The “war on capitalism” within the American Republican party was quite ironic. Ironic because Republicans are known to be champions of capitalism and stalwarts for the free market system. When Republican primary candidates snipe at each other for making “too much” money, their wry antics form another battlefield in the war on capitalism. This paradoxical combat zone is well-known thanks to mainstream media which has soaked up the dispute with relish.
Irony attracts eyeballs. Yet, there is another ironic battle against capitalism that is not as well-covered by the mainstream media. This little-known skirmish is a type of conflict surrendered to by business, other stalwarts of the free market. I’ve discussed this type of battle before.
In my article “Controversy Drives Mattel Vendor Selection Process” I talked about how Mattel used controversy, rather than consumer market pressure, as a criterion for the selection of a supplier. The article described how Mattel chose to refrain from purchasing from certain suppliers because activist groups had labeled those suppliers as “unsustainable” and generated controversy in doing so. Similar to the Republican reproachment of free market principles, such actions by business form an ironic action. Eschewing vendors because they or their practices are called by some “controversial,” a controversy generated by small interest groups, subverts the free market system so dependent upon the opinions of great numbers of consumers rather than the narrowly defined agendas of activists. And yet another “controversy” battle against capitalism has occurred, one not covered by the mainstream media.
In its Sustainable Forest Product Procurement Policy, Levi Strauss & Company states that the company “will not knowingly purchase wood and paper products from endangered forests and other highly controversial sources . . .” (Emphasis mine.)
Now that several companies have announced, and probably more companies will announce, that they will avoid “controversial” sources, such a policy greatly simplifies the war on capitalism for anti-capitalist groups. With such an inclination toward supplier selection, the anti-capitalist challenge is made easier, and that is to generate controversy regarding one particularly targeted company or group of companies.
With social media and its ability to distort meaning, and a gullible population willing, seemingly, to believe almost anything in writing, how difficult of a job would the generation of controversy be? And more importantly, how will this make their war against capitalism simpler?
Imagine being one of a group of people that make the rules on what business can or cannot do. And then imagine being able to buy stocks just before those rules go into effect.
You don’t really have to imagine this scenario because it actually exists. Currently, there is no law that prohibits members of the U.S. Congress, the folks who know before the public does as to what rules are coming down the pike to affect business, from buying stocks based on the non-public and non-confidential information they acquire at work.
However, after this anti-free market Congressional exploitation was publicized in various news reports, the U.S. Congress is now in the process of embarrassingly producing legislation which would prohibit members of the federal government from profiting on the non-public information which they obtain through their jobs. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2011 was introduced recently in the U.S. Senate, with a similar bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Yes. The politicians in Washington, DC, on either side of the aisle, are all for capitalism, or should I say perhaps “slimy-capitalism,” until it becomes a little too slimy to capitalize any further.
About that title up there, you’re probably thinking “Duuu-uuh, no kidding.”
I believe many would share this opinion. But the theme of today’s post is to go beyond belief and to actually provide a rationale for the title statement.
As I’ve defined on this Web site, capitalism equals economic freedom, the freedom to profit commercially bounded by the democratic forces of the marketplace. I’ve emphasized democratic forces in that definition because it is a critical factor in understanding the war on capitalism. Capitalism derives its strength, and legitimacy, from democracy.
The point of today’s post is to demonstrate that Greenpeace applies a non-democratic effect on business, and by extension the capitalistic system. Groups like Greenpeace claim to act in the public interest, however in reality Greenpeace is run, with decisions made, by fewer than 100 persons. This is not a democratic organization. And if they are controlled by so few persons, making them non-democratic, by definition this means that Greenpeace is not acting in the public interest. To do so, Greenpeace would need to be elected by the public. Greenpeace was not elected by the public.
In their battle against capitalism, Greenpeace with a limited and polemic view not franchised by the public, applies pressure on a company to change a specific behavior. This is a prime example of an interest group limiting economic freedom, limiting the capitalistic system. In many cases, the company accedes to the activist demands. It is in this way that Greenpeace, a relatively small group of people, affects the capitalistic system. But it is not Greenpeace alone that is inflicting the damage against the democratic process, the system of capitalism here; the company acquiescing to the activist demands is themselves complicit in the attack on the capitalistic system. Ironic, isn’t it?
So, we can see that indeed Greenpeace is no friend to capitalism. It is no longer just a belief. Now you can see that it is fact. But let’s not stop here. Let’s take this idea just a few steps farther.
I can guess what you’re thinking. You might be thinking that some might counter my point that Greenpeace is anti-capitalistic. They might counter by saying that Greenpeace in its corporate campaigning is merely trying to protect the environment against harmful manufacturing procedures. If that is their, or even your, assertion, I would respond with these questions and answers.
Who says those procedures are “harmful”? Let’s face it. Greenpeace are advocates. And by the nature of advocates, their view is narrow and self-interested. You will not get an objective opinion from Greenpeace.
What makes Greenpeace the final arbiter of right and wrong? You are the best arbiter. You and millions of other consumers like you are smart people. Given the level and ease of access to information here in the second decade of the 21st century, you and other consumers are perfectly able to suss out answers in the debate over which companies follow sustainable procedures and which companies do not. Consumers can acquire their
Continue reading Greenpeace is No Friend to Capitalism.
When billionaires talk about income inequality, it’s time for the people in the middle to hold on to their wallets.
Per a Bloomberg article, “Billionaires . . . Bemoan Inequality,” billionaires at the World Economic Forum are putting their heads together about income inequality. Proposed changes to capitalism will be discussed in a panel scheduled for today, “Remodeling Capitalism.”
On the subject of changes to the capitalist structure, the conference is highlighted by such quotes, per the Bloomberg article, as, “these growing inequalities are not acceptable,” from Rahul Bajaj, chairman of Bajaj Group, and that business should concentrate on “a more just distribution of wealth,” by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk.
It will be interesting to see if their confabulation has any effect on the capitalist system, and if so from where the “redistribution” originates.
Extending from yesterday’s World Economic Forum commentary, conference founder Klaus Schwab does not appear to be a fast friend of the free market.
A new capitalism cannot be engineered. Because capitalism is a system devised from human nature, it especially cannot be engineered. It must evolve. However, some will try.
The World Economic Forum founder and chairman, Klaus Schwab, recently stated:
“Capitalism, in its current form, no longer fits the world around us. We have failed to learn the lessons from the financial crisis of 2009. A global transformation is urgently needed . . .”
Mr. Schwab also said:
“We are looking desperately around the world for people who can offer solutions. We are in danger of losing the confidence of future generations.”
(Just a technicality perhaps, but yet one about which Mr. Schwab should know. The financial crisis began in 2008, not 2009.)
His remarks, though probably well-intentioned, smack of the desire for the centralized planning of an economic system. We know from history what happens when governments, especially those seeking global influence, endeavor to control economies.
Capitalism springs from the natural behavior of human beings. To engineer around that simply flirts with disaster.
No, Mr. Schwab. The best solution is to get global planning authorities out of the equation, and with the input of their constituents let nations and states figure out what’s best for their own people.
Yesterday, I had a guest post appear on The Daily Capitalist.
Click here to read “It’s Not About Canadianism; It’s About Capitalism.”
And thanks to Jeff at The Daily Capitalist for posting.
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
