Freshly modified...and just finished...May 9th, 2010...
'The difference between a 'good Capitalist' and a 'bad Capitalist' is the difference between a person who cares about people and one who doesn't. The same goes for the difference between a 'good' and 'bad' Socialist. In this regard, the good Capitalist and the good Socialist have more in common than the good and bad Capitalist or the good and bad Socialist. I will trumpet the work, efforts, and ideals of good Capitalists AND good Socialists, while I will rhetorically seek to destroy the work and efforts of both 'narcissistic Capitalists' and 'narcissistic Socialists' alike. The worst narcissistic Capitalists in the world have more in common with Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung -- and visa versa, than they do with anything Adam Smith or Ayn Rand wrote...' -- dgb, May 8th, 2010.
Introduction
This essay is probably my most definitive work so far on what I mean by 'good' and 'bad' Capitalism or between 'ethical' ('good will') Capitalism and 'narcissistic' ('bad will') Capitalism.
I look at this essay as hopefully being the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is coming down the chute in this realm of politics, business and economics. My passion -- largely from recent personal business traumacies -- reigns supreme here.
I both live and die for both the 'good owner' and the 'good employee'....I hate 'bad deals' between sellers and buyers and/or between employers and employees, producers and consumers...
I am always looking for that magic, highly elusive point of 'win-win, humanistic-existential, homeostatic balance'...
To the extent that I can promote 'good harmonious relations' between governments at all levels and corporations, employers and employees, sellers and buyers -- without anyone getting 'ripped off', exploiting and/or being exploited, and/or 'colluding' in the process -- that is the extent to which I may one day be able to rest in greater peace that my mission here in Hegel's Hotel is largely coming to an end...
Until then, and at this point in time, I am both crying and raging about what I see inside the mainly 'pathological' corporations I come into contact with in my working day...It is a pleasure when I hear about owners who run good, fair corporations and who treat their employees like humans, even like family, as opposed to 'things' that are there to be 'exploited'....
In Hegel's Hotel, Adam Smith and Karl Marx shake hands...as do Erich Fromm and Ayn Rand...
With yours truly continuing to play the Central Mediator...
Marx was the first protector of human rights in the work place, especially in his early work -- Marx was the first 'union steward'; whereas Adam Smith always had concerns about keeping the 'ethics' in businessmen and business transactions...
Have a seat...mediation is now in process...
Until we can find that ideal -- and always changing -- point of 'dialectic-democratic, humanistic-existential, narcissistic-altruistic, homeostatic balance...'
We haven't gotten there yet...indeed we have a very long road still to travel...a lot of floors still to build...
But the economy is starting to get better...
And the workers are back and building Hegel's Hotel again...
Pounding their hammers and nails again...
Ah, the sweetest of sounds...
Coming out of a bad economy, there is no sweeter sound and sight,
Than the sound and sight of workers building...
Hegel's Hotel carries the spirit of Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'...
Just as much as it carries Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit'...
And Fromm's spirit of 'Man For Himself' and 'The Sane Society'...
They all come together in the lobby and the negotiating rooms and the cocktail lounges of Hegel's Hotel...
-- dgb, May 8th, 2010.
..............................................................................................
As I have discussed in previous essays, the personality can be viewed from a host of different perspectives -- both wholistically and/or reductionistically using a variety of different theories and/or models of the personality.
Personally, I like to view the personality as being run like a partly authoritarian, partly democratic, government or corporation, with a distinction that can be made between the main Central Ego in the personality, which can be viewed as being like the CEO or President of a company or a country, surrounded by a host of partly competing, partly co-operating, auxiliary, 'lobbyist' and/or 'partisan' ego-states, that are like the partisan political parties and/or members of a government working in parliament, and/or like the 'special interest lobbyist groups' that solicit the government out in the hallways, in the front rooms, the back rooms, over the phone, in back alleys, with brief cases, in whatever style or manner seems to work most effectively in terms of getting what they want...legitimately or illegitimately...
Personally, in government, I think we should pull all the different lobbyists into Parliament -- call it a 'lobbyist session' -- and let each and everyone of them have their say with mikes and cameras on, give each of them 20 or 30 minutes in front of a mike to make their presentation and argue their case -- and wow, what do we have -- 'democratic transparency' -- the quality that every campaigning politician talks about on the campaign trail -- along with ethics, integrity, and accountability -- that is, until they get into office and grow increasingly quiet on these matters...when push comes to shove, deciding that they would prefer to have their 'expense accounts' and 'agenda books' remain 'private' -- and holding hands in one big circle with their fellow politicians in establishing a 'secret, unwritten collusion' on this matter. Very much like Freud's inner circle in this type of matter.
The unwritten code seems to run something like this:
'We shalt not give away our secret, narcissistic expense benefits that come with minding the country's cash register and bank account. The public doesn't need to know where I had lunch the other day and how much I spent. As long as it makes its way through the government expense account department -- which of course is made up of people who are enjoying the same expense benefits that I enjoy. We, in the government, call this a 'win-win situation' The public doesn't need to know everything'.
I am partly getting side-tracked here but partly not because the similarities between how we run our internal personality and how we run our external government are similar, and indeed, connected -- our external relationships projecting and reflecting our internal relationships between our different ego-states and our general personality dynamics.
In this regard, The Central Ego can also be viewed as being like a Supreme Court Judge and/or Mediator in the personality, ideally in charge of the rest of the courtroom/personality, but in less than ideal circumstances, being over run by politicians from above and/or by 'special interest lobbyist groups' running amok in the courtroom/personality and 'having their way' with a 'weak' Central Ego. When the Central Ego is not fully in control of the personality, and running a 'balanced courtroom', then either 'over-restraint' and/or 'over-impulse' (bi-polar disorder, manic-depression...) is likely to create pathology and disorder in the personality.
In an ideal political-socio-economic and legal world as well as in an ideal intra-psychic personality, each lobbyist and politician, like each auxillary ego-state would simply assert democratically and rhetorically what it wants... and leave the final decision in the workings and executive action of the Central Ego, The President, and/or The CEO..(as well as there being full public disclosure, transparency, integrity, and accountability in the case of politicians holding a public office.
But alas, as most of us are well aware, we live in a far from 'ideal' world.
In our 'real world', one-sided righteousness, narcissism and greed as well as conflict of interest situations evolving between public office holders' public responsibilities and private, personal interests become almost inevitable over time...and the temptation of the devil...indeed, with all of us, not just politicians...The corporate world is overflowing with 'conflict of interest' situations that impair socio-economic as well as ethical, legal, and political judgment...
Let's face it...Everyone wants what they want...and in all aspects of our world righteousness and narcissism intermingle...Oftentimes, righteousness is the cloak that hides inner narcissism and/or the pseudo-justification for inner narcissism....
Power and narcissism has the potential to corrupt all levels of inner and outer government...
We see this -- or at least I do -- over and over and over again in our entire interconnected socio-economic-political-legal-corporate-personal world...
Schopenhauer stirs in his grave...with an arrogant 'I told you so'...
The type of Capitalism I see all around me is not the same type of Capitalism that I remember reading about in Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.
Without being a 'Marxist', a 'Socialist' and/or a 'Communist', I can still tell you that Hegel's classic analysis of 'labour' in connection with his discussion of the 'the master/slave relationship', jumped on by Marx in his searing indictment of narcissistic Capitalism, comes much closer in awareness and insight as far as getting to the heart of what is the matter with modern day Capitalism.
Modern day Capitalism lacks integrity, ethics, character, transparency, accountability, and a sense of good will towards the person one is bargaining with...all of the things politicians keep saying they are going to fix...and rarely ever do...
Adam Smith would most certainly frown on modern day Capitalism if he could see the full extent of the type of corporate-political greed and narcissism that I see around me each and every day. He would say something like 'This is not the type of Capitalism I envisioned when I wrote 'The Wealth of Nations'...
................................................................................................................
From the internet...'Brainy Quote'...University of Liverpool...
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
Adam Smith
No complaint... is more common than that of a scarcity of money.
Adam Smith
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.
Adam Smith
Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another.
Adam Smith
..................................................................................................................
I find Adam's most intriguing quote to be the last one cited above...
It is at this point -- the point of 'bargaining' -- that Adam Smith's philosophy starts to dialectically collide with the philosophy of Hegel and Marx...
Hegel was no Marxist but it was from Hegel's work on 'labour' and the 'master/slave relationship' that Marx was inspired to write his thousands of pages critiquing the pathological evolution of Capitalism...
You see, it makes all the difference in the world as to what type of Capitalist Leaders we have in order to determine whether we have a 'good or bad Capitalist System' or not.
Just as the character of a hockey or basketball or baseball team tends to take on much of the character of its coach, so it is with 'Capitalism' as Capitalism is played out in each and every corporation and in each and every corporate transaction, both internally and externally.
It makes all the difference in the world as to the ultimate evolution of Capitalism as to whether a person -- particularly the owner of a business -- is negotiating 'narcissistically' and only narcissistically, or whether he or she is negotiating narcissistically and altruistically at the same time.
Put another way, is the bargainer looking for an 'I win; you lose' bargain, or is he or she looking for an 'I win; you win' bargain.
The last type of 'win-win bargaining encounter' tends to be much more endearing and enduring to a long term negotiating relationship whereas the first type of 'win-lose encounter' tends to tarnish if not outright annihilate all future negotiating transactions...
However, here is where Marx steps in and starts to launch his anti-Capitalist tirade...
If the power of the owner (in Marx's language, the 'bourgeoisie') is far greater than the power of the individual employee (the 'proletariat' in Marx's language), and you have a narcissistic, unscrupulous, greedy owner, then 'bad employee bargains' can become the name of the game, the rule of thumb, unless and/or until the individual employees either leave or take a 'collective confrontational stance' against the 'bargains' of the unscrupulous owner. At this point in the evolution of Capitalism, we have the beginning of 'strikes' and 'unions'...and changes in the 'corporate power balance' -- both good and bad.
Short of this, the only other power that an individual employee has is to 'leave' if he is being essentially 'forced to either take or leave a bad bargain'. In a good economy, and even in a bad one, one of the 'surest signs of a bad corporation with bad, unscrupulous leaders' is 'constant employee turnover'.
Now if you have a bad economy with high unemployment levels and/or high immigration levels intermixing with a bad economy, then what is going to happen? Advantage: unscrupulous owner...who is going to take advantage of a 'desperate work force' in order to lower wages and/or instigate other 'bad employee bargains'... If one prospective and/or current employee doesn't take the 'bad bargain' that an 'unscrupulous owner' has laid on the table, the next one coming in for the next interview -- will. Unless as an employee, you have a 'special skill', you have essentially no negotiating power in such a circumstance.
One would hazard a pretty safe guess that most unscrupulous business owners would 'welcome with open arms' a larger unemployed workforce, higher immigration levels, importing 'cheaper labor', and 'exporting jobs to countries with cheaper labor' -- all in the name of the almighty Unscrupulous, Narcissistic Capitalist Ideal -- specifically 'Profit Margin'. There is an imperative distinction that needs to be made relative to the practice of 'Good' or 'Bad' Capitalism relative to a 'fair but healthy profit margin' vs. an 'unscrupulous, gouging profit margin'....
Which is why the Government -- any Democratic Government with Integrity, Character, Ethics, and Accountability in mind -- needs to step in and regulate 'profit margins'. To prevent or at least discourage 'consumer price gouging' as well as 'employee intimidation, coercing, manipulating, extorting...etc.'
Back in the late 1980s (1988 to be exact), not too many people -- at least private citizens, including me -- knew whether 'free trade' was going to be a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing'. All many of us knew is that it 'sounded good' -- probably because it had the word 'free' in it...
Now looking back at things, 22 years later, perhaps we can come to some more definitive, experientially based conclusions: specifically, 'free trade' is not going to be a 'good thing' for countries with 'higher labor wages' -- at least in terms of the workers who are used to getting these higher labor wages.
Again, from an 'unscrupulous employer's point of view -- and even from the point of view of business owners with 'good integrity and intentions towards their workers' but who may be getting slammed by 'merciless unions' -- say goodbye to 'manufacturing plants' and 'service industries' in Canada and America as corporations move their operations to 'third world countries' in order to take advantage of 'lower (to practically non-existent) employee wages'.
In short, the 'free trade agreement' put together by Brian Mulroney in 1988 (in conjunction with Bush from the American side), would increase the economic and corporate speed of 'globalization', and the overall improvement of 'third world economic countries' at the expense of North American jobs in the manufacturing and 'goods and service' industry. Mulroney and Bush obviously did not either foresee and/or want to advertise the 'negative side effects' of the free trade agreement...
..............................................................................................................................................
From the internet...see free trade, George Bush...
George W. Bush on Free Trade
President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)
Sub-sections under Free Trade:
NAFTA + WTO
Other issues under Free Trade
Linked trade agreements to participation in Iraq War
Examples of using economic diplomacy for the common good have been overshadowed in recent years by the priorities set under the influence of the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine. Entering the war in Iraq based on erroneous information, has forced us to go shopping around the world for friends, armed with carrots and with sticks. In order to pull together what was called a willing coalition, they went to the poorest developing countries and said, 'If you can't send a soldier, send a policeman." And, "If yo don't have the money, can we give you some?"
Deals were made. Once in a small country I joined the US ambassador for a meeting. The US ambassador made it clear to this president that if he withdrew the handful of soldiers he had sent to Iraq, it would be very difficult for him to get a trade agreement with the US. I was shocked and clarified that I was opposed to the war and as far as I was concerned the deal for the trade agreement had nothing to do with his willingness to send troops.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 168 Aug 5, 2008
Open more markets to keep America competitive
Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can outproduce or outcompete the American worker.
Source: 2006 State of the Union Address Jan 31, 2006
Fact Check: Free trade tempered by steel protectionism
FACTCHECK on Trade: In speaking of benefits of international trade, the President failed to mention his own steps to protect the politically important US steel industry.
BUSH: My Administration is promoting free and fair trade, to open up new markets for America ‘s entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and farmers, and to create jobs for America ‘s workers.
FACTCHECK: Not mentioned: Bush’s imposition of tariffs on imported steel, which pleased US labor unions and steel executives but which were found to violate World Trade Organization rules. Bush lifted the steel tariffs Dec. 4 after trading partners threatened retaliation against US exports.
Source: FactCheck.org on the 2004 State of the Union address Jan 20, 2004
Tariffs over free trade, for steel industry
On March 5, 2002, the President announced he would impose tariffs of up to 30% on imported steel in an effort to shore up the long-declining industry. Steel executives praised the President and said that the tariffs might save jobs. Free trade advocates wondered how other countries would respond and what the effect would be on the cost of a wide array of goods.
Source: The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p.238 Jan 13, 2004
Repeals steel tariffs he imposed in 2002
The Bush administration has decided to repeal most of its 20-month-old tariffs on imported steel to head off a trade war. European countries and Japan had vowed to respond to the tariffs, which were ruled illegal by the WTO, by imposing sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in exports from the US, beginning as soon as Dec. 15.
Bush advisers said they were aware the reversal could produce a backlash against him in several steel-producing states of the Rust Belt-including PA, WV, & OH. That arc of states has been hit severely by losses in manufacturing jobs and will be among the most closely contested in his reelection race.
Bush decided in March 2002 to impose tariffs of 8% to 30% on most steel imports from abroad for three years. The decision was heavily influenced by the desire to help the Rust Belt states, but the departure from Bush’s free-trade principles drew fierce criticism from his conservative supporters. After a blast of international opposition, the administration began approving exemptions.
Source: Mike Allen, Washington Post, p. A1 Dec 1, 2003
Don’t link trade to environment and labor
Free trade is a subject on which both candidates appear to start from the same position, commitment to free trade. From that point, their positions swiftly diverge. Bush would:
supports restoration of “fast-track” negotiating authority for the president
opposes linking trade agreements to labor and environmental issues
supports the expansion of NAFTA throughout the Americas
supports the admission of China and Taiwan to the WTO
wants strict enforcement of anti-dumping and other laws against “unfair” trade
intends to revise export controls to tighten control over military technology and ease restrictions on commercial technology
wants to make international financial institutions more accountable and transparent
strongly supports free trade, saying that the case for it is “not just monetary but moral” and pledging to make the expansion of trade a consistent priority“
Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” Sep 30, 2000
Sow free trade and farmers will reap
Q: What will you do as president to help farmers get sufficient pay for their work?
A: I would be a free trading president, a president that will work tirelessly to open up markets for agricultural products all over the world. I believe our American farmers. can compete so long as the playing field is level. That’s why I am such a strong advocate of free trade and that’s why I reject protectionism and isolation because I think it hurts our American farmers.
Source: Republican debate in West Columbia, South Carolina Jan 7, 2000
A free market promotes dreams and individuality
[After visiting China], I’ll never forget the contrast between what I learned about the free market at Harvard and what I saw in the closed isolation of China. Every bicycle looked the same. People’s clothes were all the same. a free market frees individuals to make distinct choices and independent decisions. The market gives individuals the opportunity to demand and decide, and entrepreneurs the opportunity to provide.
Source: “A Charge to Keep”, p. 61. Dec 9, 1999
Import fees are not the answer to foreign competition
In 1999, when a glut of foreign oil drove prices below $12 a barrel, many of my friends in the oil business wanted the government to rescue them through price supports. . . I understand the frustration of people. but I do not support import fees. . . I believe it makes sense to use the tax code to encourage activities that benefit America. But I do not want to put up fees or tariffs or roadblocks to trade.
Source: “A Charge to Keep”, p. 65-66. Dec 9, 1999
The fearful build walls; the confident demolish them.
I’ll work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom. The fearful build walls. The confident demolish them. I am confident in American workers and farmers and producers. And I am confident that America’s best is the best in the world.
Source: Candidacy Announcement speech, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Jun 12, 1999
Click here for 13 older quotations from George W. Bush on Free Trade.
Click here for definitions & background information on Free Trade.
Click here for policy papers on Free Trade.
Click here for a profile of George W. Bush.
Click here for VoteMatch responses by George W. Bush.
Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Free Trade or about George W. Bush in The Forum.
....................................................................
dgb...continued...
In contrast to 'unscrupulous, narcissistic business owners' who tend to follow the 'God of The Highest Profit Margin' and will exploit workers and customers to get there, 'ethical, win-win business owners' tend to look for that magic point of 'dialectic-homeostatic balance, fairness, unity, and harmony'...that stabilizes their business...
'Good Social Will' business owners may not get the highest profit margins in the short run but, over the long haul, Good Social Will' business owners tend to create the best businesses -- as long as they protect a 'healthy profit margin' -- because they are not constantly self-destructing on the basis of employee resentment, rebellion, anarchy, and the 'bad reputation' that the 'self-indulgent business owner's corporation will quickly or slowly establish in the work community both amongst prospective workers and prospective customers. The last thing an employer -- good or bad -- wants to hear is, 'Well, who's working for your company this week?' That is generally not a 'healthy sign' for the corporation.
Health in the personality, in the body, and in the corporation are all built upon the same principle: the principle of 'good self and social will' which in turn is based on the principle of 'dialectic-homeostatic balance'.
In the body, in the personality, and in our socio-economic world, we should all be looking for 'win-win solutions' with no serious 'negative side effects'.
Narcissistic people tend to foster 'a negative social willpower against them' -- they continue to chase 'short term profit gain' without caring one iota about the extent of the 'social pain they leave behind them' in their dust...
If their employees or their customers will eat 'dog food' disguised as 'health food'....the narcissistic owner doesn't think twice....because he or she serves 'The God of Profit Margins'....
Personally, I love to see such corporations run by unscrupulous business owners eventually crumble in the dust...or fold like a house of cards...
When such a business folds like a house of cards...
It reflects the personality, character, and integrity of the person who ran the company into the ground...
Adam Smith would say that this is the 'Free Market' work of 'The Invisible Hand'...
That is, until our North American Governments -- both in America and in Canada -- let these corporate parasites...
Escape their corporate ruins...
With Golden Bailouts and Parachutes...
Then even Adam Smith is crying...
-- dgb, May 8th, 2010.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic-Democratic, Ethical-Good Will-Capitalism, Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
