CAPITALISM? NOT REALLY.
This article was written by Douglas Castle for The Global Futurist . The author apologizes to the female gender as a class, for he has used a "young boy" as the principal example in making his case in this writing. He is aware that there are also young girls, too, but he has only admired them from a distance (and sometimes up close), and has never actually been one. The author would like to extend his heartfelt thanks to friend and colleague Adam J. Kovitz, who recently wrote an article titled "A World Without Money" (for THE NATIONAL NETWORKER Newsletter, October, 2009, Week 2) with which the author takes some issue -- but Adam's courage in making a statement about how wrong things have begun to feel for so many Americans is the author's inspiration for this article. The author has just become aware that he is speaking in the third person, and that he sounds very pompous.
Dear Friends:
As a young boy growing up in the United States, I was taught that democracy was the best possible form of government -- that it was ethical, that it was equitable, that it was "of the people, by the people for the people." It was a system of political organization that afforded its fortunate constituents an equal opportunity (i.e., an equal right) to prove their inequality. There was an implication of inherent meritocracy. That is, despite the circumstances of my birth, I could rise to the most-respected, wealthiest position in society, ot I could wind up in the gutter. A poor farmboy could become the president; a boy born into privilege could become the "black sheep" and join the ranks of the lowly underachievers. The "magic" was that we, each of us, had a fair and honest chance at success or failure.
Similarly, we were told that democracy's brother was capitalism, and that capitalism was what had made our country great. Capitalism was a wonderful, competitive system (rather like the noble notion of Democracy), where the most innovative, the most ingenious, the most industrious could become RICH. A poor boy could strive and succeed; he could think and grow rich; he could be lavishly compensated (and respected!) for his contribution to society. No person was barred from this great race to capture the grand prize. The government was merely a provider of certain necessary services for the benefit of the private sector, and the private sector was a breeding ground for entrepreneurship, invention and advancement. Competition was the decider.
In the United States, people still speak of "democracy" and "capitalism". But very few of these same people could define either term. And very few of these people understand the etymological distortion that occurs with the passage of time -- that "Republican" and "Democrat" no longer mean what they did thirty years ago, and that "friends" can be "enemies" depending upon the circumstances and the context...and that there are no absolutes. In fact, absolutes, which sound like "standards" are as politically incorrect as requesting that someone respond to your question with a "yes" or "no."
Getting back to the point, we have some of the vestiges of a democracy in the United States, but it seems to many doubting and increasingly restless souls that we now have a sort of "ruling class" and a "peasant class". And while the "ruling class" is small (in terms of population), it seems to be exclusive, impermeable, above the law and in control of the fate of the enormous and swollen ranks of the "peasant class". But we speak of democracy, and we are prepared to spread it throughout the world, like peanut butter or herpes -- and just like the Grand Inquisitors, we will occasionally encourage this democracy at gunpoint, with a democratic government of our very own to install where the heathens once dared to tread. Puppet governments seem to be at odds with the old spirit of democracy...but then again, etymological distortion has me twisted.
Getting back to the point and sharpening it yet further, we call our country's economic system "capitalism." Yet, it seems odd that we can have a special refined form of capitalism where there is no free enterprise; where their are tremendous barriers to industry entry and to competition; where government and the private sector (or at least parts of it) sit so close to each other at the bar, and where words like "bailout" and "subsidy" and "stimulus" are a regular part of everyday speech. There is a very unique, refined, reformulated type of capitalism that exists in the United States as I see it. It is a "capitalism " where gains are privatized and losses are socialized. Where there is awesome, unchecked and unchallenged power in the hands of a privileged few -- and where the many are called upon to make limitless sacrifices so that those few can remain in power. Where the many are called upon to pay for the mistakes of those few. Yes, my fellow Americans. We have a unique, refined, reformulated and reconstructed form of capitalism where many slaves serve a few elite masters.
If I weren't so favorably disposed toward being politically correct, I would say (but very, very quietly because any of the phone lines may be tapped without the "hinderance" of a lawfully obtained court order) that this capitalism smells a great deal like oligopoly. In my opinion, what we might be doing in calling our economic system capitalistic, is somewhat like calling horse manure chocolate mousse.
Capitalism? Not really. Not anymore.
Please don't curse capitalism for the cloud that enshrouds our economy today. Capitalism left quite some time ago, a piece at a time (as did the spirit of The Constitution), and was replaced by oligopoly -- a political and economic system where a small number of incredibly powerful persons or entities rule over the fortunes and fates of everybody else.
I actually miss capitalism. It was a great game, with great promise. But then, that was long ago.
Faithfully,
Douglas Castle
BRAINTENANCE
THE NATIONAL NETWORKER
HUMANITAS MAXIMUS
TAKING COMMMAND
http://twitter.com/douglascastle
No comments:
Post a Comment