Home | Neoliberalism | ABC OF SOCIALISM--Prof Leo Huberman | Capitalistic Greed Exposed Through Big Pharma | EINSTEIN DEFENDS SOCIALISM | Questions concerning socialism--Professor Huberman's answers | MONOPOLY CAPITAL, explained by 2 university professors | MONOPOLY CAPITAL AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM | COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, Karl Marx & Fredrick Engels | Capitalism, the Absurd System--Bellamy & McChesney | Pigs at the Trough--Arianna Huffington's book on corporate democracy | Venezuelan participatory democracy | U.S. Aggression Against Cuba | George Bernard Shaw's book on Socialism--a chapter | George Bernard Shaw on Socialism, another chapter | WHY I AM A SOCIALIST--WILLIAM MORRIS | Imperialism and Globalization--Monthly Review Press | What's Wrong With Capitalism--by JK | ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, five likely causes | THE INTERNATIONALE (song) | Indonesia, the Massacre of Socialist | Xenophon: A Greek dialogue discussing socialism | LINKS

Critical of Capitalism

What's Wrong With Capitalism--by JK

Enter subhead content here

 

Page 12                                                                    THE FOURTH ESTATE                                                            November 1, 1968

 

 

Capitalism:   What's Wrong With It!

 

By JERRY KAHN

In a letter about a month ago [November 1968, Winnipeg], I suggested to an Amer­ican friend that the political-economic system of Capital­ism had many undesirable effects, and that it is under­standable why so many are fleeing from freedom [to Canada during the Vietnam War].  They could not support the U.S. government--even with a military desk job, aware that the U.S. is engaged in a subtle form of world conquest by means of economic exploitation through expansion of its corporate system.  This certainly is better than the old form of military conquest which required the stationing of permanent troops.  In this light it makes sense why the U.S. opposes social­ization of industry.  But rather than wander off into the entanglements of interpreting history, I would like to briefly point out what I feel is wrong with capitalism; my American friend lacked the imagination to think of something better than capitalism.  I will, therefore, as I did in my reply to his letter, describe four consequences of capitalism that are objectionable.  I am not trying to argue for a point, but rather to raise question, which I hope the reader will give fair con­sideration.  At times I will both raise questions and suggest answers.

 

(A)       THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS

One of the fundamental faults of capitalism is the basic axiom that if everybody tries to accumulate as much property as possible the general interest of the people will be served.  All this seems to create is exploitation.  The factory owners try to reduce as much as possible their expenditures on employees.  The factory and storeowners try to profiteer as much as possible without any concern for the public.  It has often been said that such a piggish axiom is needed to motivate people.  But there are other motivations besides greed, such as, travel, interesting work, extra vacation time, shorter hours, a feeling of importance, and the feeling of happi­ness which comes from doing a good job and helping build a better community.  To support the wage-incentive axiom is the myth that luxuries brings happiness.  Are we that much on an island that we have no compassion for our fellow man, for there are only so many loaves of bread in our country?  I think a system which is based on an assumption that man is basically piggish and therefore only fit to look after his own needs; such system impedes rather than promotes the good within each person. 

  

(A)       THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS

One of the fundamental faults of capitalism is the basic axiom that “if everybody tries to accumulate as much property as possible the general interest of the people will be served.”  All this seems to create is exploitation.  Hughie Newton said, “Show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a pig.”  The factory owners try to reduce as much as possible their expenditures on employees.  The factory and storeowners try to profiteer as much as possible without any concern for the public.  It has often been said that such a piggish axiom is needed to motivate people.  But it is not the workers that grow fat from owning the means of production and the means of distribution.  There are other motivations besides greed, such as, travel, interesting work, extra vacation time, shorter hours, a feeling of importance, and the feeling of happi­ness which comes from doing a good job and helping build a better community.  And these rewards can be applied to the work and those who supervise the means of production and distribution.  Reasonable rewards for those who direct manufacturing and distribution ought to be set at no more than 10 fold that of the common laborer.  Are we that much on an island that we have no compassion for our fellow man, for there are only so many loaves of bread in our country?  I think a system which is based on an assumption that man is basically piggish and therefore only fit to look after his own needs, such system impedes rather than promotes the good within each person. 

 

(B) THE IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMIC SUCCESS

I have felt there is more to justice than the impartial enforcement of laws.  Is there not a Christian sense of justice, where it is wrong to take advantage of other people?  This sense of fairness comes into conflict with the business ethic, which considers as right all forms of profiteering and exploitation as long as it is within the law.  Through the millions spent in lobbing reasonable controls upon business have been removed.  The desire for economic success and the influence of the powerful elite have ruined the mass media.  The restrictions advertisers de facto place upon content has limited critical political and economic ideas while presenting subtle approval of our economic system.  The mass media is becoming more and more an opiate, an aid for living the unexamined life.  There is a lack of diversity of opinion.  The schools could do much better by teaching critical analysis.  Why is it that philosophy and ethics, economics, and political theory are not taught as exercises in critical thought in our public schools?  And what about media content?  Who would be challenged—besides the churches—by a populace that a developed ability to critically analyze complex issues?  With such a populace there would be many fundamental changes and social justice would become its first axiom.

 

(C)       THE RELATION OF WAR TO MARKETS  {written during the Vietnam War}[1]

The major factor in every war has been the protection or expansion of markets.  For one thing, our workers gain very little through the conquest of a foreign country; it is the powerful and wealthy who will gain.  The War of 1848 was one of expansion, the Civil War protected huge northern investments in the South, and the First and Second World Wars prevented the establishment of Continental Europe as a German sphere of influence.  The War of 1812 was fought for the protection of trading rights.  Why is the United States so upset over Cuba?  The U.S. founding fathers have been called “founding fathers” because they gained the most by the establishment of a new government.  And why would Japan or Germany, for example, try to gain control of other countries?  The current world tensions are a result of a struggle for spheres of influence and trade—the socialist markets are essential not open to trade from capitalist countries.  We are opposing the popular sentiment of the Vietnamese people in an effort to stop the expansion of socialist economic system. 

 

(D)       CAPITALISM’S INSENSITIVITY

 

Under capitalism insensitivity to human needs has developed.  For example, Canada and the United States worry about overproduction of food, and actually pay for the reduction of crops while people starve throughout the world, including on our own doorsteps.  Also the production of goods is determined by its market and not by human need.  At all levels of development industries are run as if they are a good in themselves and should be maintained for their own sake and not for the welfare of mankind.  I would like to see a system where production is determined by human need.

 

So in reply to a question by my American friend “What would replace it (capitalism)?” I would suggest a world government dedicated to seeing that: (a) every­body was properly fed, clothed, and housed; (b) everyone worked and received a fair return for their work with none receiving too much; (c) intellectual deve1opment for all to be encouraged; (d) businesses are the servant to man; (e) the production of war materials end; (f) the ending of all exploitation, including one region by another or one class by another; (g) and the ending of a press which is controlled by those who make up the ruling class.

      

Only in countries like the United States can people be so ignorant of what is wrong with capitalism as to think it to be a perfectly fine system which needs only occasional slight modifications to insure that it will be a political-economic system lasting for all times.  It is time that democracy be practiced by creating an informed, reasoning public.



[1]   Today I feel that the socialist analysis of the forces behind wars is an erroneous simplification.  Moreover, subsequent events have shown that the early economic spurt under socialism was not sustained.  But in 1968, China compared favorable with India, Cuba with Dominican Republic, and Russia with Turkey.  A good plan ran by politicians will eventually implode.    


This article appeared in the University of Manitoba’s, University College, student newspaper in 1968, just 5 months after I left the good old United States because I didn’t want to kill people I didn’t hate, nor did I want to be an accessory to such crime against the Vietnamese people.  I had become a socialist simply through an act of contemplation (much like Rene Descartes’ account of how he developed Analytic Geometry).  Socialism as an economic system made sense:  its logic is compelling.  Its flaw is not economic, but rather a political.  Socialism developed as a solution to the corruption of capitalism:  as a solution to the placing of profits before people.  Upon leaving the states, I wrote one of my fellow workers in the Pennsylvania State Liquor Store, Narberth PA, where I had worked part time to pay my way through college.  His letter back to me contained a comment on the virtues of the capitalism.  I felt like I had to reveal my heretic views to the pudden-head worker, and I hope he would share my response with the other workers.  After perfecting this response, I submitted it to the student newspaper at the University of Manitoba.  Only decades later had I come to understand how inadequate the political process in the Soviet Union was.

 

I have recently set down a positive answer as to what ought to replace democratic capitalism.  Certainly we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union.  Nor do I believe that our elected politicians would do any better in running our economy, than the Russian’s did.  For how to have good government, government capable of building a just society, I have built upon Plato's approach and devise a means by which rewards are for performance, greed is penalized, and also where the brightest are specially trained for their roles at the head of industries and government.   

 

Progress rests upon problem solving.  What’s Wrong with Capitalism is a short statement of the economic problem and its consequences.  Professor Leo Huberman wrote a longer statement.  Our political problems have deepened with the demise of unions as an effective political force, the continued growth in the belief in the desirability of pyramid economics and class structure (which has been sold by a media controlled by those at the top of the pyramid), and the dependence of our two-party system upon those at the top of the pyramid for funds to cover their election expenses.  Around the world the gains of increased productivity are wasted by this pyramid structure.  For over 40 years I have watched the gradual drift in the minds of the average person from an understanding of our political economic reality and the need for corrective actions.  Those who dominate the means for the production of ideas have served their class well.  

 

Skepticism based on logical analysis is like mathematics.  The paper above is an outgrowth of that analysis.  As a skeptic, I have no sacred cows; do you?

 

 

I had in 1998, 30 years later, wrote another essay that picked up this essay where this essay ended, and proposed 8 changes (steps) that would directly and indirectly be the foundation for the social justice.  Several of the proposals were designed to deal with why socialism doesn't work, namely, how to get the best people filling the top position and having them before all else promote the public wheal.  Without solving the political problems, socialism must be worse than capitalism.  I certainly wouldn't want George Bush, Hilary Clinton, and their type running our economy.  It is not how much they have done, but rather how much better could be done.   The above essay vents my dissatisfaction; the ABCs of Socialism and Utilitarian Ethics:  An Introductory Explanation clarify my position on social justice. Edit

Philosophy teaches the skills to see how the world ought to be.  Mathematics is the Queen for science, and logical analysis the Queen for skepticism.