Originally posted by wildman "Let them eat cake" -
How little the attitude of the privileged towards the rest have changed in the last 200 years.
I agree, though I’d say 5000 years (and if we accept Veblan’s analysis, we’d have to go back to tribal life of prehistoric times). Human social struggles are almost always about power. Power is an abstract term for the means to access and use resources. In barbaric times, resource access was often acquired through military excursions. As humanity grew, the spoils of war were controlled by the military class, and those who were uniquely useful (or convincing they were useful) to the military class. In India and Israel, for instance, the priestly class convinced military leaders they were essential to success.
As trade grew, the market became another area of resource access; a skilled trader could accumulate a great store of resources. Money was invented to stand in for resources, and consequently military and trading successes resulted in large accumulations of money (resource credit), which in turn made the most successful participants more powerful (more control over resources).
Control of resources (which includes armies) gives the ability to control those who need resources. Such control always involves a relative few in control of the vastly more populous masses. The controlling class begins to dream up myths to justify their roles, and with so much power, there was little the masses could do to challenge myths like divine right and other self-glorifying concepts.
To understand the implications of this dynamic, to it must be added the susceptibility of humans to succumb to greed, overindulgence, and becoming self-absorbed. Just as a child can be spoiled rotten if not led toward a constructive, learning, self-developing and giving life, so too does it seem that power unusually tempts adults to turn toward the dark side.
Originally posted by wildman Romney's great fear is that ordinary people will start judging capitalism on moral grounds which capitalism will always lose being intrinsically an amoral system.
Continuing my little story to include capitalism, I’d disagree with you that capitalism per se is an amoral system. Rather, capitalism is especially effective at accumulating power, which provides that temptation for humans to turn toward greed, overindulgence, and becoming self-absorbed. It also, as usual, creates a relatively small class of people with extraordinary control, who then dream up myths (e.g., job creators) to justify their unfair use of power to benefit just a few.
In my opinion, there is only one cure for the perversion of power, whether that’s military or market power. Society must instill in its members the virtue of using power for the good of humanity. A powerful capitalist effort (i.e., one that results in large accumulation of resources) is not amoral if those resources are used for the good of society, say to build the finest schools, improve infrastructure, make sure everyone has basic needs met, etc. Yes, if too large a portion of the accumulated resources only goes to a few people, then others will not have access to resources they need to live a decent life (or live at all in some cases). But that isn't because of a fault with capitalism; if we get rid of capitalism the same traits that spoil capitalism will show up in the new system.
So, if my analysis is reasonably on target, we don’t want to kick out such an effective means to accumulate resources/wealth as capitalism. What we really need is a proper distribution of those resource accumulations into people and into socially benefitting services (along with developing the social ethics that encourages it).
In today’s news are two articles which illustrate both confusion and clarity about this in the US. First the confusion from ABC news in the article
"Capitalism on Trial in GOP Presidential Fight":
Quote: The merits of capitalism are normally reserved for debate in classrooms, or for economists to ponder at think tanks and the Federal Reserve. But for the past week, the hallmark American system of free enterprise has been thrust into the court of public opinion by the most unlikely group – Republicans running for president and scrutinizing Mitt Romney’s tenure at the private-equity firm Bain Capital.
Republicans, by their very nature, are supposed to like capitalism.
Yet these candidates — namely Newt Gingrich but also the back-runner Rick Perry — charge that on Romney’s watch, Bain profited while some companies in which he invested went bankrupt and workers lost jobs. The problem with their criticism is, for the most part, that’s one of the ways capitalism is designed to work.
The prosecution has lobbed plenty of insults at Romney — “crony capitalism,” “backdoor socialism,” “vultures” — in an effort to drag him down from his front-runner status. They portray him as a ruthless tycoon who casually dishes out pink slips before speeding away in a Maserati.
But go too far, and they run the risk of abandoning the capitalist roots that conservatives (and plenty of liberals) say make America great. That’s caused the accusers to back off a bit from their charge.
In the above commentary, the author doesn't identify the culprit properly when he says capitalism is on trial rather than identifying greed and power abuse as the problem. But in the editorial below, we get a little clarity from Michael Lind in his article "
What Kind of Capitalist is Romney?" when he draws a distinction between "stakeholder" and "shareholder" capitalism:
Quote: Beyond the concerns about the loss of American jobs to off-shoring or automation and the food-fight tactics of Romney's rivals is a legitimate question about what kind of capitalism 21st century Americans should want.
The choice is between "stakeholder capitalism" and "shareholder capitalism." According to the theory of stakeholder capitalism, corporations are and should be quasi-public entities with responsibilities to the nation-state and to the communities in which they are embedded. The corporation should make a profit and provide a fair return to investors. At the same time, workers who contribute their labor to the company have a legitimate interest in it as well as investors who provide capital. Managers serve the company and the country, not merely the investors.
In the theory of "shareholder capitalism," the corporation exists solely for the purpose of the investors, whom the managers serve as agents. In shareholder capitalism, short-term profits are the only goal, and if that means laying off workers instead of retraining them or reassigning them, breaking up the company and selling the assets to enrich private equity partners and shareholders, so be it.
Last edited by les3547; 01-13-2012 at 01:20 PM.