The guardian newspaper has an article titled “Capitalism is doomed if ethics vanish says Carney” (he is governor of The Bank of England so hopefully he is in a position to speak knowledgeably enough).
First sentence of the article:
Capitalism is at risk of destroying itself unless bankers realize they have an obligation to create a fairer society, the Bank of England governor has warned.
Some of us think all of us have this obligation…
What about us/society – if an ideology comes to an end at its own hand is that a problem?
Read on… Third para
“We simply cannot take the capitalist system, which produces such plenty and so many solutions, for granted. Prosperity requires not just investment in economic capital, but investment in social capital”
I don’t get it
Plenty for whom?
think slavery colonialism bonded servitude tied agricultural/mine/factory workers etc as well as many other known ways of producing plenty… or… is it not the bounty of the earth and people’s work with it that produces whatever is produced?
And … So many solutions? Forgive me for again thinking that it is people who find solutions to a variety of problems
Of course I find it better rather than worse if a person with influence like Carney thinks ethics should be inserted into banking. However I understand ethics as a way of thought [thought being a product of an emotionally integrated mind, sorry that I feel I need to add this as too many seem to still define thought as some sort of rationality logical only process divorced from the body-mind in which it is found]. So ethics grows as people do, among other things, immature, mature, and/or with thought compartmented or integrated and open to change.
The article continues referring to ideas like social capital. I felt it shows how someone cannot, [not ‘will not’, ‘cannot’] think outside this box, the box of capitalist ideology.
Almost everything in it that is proposed as a ‘good’ could be proposed in equal measure by socialism or green politics, or whatever. Such things are not the province of capitalism, nor any other system.
However, my quarrel with capitalism is not that many of its champions can’t think outside its box, it is that it seems at its heart to function through exploitation. Some part of society somewhere is used or abused by some other. And, often, some part of irreplaceable earth is used or abused for short-term gain. Piece-meal we decide that the ‘kids in factories’ mode of production is reprehensible. What about the kids in homes where mother and father are factory fodder? Using others’ labour for the gain of some is not ethical. Using the planet without seeing that it too has reaction to our action is not wise.
If any system is to attempt to be ethical, it has to start with a recognition of connections, we are all connected, to each other (and to the earth and the universe). So we start with risk, not knowing, only with direction towards something that might sustain, rather than something that we know will exploit. [This is why I cannot vote ‘conservative’ or ‘national’]. We look after those who are dependent (permanently or briefly through young/old age or through infirmity) and we work with others, not in competition. Pick your own detail after this, the devil is indeed in there.
Socialism anyone? As far as I know it has never been tried. But, I do not mind if capitalism destroys itself.
Another way of saying that is that more people’s thought would open up to different possibility. Unlike Carney, each would find their own way to think outside their box.
I am glad I am not a politician.