Transcending Mendacity
I cannot imagine a better economic system than the one we have. So-called socialist systems may very well achieve more “equality” than ours, but I seriously doubt that any system of central planning and control could ever achieve the productivity levels of capitalism. Individual incentive, coupled with individual rewards will – in my opinion – always outstrip systems without those features.
Still, no system is perfect. Capitalist enterprises sometimes produce products that are fundamentally bad. I have in mind the tobacco industry, sugared cereals, and daytime television (though I confess that the last may be only bad in my opinion). So, in those cases, the more efficient the system that produces them the worse off the people will be.
The spiraling ascent of corporate America presents a different sort of problem. Bad products may eventually be selected out by the market, but the basics of corporate culture cannot change. Consumers are flesh and blood creatures, with minds that are quite capable of seeing the difference between what’s good for them and what’s not. We human beings have built-in gauges measuring joy and sorrow, and those indicators tell us – though we don’t always listen – when we’re on the right or the wrong track. But the right track for a corporation is any track that leads to higher profits. While the law considers corporations to be “persons,” they are persons quite unlike the real thing. Corporations have no conscience other than the one tuned to the bottom line.
The difficulties growing from the moral ambivalence of corporations are compounded by the fact that in America the corporations have amassed more power than any of the flesh and blood persons who live here. I don’t know anyone who has a lobbyist in Washington, or who regularly gets access to the offices and ears of our legislators. But it’s common knowledge that corporate America spends literally millions to influence the passage of laws that enhance their ability to make profits. When we look at that great power, and reflect on the fact that those possessed of it also have no conscience, we are – or at least we ought to be – concerned that our government may be functioning for something other than the general welfare.
But our government does have the power to supply corporate America with a conscience. It’s called regulation. If we elect people who are beholden to all the people, including the "persons" – and not wholeheartedly committed to the corporations – we might expect them to find a middle ground where the needs of the people and the entitlements of the corporations are brought into a just balance.
But that’s also a part of our problem. The great power exercised by the corporations often takes the form of money contributed to the election campaigns of people who are more apt to serve the corporations than the people. I guess that’s where things like this piece of writing come in. Nothing here tells anyone precisely who to vote for or what measures to stand for. But things like this may serve to heighten the awareness of one or two of us to the nature of the problem. And I guess that’s the first step we’ll have to take, if we’re to find a solution.
Still, no system is perfect. Capitalist enterprises sometimes produce products that are fundamentally bad. I have in mind the tobacco industry, sugared cereals, and daytime television (though I confess that the last may be only bad in my opinion). So, in those cases, the more efficient the system that produces them the worse off the people will be.
The spiraling ascent of corporate America presents a different sort of problem. Bad products may eventually be selected out by the market, but the basics of corporate culture cannot change. Consumers are flesh and blood creatures, with minds that are quite capable of seeing the difference between what’s good for them and what’s not. We human beings have built-in gauges measuring joy and sorrow, and those indicators tell us – though we don’t always listen – when we’re on the right or the wrong track. But the right track for a corporation is any track that leads to higher profits. While the law considers corporations to be “persons,” they are persons quite unlike the real thing. Corporations have no conscience other than the one tuned to the bottom line.
The difficulties growing from the moral ambivalence of corporations are compounded by the fact that in America the corporations have amassed more power than any of the flesh and blood persons who live here. I don’t know anyone who has a lobbyist in Washington, or who regularly gets access to the offices and ears of our legislators. But it’s common knowledge that corporate America spends literally millions to influence the passage of laws that enhance their ability to make profits. When we look at that great power, and reflect on the fact that those possessed of it also have no conscience, we are – or at least we ought to be – concerned that our government may be functioning for something other than the general welfare.
But our government does have the power to supply corporate America with a conscience. It’s called regulation. If we elect people who are beholden to all the people, including the "persons" – and not wholeheartedly committed to the corporations – we might expect them to find a middle ground where the needs of the people and the entitlements of the corporations are brought into a just balance.
But that’s also a part of our problem. The great power exercised by the corporations often takes the form of money contributed to the election campaigns of people who are more apt to serve the corporations than the people. I guess that’s where things like this piece of writing come in. Nothing here tells anyone precisely who to vote for or what measures to stand for. But things like this may serve to heighten the awareness of one or two of us to the nature of the problem. And I guess that’s the first step we’ll have to take, if we’re to find a solution.
posted by Benedict S. at 2:23 PM
9 Comments:
Americans are used to resentment of their global dominance. Since the
war on Iraq, however, this hostility has begun to hit them where it
hurts: in corporate balance sheets.
It has not taken long for Americans to realise that the triumphal
appearance by President George Bush aboard an aircraft-carrier after
the toppling of Saddam Hussein was somewhat premature. Barely a day
goes by now without news of another soldier falling to the bullets of
hidden snipers. Little attention has been paid, however, to another
consequence of the campaign in Iraq. Call it corporate collateral
damage. And the victim is Brand America.
For decades, going back
to the Second World War, when British women were clamouring for
nylons, Made-in-America has sold, in part, because of what the country
has represented - above all, prosperity and capitalist freedom. A pair of Nike trainers could signify dollar-wealth to an Asian slum-dweller.
A black-market pair of Levi 501s symbolised protest in Eastern Europe
before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Companies need to revise their political lobbying strategies in the
wake of these kinds of findings. It is not enough for them to use
their political clout to lobby for favours. They will increasingly
need to take a position on political, as well as social and
environmental issues in order that the consumer continues to support
them.
Meaningful insight, John. You being "overseas" puts a ring of authenticity into your comment. I much enjoy your comments.
Mendacious Mouse,please don't confuse me with the other John on Finding Fairhope.I am John Knowles,I decided to use my first name here instead of an alias.
Aha! Beg pardon. This blog stuff thing doesn't work right...There should be only one
"John"
John Knowles: I understand that the "other John" was a honch in the ad business, so it seemed natural to assume he was "John" when he wrote about the impact overseas on brand America. I responded vaguely last evening to your pointing out my mistake. I was tired from standing around several hours at an art show where milady's work is on display. Neither you nor the other John needs a "beg your pardon." You are both good men with much to say to the world that it ought to be listening to.
I don't know how to apologize for my mistake (or not apologize) without running the risk of offending one or the other of you. Maybe I'll die.
There is a lot to be said here for the insight of John (America) regarding brand America's troubles overseas and I will vouch for it's validity from the viewpoint of a John Sweden. I would argue however that the problem is much deeper and broader and more serious than a simple resentment of American dominance, its capitalistic economics or it’s image viv-a-vis its continuing war crimes in Iraq. America, its economics and its consumptive lifestyle is becoming unsustainable and unjustifiable in a world of 6.5 billion going on 10 billion people.
The world is beginning to wake up to the fact that they cannot afford to physically support your habits any longer. I think this may be the heart of John Knowles insights, if you take them as observations of early symptoms. In recognition of this we are beginning to see new economic and social models emerging all over the world and none of them are looking anything like American Capitalism. Even in Europe there is a serious, stiffening of resistance to the capitalist’s visions of the European Union and the mindless consumerism of American Culture. You must remember that the American capitalist model developed and matured in a country of 150-250 million citizens and in a world of 2-4 billion souls with more than enough resources to sustain and fuel the concept, its growth and image of success.
There is an interesting interview over at “Asia Times” today (a news source I would highly recommend to both of you as daily reading, as the world shifts eastward) “Drifting down the path to perdition” Part 2 of Tom Engelhardt's interview Andrew Bacevich. In it a line is drawn from a speech given by Jimmy Carter in 1979 to America’s present situation. It's something to think about.
mouse,no reason to apologize to me,the mistake was understandable.
To the other John,Economics who are capitalistically orientated designate the general
striving after profit as the fundamental motive of the capitalist system. The competitive individual striving after profit inevitably causes competition, the goal of which is the economic subjugation of the competitor. The consequence of competition is the compulsion to rationalise, which can
take fundamentally two direction, an external and an internal. In this the purpose of internal rationalisation is to carry on the improvement of production means and methods in order to decrease production costs in relation to profit. Insofar as internal rationalisation contributes to
making the advance of production techniques possible and to driving them forward, this kind of rationalisation promotes the progress of humanity and thus
corresponds to the achievements of the creative factor of human labour
in the further development of humanity, as it has already been shown in this theory.
John (America): Can you elaborate a bit on "external rationalization." I don't see that you explained it. The internal -- as you described it -- runs up against one of Ricardo's laws, which in modern parlance sounds like, "There's nothing manufactured that cannot be made cheaper." The internal would consist of those steps the competitors took to lower their actual costs. I'm supposing the external would resemble something like what we call advertising, which, on its seamier side, might be characterized as making a sows ear look like a silk purse. But there is also, I suppose, in some advertising, an element of truth that could be said to act as a form of consumer enlightenment. Perhaps John (Sweden) can speak to that with some authority.
You (Sweden) might also share a bit more about this word "consumerism." To what extent do you think it's mixed up with a rebellion against secularism? Or against the American (or western) propensity to monetize aesthetic values?
Let me start off here by saying that short of several book length dissertations and at least a year’s worth of nights, quaffing beers at a local pub, will be needed to reach any sort of reasonable or unreasonable conclusions.
As I see it, Mr. Knowles is right as far as the need for the internal rationalizing of capitalist theory is concerned, because the reality presents a far more different picture than “promotes the progress of humanity and thus corresponds to the achievements of the creative factor of human labour in the further development of humanity”. America, where this rationalization is dominant and pervasive, not only in the economic business segments of society but the government and populace as well, is the prime example of its failure to be realized.
Let me give you only four examples of what I mean in terms of the lack of “further development of humanity”. An education system that consistently produces drop out rates of 20-40 percent and a population with a lower literacy rate than Cuba. A privatized health care system that is increasingly unaffordable, unavailable, and so wasteful that Americans pay more and receive less for their health care dollars than the citizens of any other developed nation in the world. A growing homeless population of men, women and children in what is the richest nation in the world. Finally a society so violent and murderous, that the violent crime and murder rate is only comparable in certain war zones. So, the theory and it rationalizations, having all the resources imaginable available for its realization, does not produce the goods. Instead it has a produced a society incapable of sustaining itself. I pointed out earlier, America, as a model for the economic “progressive of humanity”, is an aberration that is increasingly unsupportable and unjustifiable given the conditions of the emerging world in which it exists. I’m not sure but think this is what you meant as the external.
To respond Mouse’s questions about the truth of advertising, advertising and marketing, at its core, is essentially truthful business. There is a point where the products right to exist ideally match’s the consumer’s physical, social or psychological needs. The best advertising, in my opinion and working philosophy, finds that point which intersects all three. The major shift in advertising and the marketing of products from its simple beginnings, from just announcing the existence of a product and putting it in best light, has been to shape the nature of consuming itself. In simple terms it means creating continuous total marketing environments that stimulate you emotionally to go beyond your actual needs to impulsively and without thought purchase what you don’t really want or need. It is highly manipulative, seductive and so effective that there are very few if any who can resist the impulse to buy once in these environments. The unique aspect of American Consumerism is the total submersion of the individual in this environment and the results is compulsive buying and debt accumulation on scale unimagined in human history. This by the way is, in my opinion, an essential component for the distorted growth claims and imagined of success of supply side economics.
Post a Comment
<< Home