To Alexander Zubatov and his blogpost on the inadequacies of both our society and its leaders. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Apartheid groups are competing in a king-of-the-hill battle to rule over America. They are apartheid because each group believes that, using the words of Martin Luther King Jr., they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. These groups are apartheid because by each of them, while claiming to be the true reflection of America, have turned American Exceptionalism inwards. And on the spiritual front, each group has embraced the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
We could also blame our cherished economic system. For there are two institutional sources of secular values in society: Democracy and the Market. And which one has the greater influence over society is indicated by which institution has the greater influence over the other. While Democracy promotes a certain egalitarianism, the Market promotes competition to the point of both conquering and then ruling over others. Furthermore, our economic system promotes a materialism that teaches our society to value things over people.
While both rulers and revolutionaries follow the Market's base impulses, people are told that loyalty to their tribes is the highest virtue. That lesson was first learned in patriotism.
Finally, promoters of orthodoxies are puzzled as to why they no longer have the sway over others that they use to have. They lost their power is because, unrecognized by those promoters, the skeletons of our orthodoxies have come out of their closets.
All in all, what is complained about above in America is nothing more than the chickens coming home to roost. We should have recognized that but we are blinded by the image we see in our magic mirrors. We can't see that because of our early religious heritage, we have always been too authoritarian to have given Democracy a chance. For the central word of Democracy is the antithesis to what America has been about since its beginning: SHARING.. And that sharing does not apply that much to the to sharing wealth and possessions, we can tolerate some of that. What we Americans are most afraid of sharing is power. Again, that comes from our American Exceptionalism being turned inward.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Michael Matheson Miller and his blogpost that asks if Capitalism always leads to crony Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Articles, like the one above, always neglect some basic parts and information. For example, workers are ignored. Another missing link is lack of well-defined, important terms. What else is missing is the everlasting conflict between democracy and the Free Market. Democracy is where the people rule. And governments that qualify as working democracies write regulations for businesses with the concerns of all who are in society in mind. That means that the more we have free markets, the less we have democratic control those markets. In addition, the writer's definition for economic liberty is not economic liberty. He provides no real, working definition for the term. Though what will be quoted is not the definition, it does shows the bias used to define the term:
Economic liberty is important because it creates space for people to live out their freedom, take care of their families, and fulfill their responsibilities. Economic freedom is necessary because it allows people to take risks and create material prosperity for a flourishing life. Economic liberty is needed because without it there can be no political liberty
What is clear from the quote is that the writer of the article believes that economic liberty is the source of all that is good. However, that isn't economic liberty. Economic liberty is the allowance to engage in economic activity. Economic liberty is a morally neutral term that doesn't express any notion as to what people should do. In addition, suffice it to say that since some can undertake more economic activity than others, we are not really talking about economic liberty as much as we are talking about economic privilege. And if we are really talking about economic privilege rather than liberty, then don't economies that are based on privilege embrace an economic or social Darwinism where we have the survival of the fittest. And with part of that survival of the fittest comes Capitalism's cannibalizing ethic: the maximization of one's profits.
Are there any real differences in outcomes between crony capitalism and economies where we have small, impotent governments? With small, impotent governments, government cooperation by business is not needed by business to do what it wants. The real problem with the perspective above is that the only players it recognizes as participating interaction between business and government business experts and government officials where government representatives pursues self-interest in the same way that many businesses do. The rest of society, including workers, is left out of the decision making process and must hope that those who make decisions are kind and merciful. I wonder if it has occurred to commentators like the author of the above article that the means of Capitalism are at odds with the idealistic results they hope for.
Morals are necessary for any economic system to benefit all of the people. But, again, Capitalism's basic ethic is a cannibalizing one. If the maximization of one's profits is the bottom line, then all other ethical concerns only exist when they serve that ethic. The maximization of one's profits directs participants to only pursue self-interest. And with the free market, these participants are told that they are protected from exploiting others by the rules of the Free Market. Thus, these participants are taught that their only moral obligation is to pursue self-interest. If they want to care about others, that commendable; but it isn't necessary. So how can morals prevent abuse in such a system?
What is needed are political and economic structures that force all stakeholders with different concerns and interests to have to collaborate. The hopeful result is that decisions both in government and in the business world serve the interests of as a wide variety of stakeholders as possible rather than the interests of just a few. And that is where a democratic-based socialism can help. Because it is only such a socialism that can provide the necessary structures that listens to more than just a few voices.
No comments:
Post a Comment