Capitalism & Human Values

[Philosophy Now]

Frank S. Robinson stands up for the free market.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Capi ... man_Values

[chaz wyman]

Frank S. Robinson stands up for the free market.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Capi ... man_Values

Robinson make a common mistake in quoting Smith. In common with most pro-capitalists, he ignores Smith's title. Smith is talking about the market can benefit NATIONS. One of the most grievous problems with modern capitalism is that is has been engineered by individuals to benefit themselves, through International corporations with not regard to Nations, and with the consequent diminution of the Wealth of Nations and their well being. In this capitalism HAS failed. It has failed to protect the interests of the many by offering short term gains to the few.
Nations are now at the mercy of corporations.

It is the self-interest of the individual against the interests of the commonwealth that is capitalism's problem. A problem that Robinson has failed to acknowledge.

He might be right when he concludes that capitalism is "As good as it Gets". But he does not do his (ahem!) argument any good by pretending that the system somehow serves human values - that is palpably ridiculous.
He would be better employed to answer how its obvious deficiencies can be ameliorated by legislation rather than pretend that an amoral system is not immoral but somehow moral.

[Dunce]

Frank S. Robinson points out that capitalism is not a zero-sum game and that wealth is expandable. Well yes, but we don't live on an expanding planet. Capitalism has successfully sold people impossible dreams. Dreams that fail to recognise Earthly realities.

For example, they have been sold The Car - a magical freedom machine allowing the consumer to go wherever he wants, whenever he wants as fast as he wants. Physical realities dictate that when everyone wants to do this at the same time they just sit there going nowhere. Market economies may be democratic but physical realities are not. They are dictators we can never have the power to overthrow. If we can grow up sufficently to recognise this and put aside our impossible dreams of individual freedom, then we can, through a combination of technocratic and democratic processes work out how to get as close as physically possibile to realising our aspirations of personal mobility. But it will involve collective desicion making - the big government that free marketeers so despise.

Another problem in the article is the assertion that capitalism has achieved self-created prosperity, as if that is the only type of prosperity it has generated. In practice, once people have generated their own prosperity, they tend to pass it on to their children. If we are to encourage people to generate their own wealth then we should have very heavy inheritance tax and clamp down on all the tax havens and loopholes people use to get round it. Yet free market capitalists always seem to oppose such policies. This leads me to question the sincerity of their claims to favour meritocracy over hereditry privilege.

[chaz wyman]

Frank S. Robinson points out that capitalism is not a zero-sum game and that wealth is expandable. Well yes, but we don't live on an expanding planet. Capitalism has successfully sold people impossible dreams. Dreams that fail to recognise Earthly realities.

For example, they have been sold The Car - a magical freedom machine allowing the consumer to go wherever he wants, whenever he wants as fast as he wants. Physical realities dictate that when everyone wants to do this at the same time they just sit there going nowhere. Market economies may be democratic but physical realities are not. They are dictators we can never have the power to overthrow. If we can grow up sufficently to recognise this and put aside our impossible dreams of individual freedom, then we can, through a combination of technocratic and democratic processes work out how to get as close as physically possibile to realising our aspirations of personal mobility. But it will involve collective desicion making - the big government that free marketeers so despise.

Another problem in the article is the assertion that capitalism has achieved self-created prosperity, as if that is the only type of prosperity it has generated. In practice, once people have generated their own prosperity, they tend to pass it on to their children. If we are to encourage people to generate their own wealth then we should have very heavy inheritance tax and clamp down on all the tax havens and loopholes people use to get round it. Yet free market capitalists always seem to oppose such policies. This leads me to question the sincerity of their claims to favour meritocracy over hereditry privilege.

All Good. Robinson mistakes technological advance that has provided progress with capitalism which is only the mechanism that has conveyed it.
Capitalism cannot create wealth out of nothing without the inevitable equation that poliarising wealth is one man's advantage and many other women's poverty. A short trip back into the slave economy of the 18thC when Smith was writing will confirm this. The modern illusion of progress is not due to capitalism per se, but to mechanisation and labour saving devices. It is this that has made capitalism look good.

[spike]

The present issue, 84, of PN is about philosophy and children. I can hear a child asking the question "Why does the corporation exist?", certainly a childish question.

A left-leaning teacher/philosopher, like most of the thinkers on this form, would probably answer that they exist for the reason of making money for their owners while gouging and taking advantage of the poor. But that would be an ignorant, ideological response from someone who might think they have a grasp on how the world works but doesn't.

One reason we have democracy in the Western world, and why it doesn't exist in the Middle East, is because of the corporation. Corporations are non-governmental organization that act as counterweights to governments. Even democratic governments can be dictatorial and intrusive on individual freedoms. Corporations have acted to counterbalance that power by giving people alternative ways to organize. Corporations have also contributed to the development of civil societies on which democracy depends on. Because the Arab/Islamic world has lacked such organization, the civil society that recognizes and protect individual freedoms, on which democracy is built, have not yet developed.

Without capitalism the world would not have corporations. Capitalism is responsible for these institutions that have been an important part in creating civil societies and the networks to counterbalance intrusive, dictatorial governments like we have seen in the Islamic world and under communism.

[Dunce]

Spike, how are you defining 'corporation' here? I think you are either using a wider definition than is usual in the context of a discussion on economics, or ascribing to corporations more of a social and political role than they are normally expected to fulfil.

We usually think of corporations as large profit-making organisations. If that's the way we're defining them then their role is principally to make money within the confines of the law. They may choose to so in a socially responsible way, whether because their decision-makers have social consciences or for reasons of public image, but we can't count on it. They are not democraticaly accountable, except in the sense that they have to obey laws that have been created by a democratic process.

Non-governmental organisations are certainly an important part of the democratic process. They gain influence in the democratic process by representing people who might not otherwise be represented, coming up with credible ideas and being willing to subject such ideas to the rigor of democratic debate. But if they gain influence by means of money, isn't that corupting the democratic process?

Communist and other tyranical regimes are dictatorial and intrusive as a means of crushing alternative ideas. It is freedom of expression which guards against this, not corporations.

[spike]

Dunce, you make some good points but you are not looking deep enough at the role of business corporations. I will add more to my arguments later since I don't have the time at the moment.

You write: "It is freedom of expression which guards against this, not corporations."

Freedom of expression is only one aspect of combating tyranny. Nevertheless, institutions have to be in place to uphold that right. The business corporation is one of those institutions, which adds to the separation of powers that protect the freedom of expression.

[chaz wyman]

Dunce, you make some good points but you are not looking deep enough at the role of business corporations. I will add more to my arguments later since I don't have the time at the moment.

You write: "It is freedom of expression which guards against this, not corporations."

Freedom of expression is only one aspect of combating tyranny. Nevertheless, institutions have to be in place to uphold that right. The business corporation is one of those institutions, which adds to the separation of powers that protect the freedom of expression.

Business corporation have NO interest in upholding anything when they can sneak off to register in a different country, to avoid tax and public and fiscal morality and responsibility.


What planet are you living on???

[spike]

Why do corporations exist? They exist to give structure and democracy to the world.

Make no mistake, though, business corporations weren't invented to democratize the world or do so out of the kindness of their hearts. Corporations, like individuals, are inherently self-centric and not necessarily democratically inclined. This might help explain why corporations are considered artificial individuals under the law, because both come from the same place of serving self-interests first. Nevertheless, unintentionally and in spite of, like with humans, corporations have been a wedge behind which democracy has developed and flourished.

There are the obvious ways corporations have brought democracy to the world. They have nurtured and put to market the technologies that have advanced democracy, like newspapers, telephones, television, and computers. They created the mass market and networks to get the democratic message out. By creating affordable consumer products they have enabled and empowered people. Why, today we have a front row seat on how technologies and social networking from corporations such as Facebook are sowing the seeds of democracy in the Arab world.

We humans have mostly acquired our morals and values through perverse means, not from on High but from experience and our engagement with others. Capitalism and the abundance of business activities it has generated, through institutions like corporations, has provided most of the experience and social engagement that has developed our values and moral principles. In contrast, societies that have lacked the capitalist, corporate experience, such as in the Arab/Islamic world and former communism nations, values like the rule of law and democracy have been very slow to develop because of the lack of the interpersonal business relations we've had in the West.

[chaz wyman]

Why do corporations exist? They exist to give structure and democracy to the world.

No, corporation exist to suck profit out of the economies in which they live. Are you SERIOUS???

Make no mistake, though, business corporations weren't invented to democratize the world or do so out of the kindness of their hearts. Corporations, like individuals, are inherently self-centric and not necessarily democratically inclined. This might help explain why corporations are considered artificial individuals under the law, because both come from the same place of serving self-interests first. Nevertheless, unintentionally and in spite of, like with humans, corporations have been a wedge behind which democracy has developed and flourished.

There are the obvious ways corporations have brought democracy to the world. They have nurtured and put to market the technologies that have advanced democracy, like newspapers, telephones, television, and computers. They created the mass market and networks to get the democratic message out. By creating affordable consumer products they have enabled and empowered people. Why, today we have a front row seat on how technologies and social networking from corporations such as Facebook are sowing the seeds of democracy in the Arab world.

We humans have mostly acquired our morals and values through perverse means, not from on High but from experience and our engagement with others. Capitalism and the abundance of business activities it has generated, through institutions like corporations, has provided most of the experience and social engagement that has developed our values and moral principles. In contrast, societies that have lacked the capitalist, corporate experience, such as in the Arab/Islamic world and former communism nations, values like the rule of law and democracy have been very slow to develop because of the lack of the interpersonal business relations we've had in the West.

You're a funny guy!!!

[John]

In contrast, societies that have lacked the capitalist, corporate experience, such as in the Arab/Islamic world and former communism nations, values like the rule of law and democracy have been very slow to develop because of the lack of the interpersonal business relations we've had in the West.

So communist and Islamic countries don't value the rule of law? Or do you mean they don't implement legal systems that adhere to and support your western capitalist ideology?

You also claim that Islamic countries don't share the "interpersonal business relations we've had in the west". You'll have to define what you mean by "interpersonal relations" for that to actually mean anything though.

[chaz wyman]

In contrast, societies that have lacked the capitalist, corporate experience, such as in the Arab/Islamic world and former communism nations, values like the rule of law and democracy have been very slow to develop because of the lack of the interpersonal business relations we've had in the West.

So communist and Islamic countries don't value the rule of law? Or do you mean they don't implement legal systems that adhere to and support your western capitalist ideology?

You also claim that Islamic countries don't share the "interpersonal business relations we've had in the west". You'll have to define what you mean by "interpersonal relations" for that to actually mean anything though.

Have you seen this John?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... and_Power/

[John]

In contrast, societies that have lacked the capitalist, corporate experience, such as in the Arab/Islamic world and former communism nations, values like the rule of law and democracy have been very slow to develop because of the lack of the interpersonal business relations we've had in the West.

So communist and Islamic countries don't value the rule of law? Or do you mean they don't implement legal systems that adhere to and support your western capitalist ideology?

You also claim that Islamic countries don't share the "interpersonal business relations we've had in the west". You'll have to define what you mean by "interpersonal relations" for that to actually mean anything though.

Have you seen this John?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... and_Power/

Actually, someone in work also recommended it today but I haven't yet seen it.

[John]

Have you seen this John?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... and_Power/

I've just finished watching the first episode and it was really excellent. Thanks for the recommendation chaz.

Incidentally, have you read Joseph Stigliz book Globalization and Its Discontents? It gives a very interesting account of the collapse of the Asian economies and the screw up the IMF made. There's more than that in it as well and definitely worth a read.

[chaz wyman]

Have you seen this John?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... and_Power/

I've just finished watching the first episode and it was really excellent. Thanks for the recommendation chaz.

Incidentally, have you read Joseph Stigliz book Globalization and Its Discontents? It gives a very interesting account of the collapse of the Asian economies and the screw up the IMF made. There's more than that in it as well and definitely worth a read.

As soon as I have finished Popper's Open Societies and its Enemies I might get around it.

What I found amusing about the program is that the entire edifice of the underlying ideology of the American Revolution can be attributed to a novelist and second class philosopher whose life was a living contradiction of here own theories.
But this rational choice theory based on so-called enlightened self-interest is probably the most dangerous myth that modern civilisation is suffering from and its promoted by individuals that are acting like parasites on the efforts of everyday working people all over the world.
But his myth of the benign capitalist market is really heavily entrenched as can be seen from one or two threads on the Forum.
re: Spike?