I’ve been thinking about the Occupy movement a bit. Many (and I’m not talking about the largely incoherent folks in the tents) presented this idea that capitalism is wrong. That capitalism has led to unfairness. That capitalism has trounced the little person. That capitalism makes people greedy.
I reject this.
Capitalism, in my mind, facilitates some pretty great outcomes: A decrease in poverty. An increase in ingenuity. The fulfilling of human potential in the creation of great new inventions, great new architecture, great new music. Capitalism does this better than socialism.
However, I’m not prepared to say I don’t see problems out there in the business landscape right now.
This is because capitalism is only as good or as greedy as the people trading on the capitalist market. The problem is not capitalism, but rather, people.
This amounts to a crisis of ethics.
Enter the great Chuck Colson. I do love Chuck Colson, ever since I stumbled across Born Again, a seriously great book with a truly terrible title.
Mr. Colson has put words to what I was feeling with Doing the Right Thing.com
(This site may not be at all new, but I’ve just found it.) It highlights the lack of ethics in the world around us. The lack of consensus on what it means to be ethical. Schools that abandon the pursuit of truth. A society that doesn’t even begin to know how to ask the right questions.
If any of this resonates with you, check out or watch the clip below.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3-IiAXURfY]
by
SUZANNE says
There will never be a perfect system. Freedom is the best thing that works, including economic freedom, which encompasses capitalism. Being the best thing that works doesn’t mean there are no flaws. It’s just that capitalism’s flaws are far more tolerable than socialism’s flaws.
Mrs. Beazly says
“This is because capitalism is only as good or as greedy as the people trading on the capitalist market. The problem is not capitalism, but rather, people.”
Exactly, Andrea. Society can do away with capitalism if it really wants to, but original sin we will always have with us!
Andrea Mrozek says
Suzanne, couldn’t have said it better myself. Mrs. Beazly, agreed. I find the kneejerk anti-capitalist rhetoric very troubling and that’s why I find Chuck Colson’s stuff encouraging.
Christy K says
Pro-lifers should get behind the Occupy Movement. Most Occupier are asking for a return to the economic regulation of the 50s and 60s, when the tax system was more progressive, bank regulation more firm, and people could hope to start a family fairly young. They want for university not to mean cripling bank debts. They want schools to be better funded. They want wages to keep up with the cost of living so that people can support their families. The Occupy Movement is an incredibly Pro-family thing.
Capitalism isn’t the same as free market. Capitalism is about prioritizing the interests of the capitalists – those with capital. We have plenty of restrictions on our freedom right now. The problem is they are set to favor those with capital. There is no freedom for the small farmer who wants to be able to sell chickens or eggs, but cannot without buying incredibly expensive quotas. If we had a free market… that would be one thing. But capitalism isn’t the same as a free market.
Corporations are set up so that the CEOs job is to increase shareholder profits. That is where his responsibility lies. As long as that is the main priority, it doesn’t matter how ethical the individuals in those positions are or not. A CEO who knows that building a mine in a certain location would destroy the local watershed is in an ethical bind… their duty is to their shareholders…. to refuse to do it, and allow their competitor to build the mine instead, would be unethical. Personal ethics cannot solve the problem of unlimited corporate power, because basically, those who care about more than corporate profits are forced out, and we can’t get absolutely every last person to agree that, for example, protecting Fish Lake is more important than the gold mine a Canadian company wants to build there. So the solution is not personal ethics. The solution is strong government regulation. That’s what we want. Government regulation that means we don’t have to be worried that a Boston Hedgefund can build a mega-quarry in melchathalon hundreds of feet below the water level so that for all perpetuaty we have to continue to pump polluted water out of it.
We want to know that the influence of money and lobbying in the government is reduced. We want to protect social programs that will make things easier for families with autistic children or those with down syndrome.
There are so many different issues that people in the Occupy Movement care about… but many of them are ones prolifers should get behind.
Joel says
This post is very disillusioning. Here I was thinking all along that Andrea was a communist. It was so delightful — where else could you find a communist site with Malkin, Steyn, and David Warren on the blogroll? Now the bubble’s burst …
Seriously, I do find it frustrating when people constantly blame all manner of observable problems on the reigning social or economic system, without recognizing how many of the supposed flaws in the system come down to the misdeeds and bad character of actual people.
But there would probably also be a danger in always trying to focus the conversation on individuals’ level of ethical commitment, as if that is the sole source of the problem or of the solution. Because as Mrs. Beazly says, we’ve got something called original sin. As she points out, that means that no improvement in the system is going to eradicate human wrongdoing, but the point cuts both ways: exhorting, training, and expecting individuals to develop good moral character isn’t likely to eliminate human wrongdoing either (even if it could reduce our current level of vice to some degree). Since we’re always going to have sin, the nature of our political and economic structures isn’t irrelevant — we need structures that will at least contain the worst effects of selfishness. I suppose that’s ultra-obvious, but it’s worth asking whether what we currently call capitalism is mitigating/containing human badness as well as any alternative would. Suzanne may be right that it is indeed the best of the imperfect possibilities, but if so, there shouldn’t be too much danger in subjecting it to some scrutiny. Christy points out some of the relevant concrete issues.
Some people argue that capitalism has done a ton to destroy the kind of values social conservatives hold dear (not sure whether this blog would call itself socially conservative, but still). Is it just a coincidence that the establishment of abortion on demand since 1970, under the ideology of “choice,” coincided with the intellectual and popular revival of market-oriented economic ideology?
Andrea Mrozek says
Very interesting thoughts, all, Christy and Joel!
Joel: I would have ended your comment as follows:
“Is it just a coincidence that the establishment of abortion on demand since 1970, under the ideology of “choice,” coincided with the intellectual and popular revival of socialism under Pierre Trudeau?”
I think we started losing the train on capitalism in the 60s/70s when our elite became enamored with big government.
The point of this site, whether I call it “socially conservative” or not, is, at least in part, to show that people of different political stripes and different faiths or no faith at all can all be pro-life. I thank you Christy and Joel particularly, then, for your thoughtful comments, though I disagree. (And sorry to burst your bubble on the communist thing, joel! :-))