Is Capitalism Evil?” This Friday (January 21) in Student Pit Lounge at 2:30: Philosophy Café: a discussion between Garry Leach and Richard Keshen
Richard Keshen
Garry Leach (and his often co-author Terry Gibbs) have written a number of interesting books showing some of the travesties of big corporations and global capitalism. I’ve read these books, and learnt from them. I find myself generally sympathetic with their critiques.
I also find in Garry’s writings, however, something broader, namely an outright rejection of capitalism as inherently immoral. This view got me thinking. I asked myself whether I could follow Garry in this blanket condemnation of capitalism. I find that I cannot. I will speak for a few moments on my misgivings about Garry’s position. Garry will reply, and then we’ll open up the discussion.
I want to start with a defining condition of capitalism (not the whole definition), which I believe focuses the issue. My definition of capitalism hinges on the absence of certain kinds of laws.
I want to say that a state is capitalist, then, to the degree that it does not have laws which prohibit individuals from starting their own businesses, competing with other businesses, and making a profit And a state is non-capitalist to the degree it has laws which prohibit individuals from starting their own businesses competing, growing, and making a profit. Now I find it implausible that a good society would have universal anti-capitalist laws of the kind I have specified.
As I’ve said, I agree with Garry (and Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein) that many times corporations behave like immoral brutes. You only have to think of car companies before they were forced by government to make their cars relatively safe. Or tobacco companies. Or the role of large financial companies in the recent recession. And there is no doubt there is something deeply wrong with the economic inequality in the West, because, for one reason, this inequality leaves some people with much too little and gives too much political power to the very wealthy. One of the great issues of our time is how to make large corporations socially responsible.
At the same time, I find myself happy when a new coffee shop or restaurant opens in town. I’m pleased when a local business person’s enterprise flourishes allowing her or him to hire lots of people. These too are capitalist enterprises. Moreover, the successful entrepreneur of this sort displays (I would argue) real moral virtues (initiative, ingenuity, hard work and often fairness). My worry is that Garry’s position, as expressed in his writing (as with Chomsky and Klein), glosses over the virtues of small and medium scale capitalism and its usefulness to society, as well as the opportunity it affords for for self-fulfillment If Garry were to admit to this (which I take it he won’t), then I would have a further question: Is it so easy to separate out where small-scale free-enterprise and medium-scale corporations end and large corporation begins? I would argue it’s not. For one thing small-scale enterprises, if successful, tend to become big enterprises It would impossible to stifle a small-company from growing and outcompeting other companies without undermining the whole point of free enterprise/capitalism. But if that is true, then might there not be something wrong with the fundamental assumptions Garry brings to his critique of corporate capitalism (however this critique might be justified in particular cases).
I think Garry’s position makes a number of mistakes:
Three Mistakes:
- Self-interest is not the same as greed.
- Competition and inequality aren’t necessarily bad things: sometimes allowing such conditions work out best for everyone, as long as everyone has enough, and the inequalities aren’t so great that they translate into too much political influence for the wealthy
- We should accept the serendipidity, the unexpected and openness in life; we don’t want to our lives, including our economic lives, to follow some predetermined plan
My vision of the good society is one in which every person has 1) basic civil rights; 2) where every person has enough financial security so as to lead the full life of a citizen and support his or her family, whatever their abilities or talents. In this regard, I’d favour for example a basic guaranteed income and much greater taxation of the wealthy than we now have. 3) I also want a society where individuality and imagination and eccentricity and serendipidity and creativity and wildness flourish. To me the economic organization of a society should be about the best means to achieve these ends. And I see that as a pragmatic exercise, a pragmatism which would probably favour a mixed economy. I would want to see experiments in cooperative, non-capitalist enterprises. But I don’t believe having a rigid law which prohibits capitalism would contribute to the ideal society, or at least one I would want to live in.