>
To:    Guardian CiF
Re:   The inherent unjustness, inhumanity and non-sustainability of free-market capitalism
Date: Monday 11 June  07

 

In response to the Guardian's business editor, Deborah Hargreaves, on corporate and fat-cat greed.

Link to article and thread at The Guardian.

 
Ms Hargreaves approaches close to the core of the Problem, but still only recognizes (and laments) the symptoms, not their cause. It is necessary to open the patient up (or conduct a CT scan) to discover that.

But no one wants to, it seems, because afraid of what they will discover: terminal cancer, perhaps, or horrible heart disease?!

I've conducted a scan (several, in fact) and can tell you what you will find: the "ugly heart" of the "ugly face" of capitalism.

I hope Ms Hargreaves will conduct the same scan and confirm my results for herself, although I understand her (and other people's) reluctance to do so: we are ALL totally dependent on this powerful, but rotten heart continuing to pump blood (money) through the veins of the economy, which sustains our entire social order and civilization.

It is impossible to overstate the magnitude and urgency of the Problem, which will indeed prove fatal if we fail to recognize and face up to it very soon, so that a cure can be worked out and implemented. It will, admittedly, but of necessity, be a very radical cure, performed, not by hero surgeons, but by individual and collective, grass-roots democratic changes to the values, attitudes, life styles and lifestyle aspirations (rooted in our more animal than human nature) which dominate society now.

Put succinctly the Problem is this: an economy which developed (unsurprisingly, in view of human origins) both to serve and exploit European man's animal nature and behaviour. We have so far failed to recognize the obvious because we are ALL totally immersed in, familiar with and dependent on (many intoxicated by) it. And what makes it even more difficult is that no one wants to recognize it: "None", as they say, "is so blind as he (or she) who will not see".

Draft instructions on how to conduct the scan and confirm my findings for yourself can be found on my homepage. However, I'm afraid they are still in note form, rather disorganized, and not yet complete. That will put many of you off, I know, but hopefully not all. I'm still working on them, and on the kind of cure that is called for, but if I wait until the book I'm planning is ready for publication, it may be too late to save the patient.

 

2nd Post
 
[LesterJones], I agree that "Capitalism is inherently unjust", but when has there ever been a "just" economic system? More important is its inherent non-sustainability, which on our overpopulated planet, with its finite carrying capacity, is rapidly (exponentially!) coming to a head.

In the past, the rich and powerful could get away with exploiting the rest of society over many generations, but not anymore; now it is not just "others", but their own children and grandchildren, too, who will pay for their preoccupation with their own, short-sighted, materialistic self-interests. In our present situation, which has never existed before, we are ALL in the same boat, Spaceship Earth (boat, ship, same kind of thing), rich and poor alike, exploiters and exploited. Either we - ALL of us - get our act together, or we go down together. OK, so the poor will do down first, but the rich (or their children) will follow sooner than makes any difference.

It is no longer, as it may once have been, in the self-interest of the "haves" only to think of themselves and about hanging on to (or increasing) their own wealth and power. Those who do are kicking their own children and grandchildren in the teeth. No one, not even the nastiest capitalist deliberately does that. Once they recognize this, most, I am sure, will not need to be forced or cajoled into doing (or stop doing) what needs to be done - provided, of course, they know what it is.

[Screaminglordludd], Contrary to what you say, I do not believe that many people really recognize the Problem, although, I have to say, I'm not familiar with Adam Curtis's documentaries.

A lot of people believe they recognise the Problem, of course, and that they are doing all that can be reasonably expected of them to but it right, but most, I am sure, are mistaken. Or maybe it is me who is mistaken. But time will tell, and if we wait for her, by definition, it will be too late to be of any use to us.

All I'm suggesting is that you check out my ideas. I think they are important, because they go to the root of the Problem, rather than beating about the bush, as Deborah Hargreaves does above, and many of the posters on this thread.

3rd Post

[GreedIsGood], Thanks for the feedback, which made me laugh. I'm pleased you visited my website (I count the number of hits it gets like a obsessive miser his money), but sorry you seem to have misunderstood it so badly. But never mind - perhaps, if we both try a little harder . . . .

I'm not a doom-monger or a pessimist, but someone with a more realistic view (model) of the world than most. What I see is terrifying, but recognizing the root of the Problem makes me optimistic about solving it. I can SEE than it can be solved - but only if, first a few, but then a rapidly increasing number of people recognise it too and start self-organizing themselves, grass-roots democratically, making use of the Internet and biometrics (to combat identity deception), into groups and groups of groups etc. thus gradually creating an Alternative socio-economic order to the existing one we all depend on at the moment. As it grows, we will be able to transfer more and more of our activities, dependencies and vested interests to it, each when they are ready and at their own pace (no place for force or coercion) until eventually it replaces the existing socio-economic order completely.

It is simple in principle, but the devil, of course, will be in the detail, which we cannot afford to spend all our time arguing (or fighting) about. The solution to that is to have lots of different "societies", not land-based, like the nation state, but value- and attitude- based (a bit like politically parties) for people to choose from, or if they cannot find one that suits them, to create (with others, of course) their own.

[Peterlee], for you I'm a "somewhat unworldly romantic", am I? Hmmmmm. At least it's a polite and respectful way of saying that you think I'm a bit of a nutter - and I appreciate that. Perhaps you are right.

[LesterJones], I have "Marxist leanings"? Well, if you think so . . . . I read his Communist Manifesto as a lad, which was a long time ago, but that is about all I have read of him. I disagree with his concept of "class struggle". In my evolutionary, anthropological model of society, it is basically every man for himself (and his family, of course) in the continuing Darwinian struggle for survival and advantage, but now in the artificial "socio-economic environment" that has replaced both our extended family group (in the form of the nation state) and the natural environment, where human nature and behaviour evolved and for which they are adapted.

It was to serve and exploit our evolved nature and behaviour in this new "socio-economic environment" that free-market capitalism developed, and the reason why it is inherently unsustainable.

 

4th Post

[LesterJones]: "@rogerhicks, Keep in mind the social aspect of the human animal and its tendency for altruistic behaviour."

 
These things I do have very much in mind. So-called "altruistic behaviour", you realize of course, is determined by "enlightened" self-interest: we look after others in the hope and reasonable expectation that they'll look after us. Self-sacrifice is about protecting the family "gene pool" of which our own (hopefully!) are a part.
 
Our behaviour and emotions evolved to what they are today when we still lived in extended family groups, on which we depended absolutely and thus developed extremely strong emotional bonds with. This is what all our social behaviour is adapted to: interacting and getting along with fellow members of our extended family group, people we know. Originally, even the King was our kin (words with a common root) and someone we would have known personally.
 
We are not well adapted to getting on with strangers, members of "other" groups, who we spontaneously view with suspicion, since they may well be out to harm or take advantage of us, as we them. This is the source of virtually all our "social/antisocial problems". From an evolutionary perspective, strangers and other groups were part of the "natural environment", where, in cooperation with our own group, we struggled ruthlessly for survival and advantage (qualitatively very different from the rivalry for social status within our own family group, but confounded in modern society and greatly exploited).  
It is worth considering that trade (with other groups and strangers) developed as an "alternative" to war. If an individual or his group thought it could get away with using force to take what it wanted from strangers, that is what they were inclined to do. If the risk seemed too great, however, trade was opted for instead. Robbery and trade went hand-in-hand - and, in more subtle ways, still do.
 
More recently, war (or the threat of it) and trade have been combined as the most effective and low-risk way of exploiting others, the British empire being the classic example.
 
It's a very cunning system, because it serves people (making them dependent on, even thankful to, it) and exploits them, to other's advantage, at the same time. This is the very essence of free-market capitalism, of course, which, as I've already pointed out, developed naturally to serve and exploit our animal - not our human - nature. Which is why it is "inherently" unjust, inhumane and unsustainable. 
 
Our more human nature attempts to compensate, and we give ourselves much credit and praise for it, but the system works massively and inexorably against such efforts, while vanity and dumb-animal self-interest corrupts them as well, making them wholly and utterly inadequate.

Thus, we urgently need an alternative socio-economic system. If we stick with this one, I'm afraid (and I'm being realistic, not pessimistic) we are doomed.

 

5th Post (quite strongly altered from the original) .

[dissidentstockbroker], Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume myself to be one of the "social Darwinists" you refer to in your last post; in which case I'd just like to point out, as I have been trying to do all along, that "Social Darwinism" isn't just an unpleasant (and thus rejected) theory, but harsh (though denied) reality. It's what we've got - at least, very largely - and our social welfare system, charities and human rights lawyers etc. are, despite appearances, very much a part of it. Fighting for the "moral high ground" and other people's "rights" (including those of the vulnerable and disadvantaged) is seldom as noble or altruistic as it is presented or appears, since such behaviour has many advantages in the socio-economic environment (jungle) of "civilized" society, and is often a prerequisite for holding public office. It is just that we use our big "prime-ape" brain to cleverly disguise  our true motives, from others, of course, but also from ourselves.

Britain's top bosses are not on another planet at all - just in a better position than most to exploit the system - which, naturally enough, they do. And since they are not required to delude others or themselves in respect to their motives - unlike those working for the Guardian, for example - they don't.

Please excuse what seems to be my cynicism. I do not mean to be cynical at all, but achieve a better, more honest and realistic understanding of society. If it seems I'm painting too black a picture, I know there is white in there as well, and countless shades of grey. But there is less white than we like to think (especially in ourselves) and often what appears pretty white on the surface, is a deeper shade of grey underneath.

The state, its institutions, and the social, political and economic framework they provide, are there to be exploited to one's own advantage. This is why they were created in the first place. Or do you think our medieval Kings and nobles had their subjects' true interests at heart, rather than the intention to exploit them? And Parliament? Where MPs ever concerned with the people's interests as much as with their own? Of course not, but they have to pretend to be in order to get elected.

The state is an instrument for exploiting the people it claims its purpose is to serve (it does both, of course, but very unequally). It is more democratic and meritocratic nowadays than it was in the past, in the sense that everyone, theoretically, at least, is "free" to exploit it as best they can, while those who are less able have social services and welfare to exploit instead. Added to which, everyone is given an "equal", though miniscule, "chance" of joining the (unjustly) rich if they choose to play the lottery. This is what our much vaunted "equality" is, not just, but mainly about.

Why is this or its importance not recognized and pointed out? Because the consequences would be profound, our social elites and others (not just the obvious candidates) exposed as exploiters, and because our social scientists, whose job it is, are themselves a privileged group, dependent on the status quo.

Our ruling elites have always understood the need  (and had the means) to convince others (and themselves) that, far from exploiting society, they are serving it, for which they deserve and entitled to people's admiration, deep appreciation and loyalty. And woe betide anyone who dares question it.


http://www.spaceship-earth.org