly), it does not augur well for the future. Don’t these fools realize that it took millions of years for the planet to produce a viable ecosphere, and that forests are essential for maintaining this, otherwise the life of all living beings on the planet is threatened? But then - some people (and they know who they are) don’t seem to care much for life…
The day that we begin acceptance of the shades of grey that are the universe is when we can begin to discuss anything profitably.
What is wrong with capitalism is exactly what is wrong with communism - human nature. We are selfish, grasping people, by and large, easily corruptable into wishing for more; ambitious to grow our own empires. Amongst other things but essentially that’s it. That’s why everything we do must be a compromise; must suit more than one party and we must remember that as human beings we have these idiosyncracies - plan for them!
The other thing that people conveniently forget is that political systems viewed as capitalist (such as the US) are really nothing of the sort either. In a purely capitalist system people would make their own money for their own selves and families and anyone who couldn’t would literally just die in the street. Any form of redistribution ’skews’ the market so goodbye to Medicaid, subsidised education and school meals. The failed communist states of Eastern Europe really were merely state capitalists as well - more of one and less of the other but a bit of both.
Any purist state is doomed to failure sadly because of human nature. The reason North Korea is in the mire might be less that it’s communist and more that it’s so purist - communism offers no incentive for people to strive, so they don’t unless they’re hit very hard with a big stick which isn’t really very communist either because then the person with the stick is the boss. Very capitalist idea, that.
The current collapse of the US banking system shows what happens in a capitalist system when you let idiots who are only interested in their own bonuses run your economy; a bit like politicians then.
And I disagree with the whole ‘collapse caused by anti-redlining’ nonsense. The banks were encouraged to lend to people they didn’t want to, absolutely. However, since when have corporations done more than a minimum when it comes to socially responsible things?
They lent out money because for some of these loans they received subsidies to do so (ie. made money) and could then siphon off some of the loans to unsuspecting investors in special vehicles built to conceal them (ie. made money) and for those that stayed good, they had a massive jump in repayments as part of the 2/28 deal (ie. made money) and if they didn’t, they’d end up with a few properties that they could sell off - okay, that’s where the misjudgement maybe came in, but never mind. They made some money before that.
“The current collapse of the US banking system shows what happens in a capitalist system when you let idiots who are only interested in their own bonuses run your economy; a bit like politicians then.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. A pure example of selfish short term thinking and no regard for the company or the economy’s longe term sustainability. What gets my goat is how these board members are able to decide on their own remuneration packages and bonusses. A CEO who stuffs up completely awards himself a $100 million bonus as a good-bye present - the subject of shareholder unhappiness a while ago. A year ago the arrogant outgoing CEO of Merrill Lynch was a visionary; he turned a stuffy company around by replacing the conservative decision makers with fresh blood who jumped on the easy money bandwagon - make money, no questions asked. Guess what…he also left the ruined company with a fat wad of cash!
Bert, the don’t equate socialism with communism argument is ,with respect, fallacious. Just imagine telling Marx, Lenin and the other socialist patriarchs “er, sorry chaps but er ahem actually you’ve made the transition to communism and you may no longer call yourself “socialists/the socialist republic of ·” as you are now just a bunch of uncaring non-socialist commies”.
In essence communism and socialism are intertwined and at the very least communism is simply a more fundamentalist/extreme version of socialism. To contend that the two are entirely differing ideologies is simply ahistorical.
Equally fallacious is the argument that many progressive states have socialist elements within them (for eg Canada’s universal health care system). Actually such states are at their core capitalist, whilst incorporating a degree of regulation (but not statist control) of certain non-core components of the economy.
The examples that have been proffered here of so called “socialist successes” are thus nothing more than a recognition that capitalist societies are not necessarily governed by a greed is good doctrine.
On the other hand it cannot be reasonably disputed that every attempt at socialist control of the core aspects of an economy (mining, agriculture, telecommunications, major industries, etc) has had obscene and inhumane consequences (even if initially unintended).
The record of what has been achieved by the two competing ideologies is so obvious that it utterly corroborates Winston c’s apocryphal remark that, “someone under 20 who is not a socialist has no heart and someone over 30 who is still a socialist, has no brain …
Finally Bert, Bakan’s analysis in the end amounts to nothing more than a tendentious “proof” for his “lots of regulation good, free enterprise bad!” argument.
Socialism is a philosophy concerned with the collective wellbeing (of individuals) while Communism is a system of communal living gone wrong; using Socialist principles selectively.
In Animal Farm the animals started out with a promising idea until the pigs moved into the house and started to make up other rules like “two legs good; four legs bad!). They started behaving like company board members and wrote their own cheques -no difference there! Smells like Capitalism!
It’s like saying we must ban money because people are greedy.
Nobel price winning economist Joseph Stiglitz devotes several pages to the entire question of CEO pay packages in his book” The Roaring Nineties”.
(actually, the subtitle of the Penguin edition of this book is: “Why we’re paying the price of the greediest decade in History”).
Stiglitz speaks very strongly about this - he uses the word “theft” to describe how corp. executives deprive shareholders of what is rightfully theirs.
Big business benefits from war (as do politicians from kickbacks from the armaments industry!), and many would argue that capitalism produces incentives for fighting wars. The following new book is quite interesting.
The Three Trillion-Dollar War By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes.
Actually, this is a conservative calculation. Figuring in macroeconomic costs and interest-the war has been funded with much borrowed money-the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.
Also, Stiglitz and Bilmes ascribe to the war only $5-$10 in the oil price increase from $25 per barrel when the Iraq war started in 2003, to the $100 per barrel when the book was published.
I really enjoyed the level of discussion before Jon hijacked Bert’s efforts and sent him in a direction where no intellectual analysis is possible, and where the law of the jungle prevails. No new insights in the last two thought leaders. Just shouting, and repeating the same old low-level personal opinions ad infinitum …… A pity that another promising blog(in this case lead by a brilliant mind)has eventually also gone down the tube.
Thanks for that, Signing off - you’re absolutely right about the ever-present danger of certain commentators ‘hijacking’ one’s writing! And why should one allow them to?
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Bert Olivier is Professor of Philosophy at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He holds an MA and DPhil in philosophy, has held postdoctoral fellowships in philosophy at Yale University in the US on more than one occasion, and has held a research fellowship at the University of Wales, Cardiff.
At NMMU he teaches various sub-disciplines of philosophy, as well as film studies, media and architectural theory, and psychoanalytic theory. He has published widely in the philosophy of culture, art and architecture, cinema, music and literature, as well as the philosophy of science, epistemology, psychoanalytic, social, media and discourse theory. In 2004 he was awarded the Stals Prize for Philosophy by the South African Academy for Arts and Sciences, in 2005 he received the award of Top Researcher at NMMU for the period 1999 to 2004, in 2006 the award for Top Researcher in the Faculty of Arts at NMMU, and in 2008 and 2009 he was both Faculty of Arts Researcher of the Year, and NMMU Researcher of the Year.
Recent events in South Africa (like the looming attempts to control the media), together with a comment by "Maria" on one of my previous posts, have s...
Listening to SAfm this morning, I heard part of a phone-in discussion between the presenter and a representative of a company that has done research o...
The world ain't what it used to be. Globalisation arguably started as long ago as Macedonian Alexander the Great's military expansion towards the East...
Journalism is usually, and I believe accurately, associated with the uncovering and reporting of "facts". Investigative journalism, especially, involv...
Architecture is usually understood as the science, or art, of designing buildings with a view to constructing them, but among its current definitions ...
Loading ...
Great article - I find it perplexing that people are still duped into believing that corporates are committed to social & environmental responsibility. Most of the time their actions are, as you state, merely a PR exercise. Many examples exist of such ruthless activity, including illegal pharmaceutical testing in Africa, so called “sweat shops” in Asia and plundering of natural resources in third world countries around the world (diamonds, copper, rubber etc.)
Human greed knows no boundaries, and in current times of stiff competition it would seem most corporates are morally bankrupt.
(Report abuse)