OPINION

The Capitalist system is bad. Most enlightened people will agree with this view since the absence of any intrinsic moral base within the system has lead to a society shattered into fragments: the most obvious and painful of which litter the centres of Capitalism themselves to such a dangerous and depressing degree. Should we succeed in developing beyond this selfish system, our children's children will look upon us as we now look upon our ancestors as primitives: for we now reward all that we know to be morally wrong. Personally I feel that it is a damming inditement of Capitalism that the only way that I could be able to feel safe and secure in this life is to first become a millionaire. This of course is intentional for fear drives more people into the system.
There remain people for whom denial of morality is as easy as the drive from the city centre to the commuter belt towns. For these people too, there is a pressing reason to be rid of Capitalism. The 'get rich quick' philosophy, held by so many earners within the Capitalist culture is no accident: it is the result of the unconscious realisation that Capitalism will eventually burn itself out, taking many of its proponents with it. The fact is that Capitalism is unsustainable. In social terms it is looking increasingly like Marx underestimated the avarice of the proletariat to the extent that Capitalism can provide just enough promise to keep the majority working within the system. However it is clear that in the long term Capitalism is environmentally catastrophic, and in the short term it is best described as economically chaotic.
For those of the empowered, 'lucky' enough to be a part of the system and not merely suffering the consequences, the problem is how to avoid being blinded by the transient pleasures which go hand in hand with Capitalism, and start to see just how to go about fighting a system without any moral restraint or rules whatsoever. Remember, morals cost money. (While they are not currently considered a worthwhile investment from a Capitalist viewpoint, I suppose it is nice to see that do still retain some form of cash value under the system).
I believe that we could destroy Capitalism, by beating the Capitalists at their own game. Perhaps destroy is too strong a word to use here: While it does clearly reflect my emotional reaction to the evident waste products of the system, it does not reflect my intellectual viewpoint that Capitalism is a natural phase of progression for a society. Either way I am certain that we are in need of a replacement.
I believe that it is possible to run companies with a moral code. Further, I believe that these companies would by their very definition, be more successful than their opponents: the current crop of bland, exploitative and morally bankrupt corporations.
Reverse Capitalism, set up companies, whose sole purpose is not just to simply exist and expand, but to actively help society grow, and to help people to live.
Here I suggest a very simple plan. From a companies total yearly profits, one third should be set to pay for expansion, one third should pay the employees, and pay them well, and the final third should go to the individual company's reason for existence, its charity, its development project, its environmental concern, whatever. Instant branding! Instant brand loyalty. Instant employee motivation. Today's companies like to pretend they are trying to create a 'corporate image' but in the end, every single one of them stands for greed and self preservation.
I was watching a program showing how people are still dying and being disfigured by leprosy. This was news to me since I really thought we had beaten this terrible disease. The reporter was asking for people to collect money to pay for medication, which amounted to a total cure for the disease. I have a great problem with the drug manufacturers: I find their wealth distasteful, when they hold supplies of an extraordinarily cheap cure for an extraordinarily terrible disease. I believe they should now make way for a new breed of company, a breed which does not require its board of directors to sell their souls.
It is the fundamental law of nature: "Let the strongest survive and the weakest perish"... For how much longer must this pathetically trite and erroneous statement be used as a justification for a system which brings misery to billions?
FEEDBACK:
On Thursday, 9th September 1999 Tim wrote:
I have heard the assertion that capitalism is unsustainable, but
I haven't heard the actual reasoning behind it. Do you know of any good
reference materials that might enlighten me as to the reasoning and
theoretical basis behind that statement?
I can't really help you out since the page was written from my own observations and not from specific books that I have read. I could point out the obvious (and in my opinion now slightly dated) works of Marx and Engles on the social unsustainablity of Capitalism. Or point you toward any environmental site for another viewpoint. However as you might have guessed, I believe that Capitalism is intrinsically unsustainable. I think that since resources are finite, and wealth a relative quantity, it is physically impossible to achieve the system's implied promise of riches for all, and yet it will continue to consume time and people until resources are zero.
James/.
On Thursday, 9th September 1999 Tim wrote:
I agree with the concept of using capitalism for higher moral
goals, but I disagree with your statement that creating a company that
doesn't set growth as a primary objective is reversing capitalism. It's
just using capitalism, actually, as you will still own the capital involved.
Non-profit companies exist in perfect harmony with capitalism, so I don't
see why there would be a conflict with creating a company with a moral
identity.
In fact, it could be a reason to choose your company: a competitive
edge. If that's what the market demands. Therein lies the beauty of
capitalism: If you offer what the consumer wants, be it a superior product
or a superior moral position, the consumer can choose to pay for it. And if
it that's not enough, then you better hope to have a good product. :)
--Tim
While I agree that the idea mentioned above is using the engine of Capitalism, it is using it to achieve its own ends and therein lies the reversal. I see Capitalism as a system which eats morals and spews out money, and what I want to do is to turn the machine, (which we both agree is an effective one), the other way around for a while. What I neglected to mention in the above was that it is clear to me that such a reversal would quickly wreck the works and I suspect that out of the remains a more efficient (and fairer) system could be constructed.
Interestingly it is looking like the progression will happen without any major sea change of opinion against Capitalism. Already information is considered more highly prised than mere capital and already people have proved (especially here online), that they are more than happy to share information (and their own time) for free. Older Capitalist companies cannot hope to fight this trend, since while there are short term gains in 'free samples' to gain addiction, or 'free products' to destroy competition, in the longer term, one by one they will be beaten. Money is finite, information infinite. Hopefully, this will ensure that the new companies will have a more moral basis to their actions.
James/.
On 29th May 2000 Didier wrote:
I read your articles and thought that you had some good ideas in
general but i really don't understand this part: "and in the short term it
is best described as economically chaotic."
As far as i can see, capitalism is giving the chance to little
investors to prove themselves, and big profit industries are going pretty
well too... I really don't understand what you mean by economically
chaotic!
I was referring to what I see as Capitalism's property of alternating unpredictably between 'Boom and Bust'. (Short term was stated relative to the longer term environmental effects of the system). While it could be argued that any complex economic system would produce such swings, it is undeniably true that Capitalism suffers from this flaw and is therefore incapable of creating a stable basis from which to plan for the future, let alone build a better one.
If there is one thing that is certain within our current system it is recession. It will come. Whether it be caused by something as large as El Nino, or something more subtle like ignorant investors pouring good money after bad in untried, untested, ".COM"s, with no profits, no business plans, and in some cases no real products, it will come.
As to current industrial performance I am left with even more depression: Here in the UK no-one seems to be physically making anything any more! This trend is made even more worrisome by the fact that insurance is the fastest growing industry!
James/.
It is also time to explode one myth that is always being promoted about Capitalism: that it increases competition. In fact Capitalism favours the monopoly. If you don't believe this then just play the board game: sure there's a bit of competition at the start, but the object is to win and in the process enjoy making everyone else's trip around the board miserable. If you don't believe that this game parallels Capitalism then take look around the McWorld today. Strength within the marketplace comes from domination. The fact that Capitalism has to be externally regulated against anti-competitive practice proves that a) Anti-competitive practice is an efficient tool within the framework of Capitalism to increase profits, b) that there are no intrinsic breaks upon this from within the system itself.
Wealth is created by work, anything else is mere re-distribution. Work, for it to be of use has to be intelligently directed. Blindly chasing the dollar just doesn't count. It is ironic that the internet, possibly the most important (and most dangerous) development for Capitalism in the last century was expanded despite commercial pressures by people working in their own time, for their own reasons.
I am arguing on this page for the adoption of a new aim for society through the creation of a new economic system. Whether this aim is morally, scientifically or intellectually based is up for discussion, (you know which I favour) but there must be some more efficient guiding principal other than profit=capital.
Morals already have a value within the Capitalist system and the fact that we can't, or won't afford to pay for them, shows how really poor we truly are.
James/.
On Friday, April 27, 2001 Dan wrote:
I can in part see why you suggest that capitalism is in fact problematic.
The way in which many, or almost all businesses exist to generate capital, and
there is definitely some exclusion and alienation created by that, that is
capitalism. However on the other hand, one needs to recognise capitalism for
its wider benefits. Taxation can be gained from the capital "earned" by
capitalism and in fact this is of obvious benefit to others within it.
I think problems occur more so not from those that are part of capitalism,
but rather those who choose not to be part of it. I am not so naive to assume
that all non capitalists are so because they are lazy (and by a non capitalist
I am not only referring to the unemployed). I think that in part your criticisms
are looking at the world in an idealistic way and that in part they are a
little dated.
On Tuesday, April 24, 2001 Muhammad wrote:
I agree with your comments. My believe is that capitalism
will destroy itself but before this it will destroy
every thing like family, relations, community, religion.
Everybody knows this, especially the people of
capitalistic nations: then why we are following
this system?
On Saturday, May 19, 2001 trish wrote:
I have just been to Europe (where rather co-incidentally my winter travels reawakened
glandular fever on my return to my Australasian homeland), anyway i digress, my
impressions of Europe after a 10-year absence were that in fact globalisation was
probably going to be one of the most important issues of the new millennium.
I saw a fast food outlet on nearly every street corner, where people sometimes queued
for hours while their local cuisine was much more healthful and interesting.
I become aware that people everywhere were more stressed that they were 10 years ago,
and slowly it dawned on me that people everywhere are being slowly crushed by a
post-cold-war globalisation system that is turning them in automatons, making them
more suspicious, and making their homelands increasingly bland.
Worst of all I saw Europe and Asia slowly being drowned in worsening environmental
pollution of all kinds. I became aware that some places will not be inhabitable
in 10 years time.
Please tell me what you thought...
|
A page from James David Chapman's website.
Located at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jchap/ Site mirrored here at: http://www.j.chap.btinternet.co.uk |
|
|
This page last updated:
My rating for the page:
|