We, in Western Civilization, are constantly bombarded with the notion that Capitalism is the be all and end all. It is the End of History, it is the Ultimate System. More like Ultimate-Horsepucky, in my opinion because we almost never get to see the critiques of our system in the mainstream and not knowing the weaknesses of your own system is hubris of the most dangerous variety. It leads to a variation to what psychologists term the Dunning-Kruger effect. And that is, given sufficient ignorance, we cannot accurately judge the quality of the work we produce. It produces truly transcendental moments such as this.
The following is a forty-five minute required slice of viewing because we really do not want to act and claim competence like the choral master linked above when it comes to arguing about our chosen economic system.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
March 9, 2013 at 11:11 pm
VR Kaine
Can’t wait to view! :). Did you see my criticism of capitalism in my last reply, Arb?
LikeLike
March 10, 2013 at 4:15 am
VR Kaine
I see three major flaws with the ongoing dialogue about Capitalism, much of which is contained in this video:
1) That Capitalism is supposed to “deliver the goods” to everybody.
2) That the financial crisis was caused first by Capitalism
3) That the middle class are victims of the upper class.
I submit the following:
1) Capitalism is not meant for “everybody”. The concept that a rising tide raises all boats suggests a free ride somewhere which Capitalism does not promise or even suggest.
2) Capitalism would have prevented the crisis, not caused it. What caused it was fraud and greed by those at both ends of the economic spectrum and government pushing both sides to the middle to create a sick marriage. Does that say that Capitalism didn’t play a role? It did, but no more than a car can be blamed for driver error.
3) The middle class are largely victims of themselves. For one, they fail to think ahead. How many with fixed salaries and expenses do their taxes at the end of the year only to be “shocked” when they realize that this year, they have to pay? This makes them easy to exploit by people who think ahead – something which the middle class are just as capable of doing but choose not to.
For another, the middle class are reactive, not proactive. They seem to have to wait for something to actually occur before they take action on it, even if they see it coming. They let the financial crisis happen, then they let the banks get even bigger, they let government continue to do nothing, and they continue to watch executive salaries rise and rise. They keep watching others take bigger pieces of the pie and yet only bitch after their smaller piece is served.
A third thing is the middle class always seems to want someone else to do the hard thinking and hard problem-solving for them. Let’s keep buying big-business’s products, but hope that someone else penalizes them. Let’s keep bitching that government doesn’t do enough, and yet not get off our ass to vote. Certainly business has this flaw of laziness, too, but because of the middle-class’s failure to think ahead and decision to be reactive instead of proactive, it affects them far worse.
Lastly, the middle class still seems hung up on the romanticized idea that “hard work” is both noble and rewarding, regardless of the value of that work. In an information/knowledge/technological society, the value of physical labor goes down. It takes little skill to hit a switch on a fry cooker. Why does that deserve the $16/hr that Moyers suggests it does? Granted, this goes back to the elite planting this b.s. seed into the heads of the working class, but the working class has had no excuse for the past 50 years for continuing to believe it.
Capitalism only “runs wild” when one of the two parties involved in a transaction prefers to remain ignorant, and in the case of our economy that continues to be the middle class. In my opinion, the rich keep getting richer because the people simply let them.
Damn – was doing so well keeping this short until I got to #3!! Thanks for reading.
LikeLike
March 10, 2013 at 8:02 am
The Arbourist
I’m just catching up Vern, I’ve been off the grid for a bit attending a choral workshop and have not been doing the blog thing.
I’ve read your response and agree with some of the points you make, others, not so much. You know, the usual.
LikeLike
March 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm
VR Kaine
Yup, can’t see our positions being easily swayed by each other. :)
No rush, though. An artificially high stock market, a useless conclave, semantic babbling over “sequestration” will keep us right-wingers drunk on our own bright shiny things in the meantime.
(For the record, I’m not Catholic :))
LikeLike
March 10, 2013 at 6:29 pm
VR Kaine
Also, check this out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/paul-polman-rebuilding-capitalism-from-the-basics/article9577971/
A guy going back to the “roots” of Capitalism, to what it was intended to be pre-Friedman and post-Drucker.
LikeLike
March 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm
The Arbourist
Agreed. What is problematic though is that, free market disciples have really run with this idea of supply side economics (aka systematically looting the economy for their benefit) and like it or not, it is the paradigm that is currently in place. The case for utopian capitalism is strong, consider though that the case for utopian socialism is just as strong, if not stronger as emphasis is placed on cooperation as opposed to competition (utopianlly speaking).
We have to be careful here because mixing the theoretical with the actual can muddy the picture very quickly.
I’m troubled with this statement Vern because it tacitly assumes that there is some sort of balance between the rich and the poor. One of the fundamental criticisms of capitalism is that it creates imbalances in society, different classes so to speak.
Being that rich have the influence and money to game the system not only economically, but politically for our conversation to continue meaningfully we have to acknowledge the idea that one side currently has a significant systemic advantage over the other and are actively working to maintain and expand their influence.
This is why I do not understand your animus toward unions and organized labour, as these are the organizations, that in the past, have been in the vanguard of breaking the monied elite’s complete hold on power in society. It was most certainly not the business class that brought forth the earned benefits, employment insurance, regulated work days, holidays etc that we now enjoy.
I can predict your response being that businesses because they want to be productive will provide those benefits….to that I would say, they had the first half of the 19th century to improve conditions for their workers and nothing was done until people organized themselves, and fought and bleed and died for their rights. Power never makes concessions willingly, not ever. Did you get that message from your education? No you did not because unless you look for labour history, it has all been glossed over so people do not have the institutional memory of what the struggle against power is all about. This is no accident, as the labour organizing of days past is a direct threat to those who currently hold power.
Kinda sounds like exploitation, no? So again, we are on the verge of mixing the personal with the systemic. Personal responsibility is a good characteristic, but cannot be used in a argument defending or rejecting the systematic causes of the problem. Real wages have crept along, while profits have soared. The current system is responsible for this inequality and the middle class’s abundance or scarcity of personal responsibility is certainly a contributing factor, but only a minor one at best.
Agreed! Onward to the barricades and the Revolution. :)
LikeLike
March 12, 2013 at 7:59 pm
VR Kaine
“I’m troubled with this statement Vern because it tacitly assumes that there is some sort of balance between the rich and the poor. One of the fundamental criticisms of capitalism is that it creates imbalances in society, different classes so to speak.”
My point there is that it’s the same character trait no matter rich or poor in that positon – entitlement. The imbalance, then, comes simply from (I believe) whether or not one feels weak or powerful along with feeling entitled. If powerful, they’ll step on people to take what they want without compromise and if weak, they’ll be all about compromise. Again to me that points more to beliefs creating that imbalance rather than Capitalism.
“I can predict your response being that businesses because they want to be productive will provide those benefits….”
No, just that the smart businesses and ones that deserve to succeed long-term will provide them. To your other comment in the paragraph, My animosity towards unions boils down to three things: 1) thuggery, 2) protecting the incompetent and lazy, and 3) the fact that union bosses make full salary while workers are on strike. There are situations that I’ve mentioned on my blog where I actually either don’t mind certain unions, or even where I actually believe they are necessary (Vegas service industry, for instance. The union by and large does well there for its workers vs the casino and nightcub management.). That said, though, unions remove individualism, remove choice, and they remove natural market forces which is why as a whole I am mostly against them in principle.
“Kinda sounds like exploitation, no?”
That disregards why someone is being exploited which makes all the difference. Mother Theresa was exploited by the sick and needy in Calcutta, then, no?
The middle class makes a voluntary choice to be exploited, just as anyone “renting” their skills to a job does the moment they voluntarily accept the job, so one can hardly blame Capitalism when someone else gives these people what they want, i.e. an amount less than what their skills would be worth on their own.
Therefore, I have no more sympathy for someone choosing to be ignorant about the realities of the economy and nature than I do for someone who steps off a tall building choosing to ignore gravity.
“Personal responsibility is a good characteristic, but cannot be used in a argument defending or rejecting the systematic causes of the problem.”
Why not? Capitalism requires people to make voluntary choices in order to function. No choices, no decisions, no function. People must take responsibility first for Capitalism to even enter the picture. We don’t blame gravity, we blame the person trying to fly in spite of it.
One could argue, I guess, that we can blame gun manufacturers in the same way some blame Capitalism? However with Capitalism, no one is innocent. Wth Capitalism, both sides are armed and in my opinion, where true Capitalism exists it is the only system where they are armed equallly.
It starts with human choice – how do you simply ignore that and put blame on the system that executes on those choices? Similar to what I said before, to me this is like blaming the brake system for not seeing a stop sign or an oncoming car.
LikeLike
March 12, 2013 at 8:06 pm
VR Kaine
“What is problematic though is that, free market disciples have really run with this idea of supply side economics (aka systematically looting the economy for their benefit) and like it or not, it is the paradigm that is currently in place.”
Agreed. I guess to me it’s as much of a problem that everyday people are thinking this is Capitalism when it isn’t. All the new rules, for instance, since the financial crisis to “rein in” Capitalism – they’ve done nothing but hurt small business which is true Capitalism. Has anything happened to the profiteers? Nope, yet people are left thinking that Obama’s anti-Capitalism position is somehow keeping the fat cats in check and preventing the “free market” from running wild. I remind everyone that the Dow just broke 14k and set a new record high!!
LikeLike