I once attended a talk by the economist John Kenneth Galbreath where he stated "It is the job of government to put a human face on capitalism." For the last 40 years government has failed to do this job.
Corporations have several constituencies, not exclusively their shareholders. They need to consider employees, suppliers, customers and the community if they are to be responsible corporate citizens.
25
A fine analysis, to which I would add an evaluation of the GOP's vision of capitalism. That party's narrative focuses on the Horatio Alger myth of the self-made man (or company). Daring entrepreneurs enter the market, and without any help from the government, battle their competitors and succeed by offering better products at a reasonable price.
From this perspective, interference by government or labor not only deprives the businessman of the fruits of his risk-taking; it also discourages innovation and threatens the prosperity that benefits everyone. Like all durable myths, this one contains more than a grain of truth.
But it also omits the powerful role played by government in the success of business enterprises. I refer here to the many services the state provides (police and fire protection, legal protection of property rights, and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure), services financed by all taxpayers. Especially since WWII, moreover, Washington has subsidized scientific research vital to many industries and served as a major customer for the private sector.
Additionally, the federal government has used fiscal and monetary policies to stabilize an economy which the practices of private businesses would otherwise convert into a cycle of boom and bust.
Labor unions, for their part, stabilize demand for goods by forcing companies to redistribute some of their profits.
The success of capitalism, in short, depends on the efforts of all sectors.
66
There will always be economic inequality, but extreme economic inequality, which is certainly what we are now living with cannot endure. Figures published the other day showed that a majority of those in the lower percentiles are living with a net debt. They cannot with dignity pay their bills.If you push people hard enough when they have nothing to lose they will eventually rise up. With fury. All they need are leaders. Isn't that what happened in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917? In their disparate ways, isn't that what the present crop of Democratic hopefuls are getting at?
13
I feel hopeful when I read this kind of analysis from one of the democratic candidates:
"Short-term profit maximization, whether for corporations or for the government, is at odds with long-term economic planning. The $2 trillion 2017 tax bill - which gave 83 cents of every returned dollar to our richest corporations and wealthiest citizens - is not an economic stimulus, but rather an economic theft of resources that could have been directed toward genuine economic renewal in the form of a Green New Deal, universal healthcare, better education and free college tuition for those who cannot afford it, cancellation of college loan debt, and equal funding of all public schools.
Every dollar we invest in education, infrastructure, and healthcare helps unleash the spirit of the American people. Everything we do to make it easier for people to create, to work with dignity, to live safely and securely, helps unleash the spirit of the American people. Everything we do to decrease the chronic economic and personal trauma that an unjust economic system has created among millions of people helps unleash the spirit of the American people.
And that is sound policy." -Marianne Williamson
I know we have an excess of democratic presidential candidates right now, but I believe we owe it to ourselves to listen to even the "least" among them. There are some refreshing perspectives available, if we let them pierce through the noise of business-as-usual.
10
The capitalist ideal is free labor. Slavery is as close as it ever came to attaining that ideal in the past.
Morality has its center completely outside the capitalist project most notably in organized labor in the 19th and 20th century. But labor organizing was most effective in the industrial era when workers filed in and out of factories on totally predictable schedules. Post-industrial America doesn’t work that way. In the absence of unions, democratically conceived government is the only moral agent available to stem the excesses that are inherent in capitalism.
What we currently lack is not moral capitalism, but moral government and that is largely our own fault. We need to start fixing the problem in 2020.
47
@Richard Frank
That "capitalist ideal" has been internalized by many in this society who benefit least from it. The sharecropper mentality that led hundreds of thousands of poor whites to fight and die to preserve a system that pauperized them, persists to this day. VW workers in Tennessee just voted down unionization, continuing labor's futile struggle down South. Apparently, Marx was wrong, some workers are desperate to wear their chains and keep them in fine repair.
8
I think the better question is "What happened to Capitalism at all?" What we are witnessing now is almost pure criminality across the business community. They absolutely only care about making a buck and will hurt people to get it. Corruption and graft should not be the bedrocks of capitalism and yet here we are.
53
@Joseph
Robert Reich's excellent, "The Common Good" illuminates how Capitalism (and the Country) have lost their way. Highly recommended
7
Capitalism in itself is completely amoral. It can be beneficial or destructive to individuals and society. It's up to the government, with its responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, to provide the carrots and sticks in the marketplace to maximize the benefits of capitalism, while minimizing its destructive aspects. At least three things have become clear to Democrats: 1) Capitalism is incapable of providing universal health care, which we have decided is a necessity. 2) Money in politics subverts the appropriate relationship between government and the marketplace and exacerbates the negative effects of capitalism. 3) Large wealth disparity causes social instability. These must be addressed through policy.
173
@syfredrick I agree with all of your suggestions but disagree with the premise. Capitalism is not amoral. It is immoral. Greed is at the core or capitalism. Make money off of other individuals work and get more than the other guy. I don't consider greed an amoral concept.
9
I find this article offensive. Everyone knows that our current system promotes draining every nickel from the 99% for the benefit of the Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer, Big Pharma, etc. Labels don't matter. What matters is fundamental change, starting with finding a way (like expanding the Supreme Court under a progressive administration and Congress) to outlaw unlimited money in politics. So long as most of our politicians (including Democrats like Joe Biden) are beholden to Wall Street, fossil fuel, big pharma, etc., you can call it fuzzy puppy capitalism, but it will still destroy society and the planet.
16
Why don't readers understand the title's question and the arguments presented?
You have people trying to say unbridled Capitalism is the "best" to others saying that the only other choice to unbridled capitalism is socialism. So black and white. It doesn't surprise me that socialism is such a code word for the right.
We have the Ayn Rand disciples that don't realize their belief system doesn't mesh at all with Christianity.
We have people talking about pigs not realizing the reference to "Animal Farm."
We have the author who fails to signify that moral capitalism came from none other than Adam Smith who said Capitalism without morality fails humankind. Smith was a Moral Philosophy professor in Scotland and wrote two books. One was "The Wealth of Nations" the other, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."
So so much ignorance to sift through. Why comment when you know nothing? Why write anything likewise?
So much regurgitated nonsense.
3
I’m not sure if I’m reading this essay correctly or not, but it seems to define exactly why Sanders is so successful - he discusses the clear-eyed vision of a moral capitalist democracy, in which the government protects against the greed of big business.
4
Germany seems to work pretty well.
They have universal healthcare. They don't have the poverty we have.
They have better schools for the working class. They have trade school or university.
They have childcare and maternity leave.
They have a living wage.
Management and unions work together.
They are known for high-tech manufacturing and have faced the same globalization we have.
They have 3.4% unemployment and a $300 Billion trade surplus, one of the highest.
We have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of a second world country.
We have the highest incarceration rated in the world.
The top 0.1% now have as much wealth as they did in the Gilded Age.
Thanks to Republicans starting going back to St. Ronnie.
10
While I am a strong supporter of unions and a living wage, what I saw back in the 1960's was a battle between unions and management to divvy up the spoils.
In a lot of cases, neither side was particularly moral. Ask Jimmy Hoffa.
Then we started importing cars from Japan and exporting jobs to Mexico and Japan.
And in with it, management has won that fight for the spoils.
2
Democratic Socialism is what most of the other first world industrial countries have been doing for some time.
It's not new and we see the results in those countries.
less poverty
universal healthcare
living wage
unions and management working together
better schools for the working class
trade school or university
child care
We are the richest country on the planet GDP / capita and we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of a second world country.
After 35 years of trickle-down Reaganomics, we got an opioid crisis.
3
First, it's doubtful that it ever existed or could, especially today. Greed, deregulation, huge piles of dark money now available to politicians thanks to Citizens United, the systematic dismantling of unions and collective bargaining, and just plain old self interest to the detriment of anyone that isn't in your group - just like Republicans for the last 50 years - has made it impossible to have any kind of "moral capitalism".
1
"Whatever Happened to Moral Capitalism?" I chuckled when I saw that question, then thought of other cute phrases: gentle rape, playful pillage, friendly famine, happy depression, volunteer slavery.
6
Wow, Michael. Did a quick read of your article and it seems like you confuse capitalism and all forms of a "market economy." As a historian you should know better. Market economies have existed for a long time, but capitalism is a fairly recent development. Please tell me that you are not really confused and that you simply misspoke. But if you are confused, maybe it is that confusion that led you to write, "Yet no one who hopes to become the nominee has yet come up with a larger vision that would animate such worthy ideas." True, most of the candidates have failed to articulate that larger vision that ties a lot of individual proposals together. But one candidates has, and I suspect you know that. For better or worse, he calls his vision "Democratic Socialism." Your call for the use of the term "moral capitalism" might be a good idea for the campaign, but it sounds like an anti-Bernie stab, a mediocre takeout menu that is trying to lure me into a bait and switch. I came for a steak dinner and you want me to eat fried cardboard.
2
@KB
I would add that "Democratic Socialism" is what most of the other first world industrial countries have been doing for some time.
It's not new and we see the results in those countries.
less poverty
universal healthcare
living wage
unions and management working together
better schools for the working class
trade school or university
child care
We are the richest country on the planet GDP / capita and we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of a second world country.
1
Moral Capitalism is not a term that can be rallied around. How about simply "Kind Captaliam"? The Dems have to develop a strategy that can truly implement a kinder capitalism, one that appeals to our "better angels"while being backed by serious regulations.
I suggest Sanders President, Warren V.P and Harris Secy'y of Commerce and Head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
We need a Mission Statement for Moral Governance that considers more than the owners of capital. We need a Doctrine of Economic Ethics and Equality. We need to set regulations with enforcement that curb aggressive takeover of land and natural resources by individuals and corporate entities.
3
Moral capitalism is what New Zealands Prime Minster is advocating. We should do the same.
New Zealand's recent budget policy puts the health and well-being of its citizens over economic growth.
5
How about Moral Governance that considers more than the owners of capital?
Markets are not equal to democracy.
Capitalism is not equal to markets.
Those that try to make us believe that capitalism=markets=democracy are, or get paid lots of money by, the owners of capital.
The proponents of capitalism keep trying to convince us the capitalism is synonymous with markets. But the words have different definitions.
Markets are the use of money to trade, and the relationships that grow up around trade.
Capital is land, buildings, machinery, and the financial instruments used to by them.
Capitalism is the constant demand by the owners of capital that government intervene in the economy on their behalf.
Capitalism will never help anyone but the owners of capital, because it was designed by, for, and of the owners of capital.
In order to have an economy that works, we need to balance the needs of the different sectors of the economy. The owners of capital are only one sector, but they own so much wealth it is easy for them to hijack media and government to convince the rest of us to support their money habit.
Democracy is one person, one vote.
Markets are one dollar one vote.
Capitalism is one billion dollars, one billion votes.
We the People did not ratify a Constitution to create a capitalist country. Capitalism was not a word when it was ratified and the word appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Read it!
We created a Republic to "promote the general Welfare."
9
There is a democratic presidential candidate that understands this - Marianne Williamson. She calls it "capitalism with a conscience."
Dear Mr. Kazin,
Your “moral capitalism” op-ed was incorrect when it said that no candidate has put forth a larger vision for the economy instead of piecemeal fixes. There is one candidate whose vision of the economy takes into account worker well-being and wealth creation. Marianne Wiliamson’s economic vision is that of a caring economy. Her plans encompass both the anti-monopoly and pro-labor stances that drove the Democratic Party’s growth from the 1930s-1960s. I applaud that you wrote about government becoming the handmaiden of corporate interests. Please remember there is one presidential candidate who isn’t afraid to confront those interests and to return the government to its real function of serving the people.
3
@Sorah Dubitsky thank you for pointing this out! I support Marianne Williamson's candidacy as well. We need a leader with love AND guts!
2
Adam Smith recognized that capitalism itself is amoral ( probably immoral since it relies on greed ) and that therefore it must be checked by some other morality. He thought we could rely on social , even religious, standards, but in 21st Century America that's clearly not going to work. We worship wealth, and our loudest religious group is the fundamentalist Calvanists who have sold their souls for a little bit of political power which they use only to prohibit abortion and support Israel's taking over the West Bank in order to hasten Armaggedon . The only realistic checks on capitalism are the government and organized labor. Government isn't perfect, but it can redistribute income and opportunity when necessary. Income disparity is lower when unions are stronger.
9
Capitalism by definition is not moral.
9
"behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what called 'the dung of the devil'. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home." Basil of Caesarea
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." J. K. Galbraith
“There can be no real political democracy unless there is something approaching an economic democracy.” Theodore Roosevelt
“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court justice and anti-monopoly crusader
6
First, everyone must understand that there is absolutely nothing "moral" about capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic mechanism: freedom to profit, rights of ownership, free and open markets. Humans stumbled upon capitalism and it has proven reasonably capable of motivating progress in a society but only if it's properly managed.
But it's not moral, not in the sense of being fair, honest, or compassionate. That requires democratic politics.
Capitalism only becomes a moral force when it is constrained and controlled by government and that government must fairly represent the needs, aspirations, and rights of the people.
The Republicans blindly follow the capitalism mantra - trust the market, believe in profits and possessions, honor the work ethic and shame the unemployed. Their version of capitalism is not moral, certainly unfair and seldom compassionate.
The Dems should embrace and explain moral capitalism, this magnificent mechanism for human advancement: capitalism paired with democratic freedoms and fair justice. Nothing to be ashamed of, quite the contrary.
3
@JFR
"Capitalism is an economic mechanism: freedom to profit, rights of ownership, free and open markets."
That is not a good definition of capitalism.
That is the definition of the modern liberal economy, including markets.
Capital is only one aspect of a market. It is not equal to the market. The idea that capital and the market are the same makes no sense.
In reality, "capitalism" is the constant demand by the owners of capital that government interfere in markets on their behalf. The proponents of capitalism keep saying that "free" markets demand special tax rates for capital and those that own it, subsidies, and even wars to "open markets" where the people would rather not.
All of these favors to capital come at a cost to the other parts of the market, especially those that work for a wage.
That is not democracy and that is not markets. The same people that claim capitalism is markets claim that everything should be treated the same to make it fair. Government is supposed to butt out, according to them, so the markets can be free. Then in the next breath, they say, but corporations need far lower tax rates. It is self-contradictory.
Even a corporation is an interference in markets. A regular small business is s sole proprietorship. The owner is responsible for the decisions he makes and if he commits fraud or another crime, he is legally liable. That is an economic risk.
The shareholders of a corporation are shielded from responsibility. That is an advantage.
2
Capitalism in the US has always been loosely regulated with rather few obstacles for entrepreneurial types to create great fortunes at the expense of others (incl. the government). Trump is an excellent of such a ruthless capitalist who benefits himself but not his country at all. This in contrast to the countries that try to balance their capitalism so it benefits the country and all its people as much as possible. This has and element of morality but absolutely nothing to do with socialism even though the old school capitalists want to brand it as such.
4
From what I have read of Elizabeth Warren's campaign, she is developing a strong 21st-century version of this.
4
Yes, Andrew Jackson, a slave owner who committed genocide, would certainly make a good model for moral capitalism.
2
@Al
Jackson must be an American hero because he is on the $20. What is more moral than that?
1
Whatever it's called, "moral capitalism," "progressive capitalism" (Joseph Stiglitz's term), or "democratic socialism," all give us much the same directions and goals. I would avoid any nomenclature that includes the term "socialism," to which Americans are allergic, and advocate a system of "capitalism" of some kind that Americans seem to think of as their own brand. So much is implied in a name.
3
@oldnwizTX
Moral Capitalism? There is no such thing, never was. It is socialism that provides some humanity to the face of unregulated predatory capitalism.
Socialism does work, see Europe, compare China and India. Was the New Deal a failure? Good government works for the people, bad government works for the corporations who own it, Finance, MIC and the Oil giants.
The word social has been denigrated for propaganda reasons against labor, the working people. We do need honest language, a social society stands for a just and fair economy. Capitalism stands for exploitation and greed to say it in plain English.
1
I like to modify the aphorism often attributed to Winston Churchill--that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others--and say that capitalism is the worst form of economic organization except for all the others.
Sure, the world has grown tremendously because of capitalism's ability to allocate resources and deliver goods and services to where they are wanted, but without rules and restraints, unbridled capitalism also has given us:
*Trans-Atlantic slavery from early 1500s to late 1800s.
*Tragedy of the Commons where people/companies don't bear the cost of their product. Think air pollution and climate change, or cigarettes and asbestos.
*Conflicted interests. Think of the whole advertising industry--your TV or radio show is merely a distraction to get advertisements in front of your eyes. Or how about the financial advisor who is incentivized to sell you products that aren't really in your best interest? Think about sub-prime mortgages and the Great Recession.
*Insider trading. It's how Joseph P Kennedy, Sr, was able to build the Kennedy dynasty
*Monopolies and Trusts. Didn't we already learn these are bad? Amazon, et al, are you listening?
So three cheers for capitalism--it's the winningest form of economic organization--but it's a system that needs rules and restraints so it works fairly for all of us.
2
@Stubborn Facts
Socialism and unions provided the forms and regulations unregulated capitalism needs, what happened, where are the unions now, why has socialism been denigrated?
There is no more social balance between capital and labor, the government turned on labor to protect the big money.
2
I think you’ll find even Adam Smith warned against excess greed within capitalism. In and of itself, capitalism is neither necessarily moral or immoral, but practitioners certainly can be either or fall anywhere between the two. Capitalist countries have generally tried to balance things, though some periods like the early industrial revolution tend not to worry too much about rights, humanity and social decency. It sems to me we entered into such an age, with fairly unbridled greed since the rise of reagan, thatcher, friedman et al. Why exactly is subject to debat but part of it was liberals abused deficit spending so much — Using it without end or the need to pay back what you borrow reasonably promptly, which even Keynes warned them about, that a reaction and correction was inevitable perhaps. The tech revolution and its hip ethos, no need for unions, long hours, anything goes mindset, and worse, if it’s tech,it’s automatically good and disruption is good have played a role too. We’re still recognizing tech myths need busting in many cases. Then we might have better chances of finding some reasonable form of moral capitalism.
2
@N. Cunningham
it is not so much liberal spending than our huge war budgets, that is the black money hole and the lack of a social balance between labor and capital. Government sided with the Kapital against labor. Our labor laws prove it.
4
When considering an economic system, there are many principles and concepts to consider, but most of these principles come under 'equity' (morality) and 'efficiency'. There is a trade-off, the more socialist you go without considering markets/productivity the less wealth-creation you get.
A good system will find the optimal balance equity (morality) and efficiency. My optimal is where we 'maximise the minimum'. Choose the economic system that maximises the living standards of the poorest/weakest in society.
Is "Moral Capitalism" that optimal trade-off? I think so, but we might never know.
@Dan
The Germans used to call it Soziale Markt-Wirtschaft.
It seems that producers used to focus on affordability, when either building houses, or churning out automobiles. Houses in Levittown NY went for $6900 in 1950, so GIs returning from the war and their families could afford a nice little home with a white picket fence. Today, those same houses go for nearly $500K in some cases, so now you have to be rich to live in Levittown? The private sector at one time seemed to live up to an unwritten civic code to provide affordable products and good jobs to the country. Around the 1980's that apparently went out the window. The question is can the government step in the gap in a country where large swathes of the public now hold it in fear/contempt.
4
No such thing. At every point in the history you laud, there were always people who were kept out of sight and oppressed--they kept the system functioning. This is endemic to capitalism, and I'm grateful to the GOP and Trump for finally expressing it in a way that cannot be danced around, reframed or rebutted.
I live in a city awash in money -- venture capital, tech money, banking and finance -- where tens of thousands, many of them young people, earn solid six-figure salaries. Capitalism works for them, their employers, and for landlords who charge rents matching or exceeding those for similar housing in Manhattan. But capitalism isn't working for the thousands of homeless people sleeping on our sidewalks, or middle-class workers whose earnings, adjusted for inflation, have been pretty much flat since 1978. Capitalism doesn't work for these people because it doesn't want to work for them. There's no profit in it, no direct or immediate shareholder gain to be had by helping those struggling with mental illness or addiction or medical bankruptcy or sudden job loss or some other calamity. Expecting people who practice the religion of ever-greater gain no matter what the social impact to share or help out is naive; most simply don't want to think or know about it. They consider their greed a virtue with other names (e.g., initiative, drive, ambition, etc.). Contemporary American-style capitalism demonstrates that compassion and care for the underserved in our society is the role of government and grass-roots activism. Meantime shareholders cheer when corporation lay off more workers. That kind of capitalism is America's tragic flaw, and if unchecked by reasonable regulation it will bring a calamity for all.
5
@Mark Hugh Miller
Yes. Hedge funds are moral and good because they generate money, even in a zero sum game. But teachers are immoral and bad because they do not generate tons of money for the very rich so teachers deserve to live 2-3 hours away because them living closer is simply not worth it to our modern, capitalist society. This is so clear to anyone who will bother to look.
2
I personally support 'Social Democracy'. That's basically capitalism (free-markets) with strong and robust social policies that focus on social justice, equality and fixing market failures e.g. universal healthcare, education, childcare and strong regulation.
It would be wonderful if the Democrats moved towards centre-left parties like that in Europe. With the exception of LBJ's Great Society, FDR was the last true Social Democrat to hold the White House. We need a new New Deal!
10
Wal-mart has a large market share because it keeps prices low; it can keep prices low because it pays poor wages -- which will only be changeable when productivity of retail workers can be increased: Amazon? We can treat it like Standard Oil when it reaches 90% of all retail transactions.
But the "... government unafraid to set the conditions..." you refer to and espouse may also be unafraid to set other conditions -- conditions that impinge improperly on liberty and freedom. However desirable, the changes you speak carry such dangers, so we must tread carefully. It's nothing like as easy as you imply, aside from the entrenched and moneyed opposition.
"Whatever Happened to Moral Capitalism?" The 1980s.
6
Um.... "moral capitalism" seems like an oxymoron to me. Capitalism has always and will always exist to benefit those with capital. Today, that amounts to less than 1% of the population.
Dickens showed us the injustice and cruelty of capitalism 160 years ago. If there has been any change since, it's been for the worse. Now you say that moral capitalism would be “judged not by how much it produces, but how broadly it empowers, backed by a government unafraid to set the conditions for fair and just markets.”
Hey, here's a news flash for you: 99+% of us don't have the same kind of money to participate in the markets that the upper 1% have. And your metrics aren't even close to being quantifiable. Did you know that 50% of us don't have enough income to stay out of poverty?
This op/ed seems like it's trying to offer an alternative moniker tor the "s word democrats". Instead, it offers us another kind of s word for a rather weak attempt to promote the status quo.
2
Since the 80s, when the Berlin wall came down, we have needed a new idea to unify people against the Boom and Bust Robber Baron kind of capitalism. I think the New Deal was a stop gap against more radical left ideas. The need for sustainability might be a way to do this again. If only people could really look to the future and be greedy for a clean, sustainable economy. That's really what self-interest should be now.
2
ONE problem is that too many “capitalists” (whether that’s defined by what they own or by who they hate) do not believe in any concept of morality that goes beyond property rights.
Yet morality, to the extent it is defined by human need and human purpose, requires us to prevent and reverse the obscene concentration of wealth into two few unaccountable hands. It demands that corporations must be reformed to democratically contend with the legitimate urgent rights of workers, consumers, communities, and the broader natural and moral environment which supports (or destroys) us all.
4
Answer - Ronald Reagan and Ayn Rand and a couple thousand other well-placed and powerful propagandists who spread the lie of wealth accumulation as an ethical mandate (commonly called - "greed is good"). Any morality in the economic model called capitalism instantly went out the window. There is no morality when the only thing those in charge of capitalism strive for is "increased profitability, no matter what".
10
Conscious Capitalism is a thing. It's real. It's growing. And it's progressive.
3
“Whatever happened to moral capitalism?”It turned out to be an oxymoron.
5
Quick, name one thing that socialism or communism has created that has spurred innovation......(crickets...)
Capitalism is responsible for pretty much every innovation in healthcare and technology that we have experienced over the last 200+ years. People live longer and better lives because of it. Just because a few people have exploited the system (or just proved that they are smarter than everyone else) doesn't mean that we are not collectively better off. It's truly hilarious reading all of the capitalism hater comments here, when each commenter's entire access to this platform (the internet, your computer, your iphone, etc) exists because of capitalism. Isn't it grand that the very thing you are railing against is responsible for giving you access to rail against it?
3
@John
Many businesspeople get their information on starting a business through government financed research.
4
You say crickets, but both war and massive technological projects like the space race spur innovation. Government projects can spur necessity just as much as consumer demand can. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.
6
@John Sputnik pops immediately to mind.
7
What modulates excessive capitalist forces? It seems we are reaching a breaking point where economic revolution is at hand within the context of
an already occurring social realignment.
The majority of Americans cannot live where they work. They cannot afford to get sick. They cannot afford to get old. They cannot even afford to die. Tax cuts for the already obscenely wealthy one percent are a sign of our moral capitalist decadence.
7
Moral capitalism? Is that not an oxymoron? Capitalism is an amoral system. It offers nothing to the average citizen. The immoral and the amoral -- the corrupt and the manipulative. -- the selfish and the clever usually are the winners. Some, but not many innovative, creative people also find a way in the chaos of the system -- if they learn to navigate the labyrinth . Some -- never do.
The only human and successful way to serve the vast majority of the population is by an introduction of Socialist principles. This would create --- a 'Capitalism with a Human Face'. No social system is the answer to all social needs. Only a fusionof both is successful.
6
Mr. Kazin, what dream world do you live in? Capitalism was never Moral.
2
Moral capitalism sounds strange, given that we have not lived under an ethical capitalistic system for quite a while. You can see that when a few corporate giants prevent a healthy competition...by holding market power, it increased the current odious inequality. And whe morals went AWOL, avarice and selfishness took the upper hand, and, now, seem in control not only financially but politically as well, as there is no lack of political prostitution...selling themselves to the highest bidder, the 'rich and powerful'. There is no greatness here, just a petty transactional oligo-klepto-plutocracy...dooming this suffering democracy. Whose fault is it? Ours perhaps, for not getting involved, hoping 'others' will pick up the mantle for our inactions?
3
Although the author notes Jackson only advocated for whites, applying "moral" anything to 19th century Democratic party is a fool's errand. Until FDR and Minneapolis mayor HHH, I can't see how morality played any role in the Democratic party.
"Yet no one who hopes to become the nominee has yet come up with a larger vision that would animate such worthy ideas. "
That's just willful ignorance on your part.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/elizabeth-warren-i-am-a-capitalist-but-markets-need-rules.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-02/why-elizabeth-warren-still-calls-herself-a-capitalist
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/magazine/elizabeth-warren-president.html
4
Nothing 'happened" to morals or capitalism - Both were purposely destroyed and turned into the deepest immorality once the first nuke hit Japan 80 years ago. One immoral nation flattening another. Morality became self-defined as self-aggrandizement by near-morons, and capitalism became the disgraceful worship of money despite the so-called generous contributions by the wealthiest on earth. These donations to those in poverty or ignorance were not extra-large at all compared to the wealth and power earned on the backs of the weakest including the neediest who went to libraries built by the rich so they - if they could read - might learn to stay in line or fight, if they dared, on the bloodiest of battle sites - American and European untethered business arenas.
They are now also paid for by the poorest taxpayers while the rich deduct their tax bills at rates as high as 80% Off the donation - to the poor or "non-profit" which sometimes pays their leaders in the millions as well. Now it is time to marry heart and heathen by whatever means possible and workable. The idea that there are today trillionaires galivanting around Africa in their 300 million dollar jets, shooting dead animals in decline for butchery as trophies at the cost of two or three hundred thousand dollars a pop is ignominious in its vulgarity alone. No more. Wealth is fine with limits. Those limits are assigned my morality, not religion. They are dictated by what surrounds us not what human ego demands.
4
Adam Smith, The Scottish Economist and author of “Wealth of Nations,” warned of “unfettered capitalism.” Republicans want markets to be unregulated, untaxed and unaccountable...they want totally “free” markets as they believe in trickle-down,
voodooism.
8
US corporations have a lot more power than past decades when workers and the middle class were rising and got more respect from their govt. We had more of a social democracy, to use a current phrase of Dem candidates.
Loss of jobs is key. Politicians we stand in line to elect, let business move millions of jobs overseas, leaving US worker without income and pensions. Govt has not supported retraining adequately. Factories and supporting businesses closed in many towns.
As corporate monopolies increased, their excess profits from lowest wage countries were applied to politicians with increased campaign donations. The corporations set political norms, and grew to expect outsized cooperation for their interests---at the expense of millions of average citizens who have no clout.
Watching this decline in democracy, majorities of voters and many politicians now want to reverse the S. Court’s Citizens United ruling, that legalized unlimited money in our elections from the wealthy and big business.
If strong limits were restored on elite money in election financing, the ripple effects would be healthy and far reaching. It would amplify the voice of average citizens to again have input to lawmaking affecting their lives. This is the only way the transformation the 2020 Dems are advocating can happen.
Without restoring the voice of citizens in politics, to counter elite dominance, expect future Trumps to crawl out of the swamp and rally millions to their authority.
5
in the country as it was originally constituted, most people were small farmers, a few had small businesses or professions, some followed other occupations like fishing, a relative handful were farmers employing slave labor, but overall few people worked as the employees of others, especially of large enterprises. as the industrial revolution unfolded, a bigger and bigger share of workers became employees and the business model was the original industrial scale commercial plan of the plantation. ultimately, the most common mode became the labor model, with most working for others, for wages. this has lately been, as we say on the Coast, in turnaround:between offshoring and automation, big American employers typically need fewer employees, not more, and the results are wrenching. the consequence is Trump and all the anxiety, fear, and hatred he can capitalize on to stay in office and out of jail.
3
Any system is only as good as it's practitioners. Henry Ford created 'welfare capitalism." He paid good wages, provided vacation, and health care. He also built homes and hospitals which no company does today. Was he morally just, or just a shrewd businessman? He knew that if he paid his workers more, they would be able to afford his product. The problem with global economics is that labor inequities can be arbitraged across the planet. CEOs never know of, much less meet workers a city away, much less a country. Localism brings accountability. There is no way to put the genie completely back in the bottle, especially with services, but if all good and services here are priced as if they were locally made (ie add in sustainability, enviro protections, etc. as a real cost and an enforcement of national laws), not tariffs, wages in America would rise instantly. Morality is great to argue in theory, for faster results, get practical.
3
Rather than "moral" capitalism I suggest "social" capitalism, i e. a capitalism that would benefit ALL members of society without the baggage of morality, which, like beauty, is most often in the eye of the beholder.
5
I still remember the 1984 election, during a time when the author claims Democrats forgot moral capitalism and concentrated on identities and racial justice. The Democratic candidate that year, Walter Mondale, made economic fairness the watchword of his campaign. For it, he was trounced under a wave of amoral capitalists whose mantra was ‘greed is good.’ Since that time, both parties have forgotten morality, Republicans because it is not in their DNA, and Third-Way Democrats because their conclusion following 1984 and 1988 appeals to fairness was that such talk didn't win elections. And since 1988, we have seen both obscene wealth concentration and the legitimation of buying politicians through Citizens United. Small wonder that Warren, Sanders, and other Democrats have focused on specific ‘tasty’ policies rather than some naive-sounding appeals to morality. Before you can return to a society built on moral principles, you have to eradicate every last vestige of greedy capitalism, and the mechanism for doing so will be robust policy and law that exacts a heavy price on amoral and immoral leaches in the system. Then we can return to high moral principles.
5
Citizen economic insecurity is a big cause of our racial tensions. Rising economic prosperity for average Americans helped the black civil rights movement---less class stratification, less political polarization.
In ou past generations, govt regulation of corporations was more centrist and normalized. Unions had 1/3 of American employees as members, setting standards for non union workers. Business had to deal with it.
Now unions are greatly diminished, more workers are unprotected. In some other countries employee reps sit on corporate boards. Basic respect.
Robert Reich in his book 'Capitalism for the Many Not the Few' uses the phrase ‘countervailing powers’ from economist Galbraith in the ‘50s.
In our past, when the middle/working class was expanding, they had 'countervailing powers’ that could bargain or set limits on corporate power.
Corporations were profit oriented, per their purpose, but they also recognized to a greater degree, their responsibility to various stake holders--- customers, employees, the public interest and society.
Reich--- “Countervailing powers of unions and citizens interest groups (and add responsible politicians) could offset corporate excessive advantage.
The key questions ---What are the rules, with what effects and for whom?"
So, who is calling the shots today in our democracy, when elections are legally financed by corporate wealth? What's excessive now, vs normal? Can the 2020 Dem candidates try to reset our norms?
4
Moral Capitalism. Compassionate Conservatism. Moral Majority. These are all unicorns. Something that doesn’t exist and never will. The last time we had a fair economy was in the 1950s and 1960s when George Romney turned down a big bonus because 90% of it would have gone to Federal taxes. Back in those days the top tax rate was 90% and until our taxes rates return to those 90% rates we will be plagued by billionaires. We find ourselves at the end of the game of Monopoly - which never ends well except for one player. A reckoning is coming.
10
Why can the liberal agenda of bringing back the high income tax rates of the 1950’s and ‘60’s be culled from the environment of that period but the conservative call to MAGA is deemed unworkable due to the intertwined factors of the racism, misogyny and make privilege of the same period?
2
Romney's American Motors depended on its workers. the corporation needed its workers to make its profits, and if business was good, it needed more workers to be able to grow. today's situation is the opposite: workers, especially industrial laborers, are not seen as contributing to profitability, but as unaffordable dead weight to get rid of. businesses don't need more workers to expand, they need fewer workers (at least American workers) to survive and fewer still to capitalize growth because automation and the fake productivity of exporting work and risk to cheaper countries subsidize shareholder profits and astronomical executive pay packages. how many times his average worker's salary was Romney's compensation compared to the differential of today's business titans? workers are now paid too low to live while executives are paid too much to believe. this is a problem only if you are not distracted by trumped up distractions about immigrants, guns, foreign adversaries, or abortion. do not listen to that man behind the curtain!
2
Largely by abdicating their moral responsibilities, so-called "moral capitalists have taught us that they have always had Ebeneezer Scrooge in their cranial closets. Out of the closet, they are "FREE! FREE AT LAST!" In response, the weight of re-fashioning the American economy as a social enterprise and experiment with democratic-determined public responsibilities now falls on the USA's emerging new-democratic socialist movement.
1
When talking about the esteemed past of the democratic party, you do remember that George Wallace was a democrat while Abraham Lincoln was a republican, right?
1
@Andreas
That tired rejoinder has been addressed ad nauseam. Get with the program.
2
"Whatever happened to 'moral capitalism'?" Plutocrat capitalists killed it before it was born.
2
There is no such thing as "Moral Capitalism".
What a joke!
3
@ugoguido
But there can be a relatively moral society based on a properly regulated capitalistic economic system.
5
Wealth corrupts. Great wealth corrupts greatly.
3
@Nathaniel Brown ...and those without wealth are morally virtuous just by it's absence? If only the world were so simple. See the billionaires today who volunteered for a wealth tax. Not enough, but enough to show its character, not money, or its absence, that makes someone good.
3
@Ask Better Questions
That's not character, that's "a gesture".
Character would be volunteering, as you say "enough".
@Ask Better Questions "and those without wealth are morally virtuous just by it's absence?" That was neither stated nor implied.
The problem with Moral Capitalism is that it is utopic.
1
Good luck getting the cat back in the bag, chasing a ship that has sailed out of sight, closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, what have you. While I'm optimistic about the upcoming election, I think we've let unrestrained free-market capitalism run amok for too long.. We're all bozos on this bus and we're doomed.
1
For all you capitalism haters out there. Here's a brief list of the things that capitalism has brought to you:
- the light bulb
- electricity
- the microwave
- MRIs
- jet propulsion
- the vegetables, fruit, grains and beef you eat every day
- your iPhone
- your television
- your car
- the railroad
- air travel
- virtually all healthcare achievements
- children who survive into adulthood
- women who survive childbirth
Ideas are free. Bringing those ideas to fruition and turning them into something that is valuable for people is absolutely more effective thanks to capitalism.
12
@John And just wages, education, and universal healthcare endangers none of that.
11
@John Did you read the article? He didn't say capitalism itself was a bad thing. He's calling for a moral capitalism.
8
@John
Those are the things that capitalism does well, but can we remove the things it does badly? It was the excesses of capitalism that brought us Communism, but you will never hear a devoted capitalist admit that.
7
There is no hope for “moral capitalism” until we decide that we want the economy to serve us rather than serve corporations as it currently does. Corporations have rigged the system to their benefit and convinced us that their benefit is our benefit.
Prior to the mid-19th century, under English law, there was a formal social contract built into the incorporation of any company. Government- granted charters-of-operation included a requirement to “fulfill a public purpose.” But after the mid 1800’s that changed when the “rational market” ideology emerged which held that the public good was built into the “natural” process of the market, so no governmental oversight was needed. Private interest was further sanctified when corporations arranged for official “personhood” status with “natural rights.”
Corporations now hold all of the cards. They have arranged it so that they are legally protected in their sole mission to maximize short-term profits for owners and shareholders. The consequences for society are not part of their profit calculation – capitalism doesn’t have a moral conscience.
Until we stop buying into the myth that capitalism is a force of nature operating under unalterable laws of physics, society will continue to live with capitalism’s boot on its neck.
Capitalism is a human-made construct that can be fixed through regulation to benefit the collective society rather than just the corporations. But things will have to get even worse for that to happen.
4
At first blush, "moral capitalism" sounds more like an oxymoron, especially in,this day and age. If it ever was "moral," Reagan sure took care of that; and Trump....well I'd rather not go there while eating lunch.
Moral capitalism, more or less, is just a euphemism for free stuff. Nothing's happened to it - it's behind every empty promise of every Dem candidate.
2
Prof. Kazin writes an essay using the word "capitalism" quite a few times without telling us what he thinks it is.
Not necessary, since everyone agrees on what "capitalism" is? Um, not hardly.
Moral capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
1
I remember meeting Michael's father Alfred once, and he told me of his experience sharing a car with Jackie Kennedy. That was then, this is now.
Now, Moral Capitalism is an oxymoron.
1
Does anyone remember Rosie Ruiz, the girl who "won" the Boston Marathon by leaving the racecourse early on, taking a cab to a place near the finish line, jumping back in, and crossing the line ahead of everyone else to "win"? That's the leftist (Democrat) modus operandi: deny the validity of, change the rules of the game. Don't do the necessary work, just jump ahead of everyone else and 'win' the prize by cheating--that's immoral. You'll notice that Ms. Ruiz did not reject the goals of the race (the society in which she lived) she wanted to win the prize, she just rejected the rules by which the society runs the race. That's essentially the method of the left; they don't acknowledge that they're cheating, they claim different motivation, orientation to higher goals; that the actual winners, those who did the necessary work and played by the rules, had an 'unfair' advantage, so the self-interested cheaters should be allowed to have the prize! Maybe their point of view might be the basis of some differently organized society, but not this one--maybe they should emigrate.
1
@Ronald B. Duke; Maybe they could emigrate to a place described in "Gulliver's Travels", a land in which scientists, having realized that mathematical equations are reversible, came to think other processes of nature should be, too. They began collecting ordure in barrels with a plan to turn it back into food. I imagine leftist intellectuals could easily buy into that, and wouldn't have any trouble selling the idea to their eager, benighted Democrat followers always on the lookout for something for free.
Capitalism is “a-moral.” It is that manner in which markets function efficiently but it will countenance all kinds of immorality like poisonings, inadequate construction, underpaying workers, buying legislation, sloppy storage of chemicals, contamination of food, water and air — until such time as the behavior overtly harms people and government decides it cannot tolerate the behavior or the marketplace itself avoids the business or the product.
We, the people who comprise the buyers decide what is moral and what isn’t. Right now through Citizens United the profit of our global corporations is being funneled into elections and is drowning out the voice of the consumer/voter. It is why the Senate is silent in the face of a corrupt and ignorant President; it is how we get extreme right wing judges appointed to our courts; it is why pro-people legislation languishes in the Senate and won’t be signed by the President. Our democracy is drowning in the money of “capitalism” and it is more likely to die that way than it is to be suffocated by the Right’s bete noire: “socialism” (another a-moral economic organizer).
Both socialism and capitalism are a-moral ways to organize the production of goods. Both are capable of destroying democracy, which is a system of governing. Unfortunately most people are too ignorant about all three to understand the differences and the potential for both good and bad in all of them. I am not sure that this article clarifies any of it.
1
The death-cult ideology of Neoliberalism has given the Plutocracy the cover to capture control of government in a slow-motion corporate coup d'etat over the past 4 decades. Using the terms "moral" and "capitalism" in the same breath is, by this point, absurd. The Demos have been neutralized by those who preach market fundamentalism (though the "free market" is not free), and individual "responsibility". So we get people like Margaret Thatcher saying there is no such thing as society, which in turns destroys politics and any chance the people might have to change that to which "there is no alternative." Until government itself is wrested away from corporate control, any talk of morality is a wasted exercise.
3
Seeing as you picked three of the most pro-government power, anti-individual rights presidents in our history to illustrate what “good” looks like (to you), no thanks.
I’d like to see a definition of “fair and just” markets (as opposed to the “free” markets I apparently am mistaken to believe in) that does not rely on achievement of certain outcomes (I.e. “equality”) - because that is simply stating that the ends justify the means.
1
Moral capitalism is not an oxymoron, as one commenter suggested, but, rather, what has been known as “perspective by incongruity.” Every member of the Democratic Party should heed it. This fine, fine article should be on the bedside table of every one of those Party members, in particular those running for President. It’s one of the few perspectives presented—an historical one—that does not demean at least some ordinary Americans—even those who may have once voted for this miserable creature—Donald Trump. Thank you, Michael Kazin, for taking ordinary people seriously.
2
Moral Capitalism went to live in Scandinavia, where it is happy because no American comes in to mess it up.
3
For capitalism to work, capitalists have to be treated like truffle pigs. Truffle pigs love truffles and are very good at sniffing out the underground fungi and digging them out. So their managers must watch them and take away any truffles they find.
Now, since capitalists are people and therefore capable of understanding and shaping their situation, they will not work hard to find truffles unless they can keep at least part of what they find. But now they are managing their own businesses and keeping all the truffles. And they have proven to generally have as little interest in (and therefore understanding of), the conditions that promote truffle growth as truffle pigs do.
Henry Ford understood that his new assembly line way of producing cars needed a larger market to reach its full potential, so he created this market by raising the wages of his workers (which pressured everyone else to go along or lose their best workers). For this rather obvious insight he was called mad, a traitor to his class, and communist.
A single-minded concentration on finding truffles makes most business leaders uninterested and unable to understand the conditions under which truffles will flourish or become scarce, even when this understanding is far from being rocket science. Milton Friedman and his followers exemplify this way of understanding; Alan Greenspan could not understand the mortgage meltdown, because understanding it would destroy his world view.
5
Every society has 'highest asperations', every card-carrying member aspires to the highest goal, but they are expected to play by the rules; the functional definition of 'morality' is 'playing by the rules'. Flouting the rules, trying to attain the goal by going around them, is 'immoral'. The highest goal of our society is attainment of individual fulfillment through acquisition and consumption of material goods. The basic mechanism of attainment is capitalism, it works by means of hard work and individual responsibility. Just as in a footrace it is not guaranteed that everyone wins a prize, so capitalism does not promise that everyone wins the race for material prosperity. (Even Christianity does not promise that everyone gets to heaven.) The public rule-setting mechanism of capitalism is democracy. The left is 'immoral' in that they desire society's highest goals but seek to attain them by avoiding the requirement of hard work and self-responsibility--they want to flout the rules (morality) but still get the prize! They are prepared to pervert the regulatory mechanism, democracy, and destroy the productive mechanism, capitalism, to seize the goods attained by those who have earned them 'morally' by working within the structure--but, they still desire the highest goal: possession and consumption of material goods. In a Christian context you could say they want to get to heaven but live a life of sin! The leftist viewpoint and modus operandi are immoral.
"Moral Capitalism" is an oxymoron.
2
The fix for socio/economic ills supported by the Democrats was unions for labor. That was a great fix in an industrial society.
It doesn't work anymore. The Republicans, particularly Trump, promised to bring back the buffalo. How long can he fool his base is anyone's guess.
The parties can promise anything they want. We won't ever get back to that post war industrial boom with its labor intensive jobs.
1
Moral Capitalism has never fully existed. It is a concept constantly under construction. Unless there is societal collapse this effort will continue.
Expecting it to come from those in the system is hopeless, pigs cannot stop being pigs. There needs to be a farmer to set reasonable limits and the only source for this is a government.
So who decides? The answer - everyone does. As long as the pigs don’t take over.
9
Capitalism seems to be a nice marketing term, but it refers to Capital which is the collection of assets used for production and implies in our big industry world, the wealth transfer that is needed to build an expensive factory or other asset. I guess it is a tool, where labor uses the tool and land is needed to place the labor and capital.
Free Markets are Bazaar's, where the goods are marketed, TV, Malls, open air markets or today Amazon. I believe that there is a distinction between Marketism and Capitalism, Capitalism is complex since wealth transfers are necessary and thus we think of money and banking.
Free markets need capitalistic input and money flows to effect commerce, but Capitalism is actually today "big" business, like General Motors. I don't know how "moral" things can be, but "honest" and "honorable" are more likely to work. Most business people I know respect their workers but still hate regulations and taxes and workers are often reliable and dedicated. When do you give your worker a raise in salary, when do you ask the employer for a raise? The partnership is the morality. Greed may be killing things from both sides. But Multimillion dollar golden parachutes don't help, when there are layoffs.
1
Thank you for the history lesson, but moral capitalism animated last century's political discussion of the proper role of government in protecting the individual from abuse. Current Republicans appear to believe there is no proper role for government in mitigating abuse by economic power. That belief is what Democrats need to counter with a new philosophy that defines and defends a proper role for government. Instead of trying to 'Make America Great', we need an imperative to make life good for individual Americans.
3
Very good clear comment. Capitalism works well to produce because we can always count on greed. It always works! We can’t get away from it. But the job of the government is not to enable the greed but to protect the citizens from the greed getting out of hand. Some things, healthcare, infrastructure, education etc are best considered public, not private endeavors.
5
As a liberal (not a radical), I think we should strive to ensure political and legal equality for each person. That said, in any relatively free society, some measure of social and economic inequality is inevitable. Unless we destroy basic institutions like private property, private schools, and the family, for example, some individuals, simply by chance, will be born into more advantageous situations than others.
The key question is then whether and how, via government and laws, society can minimize, if not eliminate, social and economic inequality. This is where the principles of justice advocated by the philosopher John Rawls appear useful.
As a matter of the basic social contract, Rawls argued, we would rationally, collectively agree to do two basic things.
First, we would embed equal basic liberties for each person in our law at the constitutional level (e.g., the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment). Within that constitutional framework, secondly, our legislatures would embed fair (not merely formal) equality of opportunity for each person in our law at the legislative level (e.g., the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act, basic universal medical care, free K-12 and inexpensive college/vocational training for all).
In this way, while some will do better than others, everyone at least has a real chance to create a good life for himself.
If the Dems can avoid being undermined by the hard left in 2020, maybe Rawls' time has come.
3
I think Rawls would have (i.e., coming after, probably did), agree with Roosevelt's 2nd Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom from extreme financial insecurity and privation as to other basic needs such as medical care and shelter.
I don't know Rawls that well, but vaguely sense his "original position theiry and its application here: This might come more to the left than your "*formal* equality of opportunity" standard. Rawls might well have an argument for the more aggressively liberal priority of attacking extreme inequality and concentrations of wealth and power, and for something like Universal Basic Income, UBI.
I'm not necessarily endorsing these, but I suspect you (whom I would tentatively consider "neoliberal" from your comment) are relatively far to the right of Rawls, and that Rawls would be very close to Rooevelt's 2nd New Deal.
Where you differ from the others invoked is your apparent tolerance for a relatively comprehensively market-driven/focused "meritocratic" social order wherein extremely disparate starting resources are allowed to fundamentally shape outcomes, and extreme competition and insecurity are tolerable aspects of life for the lower echelons. (Well, extreme and relentless comoetition across the board, probably).
1
@ANONYMOUS!!! Thanks for your reply, but if you go back and read my first comment, you'll see that I make clear that Rawls' primary principle for legislation is fair equality of opportunity, not formal equality of opportunity. As a Rawlsian, thus, I am no neoliberal (as I understand that term).
@John
I apologize for the sloppy misreading. I lazily skimmed and focused (admittedly sloppy on that too) on your 2nd half, where you announce your "2" main priorities. It seems to me that whereas earlier on you invoke Rawls to support a more aggressively (but, faithfully to Rawls, not absolutely) egalitarian approach ("minimizing if not eliminating social and economic inequality), the second half of your comment seems more in the radical centrist "equality of opportunity" vein while accepting significantly unequal starting positions - a paradox in most "meritocracy" outlooks.
I admit (poor excuse, but I'm under strain right now and exhausted) I'm not giving your comment the attention it deserves, and probably the fault is on my end, not yours, but your comment appears to simultaneously acknowledge and even support the more radical conclusions Rawls may lead to while trying to distance yourself (and Rawls) from radically egalitarian approaches.
I think Rawls would support a form of UBI for example, but again, i don't claim to know Rawls very well. I think (suspect) he is more to the left of your position. But I'm sure you know both perspectives far more clearly than I do. Thanks for acknowledging and responding!
1
Today, I had the most disturbing thought, accompanied by awareness that to voice this notion would be such an act of social suicide that I must keep it totally private, or ABSOLUTELY anonymous. I'm a hardcore leftist liberal by the way.
Here it is, but before proceeding, I ask that it be understood in context. I'd just seen a Youtube video randomly recommended to me (I gravitate toward random history documentaries); I clicked on one promising to be interesting: a live interview of an octogenarian Confederate general. In a word, he described the very wide range of slave conditions in the South - sometimes brutal, & contrastingly sometimes -as in this generalls case, the slaves being virtual family, most conditions being between these extremes.
So my thought was, what if we were attaching too much importance or significance to the end of slavery, & likewise, the women's lib movement?
The other part of the context was I was checking out a library book analyzing prevalent cheating, prescription drug abuse, and psychiatric issues at competitive high schools representing the cream of our "meritocracy."
My thought was not that subjugation of blacks & women might be good, but whether earlier patterns, for all their abuses, were a response to the trade-offs coming to roost differently with our different choices. Before women's lib, women, free of competition with men could have respectable women's careers of low pay but no stigma.
Now everybody competes in the same market (TBC)
1
...Slavery abolition & women's lib (rightly) attacked feudalistic hierarchies & distributions of privileges based on racial and gender categories one could not control or somehow earn or deserve. Meritocracy/market forces (all these developments in the wake of Darwin, of course) replaced these, on an assumption meritocracy is more just, & that competition produces efficient distribution of talents & resources &, as social darwinism has it, improvement of species, institutions, products, & society, through "survival of the fittest."
All that may be true, but the downside is what gets lost. And this is not to sentimentalize by any stretch. A woman 60 years ago, with full access to the same intellectual-educational enrichment chances they have today, was encouraged to pursue her career in niches reserved for women, such as teaching & administrative support, which while not enormously lucrative, were highly respected, stable, secure, free of stigma, & mild in their competitiveness. Men had the same, but w/ more power, status, & pay: above all, stable, secure, & only mildly competitive. Blacks had their niche. However, the boundaries were permeable: quite a few black doctors lawyers & executives, likewise women.
What changed was the end of niches sparing all concerned from a universal labor market of relentless, intense competition, wherein your competitive success in this crucible was the cornerstone of identity. Arguably, many or most in this crucible are no freer than slaves.
2
Of course, my comment resembles, or at least overlaps with, white anti-abolitionism is North and South: concern over competition from/with liberated subjugated groups (blacks, later women).
Yet, my point is not to advocate the racist, feudal scheme, but to scrutinize our assumptions about our Darwinian-market approach to hierarchy and privilege, and exaggerated differences from and moral superiority to the older arrangements.
"Moral capitalism", I think, has it right in focusing on tempering capitalism's brutality in part by recognizing a) how plantation-like capitalism is (in all the bad ways-- violence, arbitrary and absolute power, etc., few of the "good" ways-- above all the mitigation of competition, promotion of stability), and b) more realistic understanding of the moral and social deteriorations and compromises capitalism promotes.
I'm not nostalgic for Margaret Mitchel's idealized South, or 20th Century white male privilege and paternalism. But those regimes sought a way of life beyond "homo economicus" and perpetual "rat race" and make the latter ultimate litmus of identity and self-worth (including the near-entire focus of education). In those days a job was mostly jusy how you paid the bills, not an ultimate existential verdict. Many today might be legitimately nostalgic for a dead-end, glass-ceiling job that while not super high-pay, paid enough, let you focus on family and enjoy leisure evenings and weekends, and enjoy vistas beyond your work environment.
2
@ANONYMOUS!!!
Let me add one more critical point about how we likely have been exaggerating the gains in fairness, justice, and democratic patterns since abolition: by absolutizing the distinction between slavery relations and those of contemporary capitalism, we in effect camouflage the degree to which power disparities today may surpass those even between slave and master on many plantations, blinding ourselves to the extent of capitalism's neofeudalism. Bezos compared to his window-washer is a much wider gap in real power than exists between many master-and-slave patterns.
For all this, the worst thing would be to whitewash slavery, which couldn't be further from my point. Rather, we might consider how a cartoonishly oversimplified vision of what slavery was like (Lloyd Bridges trying to whip Ben Vereen day and night!) may serve to disguise contemporary economic ravages and perversions by making them seem benign by comparison. It would be ironic if cultural products like the Roots miniseries, the most noble of projects, turned out to promote economically rightist neoliberalism by suggesting those sorts of conditions (or Stalinist gulags) are the only neoliberalism's only alteratives.
1
No one, not even those who call themselves Democratic Socialists, is advocating that America abandon markets. At the end of the day, even Bernie Sanders is, as Noam Chomsky has stated, just an old school New Dealer in the tradition of FDR. But, as economist Richard Wolff has pointed out, socialism always arises as a corrective response to the excesses of capitalism. Instead of focusing on the word 'socialism,' and the inaccurate over-identification with Soviet-style Communism you and many other Americans seem to have, take an honest look at some of what is being proposed.
The problem with the notion of moral capitalism is that you cannot inject "morality" into capitalism without violating its central premise, which is the pursuit of self interest above all else.
3
@Mark Kessinger
Indeed, true moral courage would, in my view, defy the convenient labels of the day because of it would certainly drive an entirely different view of what constitutes our defining priorities.
So many discussions on this subject are constrained to elements of the current construct.
It reminds me of a line from game of thrones - the show, from Ian Mcshane's character Brother Ray " violence is a disease, you don't cure a disiease by spreading it to other people".
Capitalism's attendant destructive tendencies is a disease, we don't need more of it, we need less...
Morality is not part of the equation.
1
Still trying to find the bit about free market capitalism in the Constitution. The "promote the general Welfare" bit is right there in the preamble, and Congress's power to regulate commerce is right there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. So still trying to figure out how people who want to regulate commerce in order to promote the general Welfare are called anti-American socialists. Seems like they're just working off of the original text of our founding document. Not entirely sure how that's Un-American.
9
Hear, hear! Warren has been using the phrase "regulated capitalism" but "moral capitalism" has a much better ring to it. Democrats have ceded "morality" to Republicans too long; we need to reclaim it and redefine it.
It seems like a long time since either party talked about small business, but I hope we can create the conditions for them to thrive once again. National health care would be a big step in that direction -- people are more free to start new businesses if they do not rely on their employers for health insurance, and those businesses are more likely to succeed if they don't have to cope with rapacious health insurance costs.
3
Nothing happened to "moral capitalism." It has never existed, and never will.
Pure capitalism assumes that "capital" i.e., money, is a supreme value, and that other factors, such as labor, vital to civilization, are subordinate.
When capitalism takes this form, it simply devalues all other stakeholders. People with lots of capital are ok with that. The rest of us see it with that clarity of vision which only comes when one bends around the lens of greed.
3
Within the experience of people still living today, we had a more equal society, fulfilling American principles. Our elected govt regulated capitalism, instead of the other way around.
With GOP Ike's presidency, the top marginal tax rate on highest incomes was 91%. He was pro labor union, pro social security.
The US govt built the biggest infrastructure project in history, the interstate highway system. Result--jobs, and economic stimulus --new suburbs, schools, shopping centers, and mass buying of homes and cars.
American jobs stayed here for Americans.
State university tuition was low or free.
The middle class expanded as a role model internationally.
About 1/3 of employees were unionized, setting standards also for non union workers, with job security, benefits and pensions.
This hardly sounds like America today. But this was before the GOP campaign to make citizens distrust and fear their govt. That allowed and idealized corporate dominance of politics, and its fulfillment in Citizens United----that S. Court decision equated any traditional limits on corporate money in our elections as anti 1st Amendment Free Speech.
Mitch McConnell's got his way:
"“All Citizens United did was to level the playing field for corporate speech…. We now have the most free and open system we’ve had in modern times.”
Our playing field was set up for corporations to call the shots, while the voice of the citizen majority is stifled and ignored.
2020 Dems have their work cut out.
11
Greed. Neoliberalism. Rugged individualism.
Moral capitalism aka UNIONISM existed when US workers were necessary. Post 1960 (as Europe and Japan recovered from the devastation of WWII) US CEOs moved industries abroad and the Japanese began to dominate the car market, the Chinese the clothing market, and eventually steel (1970s) and even computers until 1990 or so considered too impt. to allow to be produced abroad... and then we got the great Republican Bill Clinton with NAFTA -- and the decontrol of Wall Street... For a while before that there was a general philosophy in some industries that gains might be shared with workers or they protected with medical care and pensions. But hey, winner take al. (Frankly, a few ex-presidents of GE should be at the least imprisoned for fraud. Many a CEO has probably committed fraud.)
and people wonder why their neighbors vote for Trump. (Answer: most policies have followed Republican tenets since Reagan.... Milton Friedman Neoliberalism)
At least Trump had the common sense not to attack coal mining in WVa.
Most people only care about themselves... not their neighbors nor even their own grand children's futures.
1
I'm not sure why the author feels compelled to name what Sanders, Warren, and some others have been calling for, which is to return America to an economic system that works for everyone, not just a few. "Moral capitalism"? Why not "Capitalism with a conscience" as I've referred to it? Or perhaps "Social Capitalism" since what we're talking about is a system that works for the social good?
I'm not sure of any advantage of doing that however. Mr. Kazin's examples don't provide any support that the American public understood the term "moral capitalism" or that it motivated them to demand its adoption. After all, no one who supported the implementation of "trickle down" economics under Reagan used that term to implement the policies that enabled it to transform the economy from one that enabled the largest expansion of the middle class in history, to one where wealth disparity echoes the Robber Baron Era.
No, what is needed is to undo those rapacious policies, and reestablish the ones that provided for everyone to share in the prosperity. Sanders and Warren's ideas are forceful moves in that direction. What is further needed is for the Democrats to reject the Third Way dogma of Clinton that went along with "trickle down" and the assault on the working class. Hilary's defeat was a resounding message to the DNC that has so far fallen on deaf ears. If it weren't for Sanders and Warren, and the popularity of their message, the Democrats would remain in their gilded ignorance.
5
The public does not exist to serve industry, to serve commerce. Industry and commerce exist to serve the needs of the public. Somehow this concept has been turned on its head and the public, the people, are treated as little more than another commodity or resource to be exploited for increased profits.
2
Every single transaction you have ever had with these greedy, rapacious industries has been voluntarily entered into by you. If not, that’s a crime (either fraud or theft.). My tax withholdings, on the other hand, are not.
1
How can progressives invoke "morality" when the very concept has been under attack for 50 years? The slipperiness and quicksand footing of postmodernity has had its own unintended consequences, a post-truth culture and renewed interest in concentration camp facilities being just two examples. The idea of a "moral capitalism" was only operative when the concepts of truth and fixedness were operative.
1
It's not really helpful to propose playing around with abstract terminology as a way to have a decisive impact on the substance of the economic system. There's a fair amount of regulation of large corporations, and an appetite on the part of both liberals and conservatives for more, as recent discussion of big tech show. So, the system is a highly modified version of capitalism. At the same time, no serious 2020 Democratic candidate is proposing government acquisition and management of large corporations, so they aren't really suggesting replacing private property and markets with classical socialism. "Capitalism" and "socialism" are mostly being used to obscure the substance and appeal to emotions, and though I don't think Mr. Kazin is doing that, adding a term like "moral" that, if anything, is even vaguer and devoid of any clearly defined substance is hardly likely to accomplish anything more than affording ideologues another cudgel with which to pummel the opposition. It should be enough to propose specific changes for the good they can do for people instead of searching for the magical sound bite that will transform the nation.
3
@dorjepismo: Many Americans confuse communism and socialism. Communism involves close to universal government ownership of assets. Socialism is strong political involvement by the tax-paying public in the allocation of public spending for the general welfare, in a mixed economy with a substantial private sector.
4
That's a pretty ad hoc definition of "socialism" that doesn't apply well historically or outside the U.S. I mean, Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of all things verbal, but it's usually a decent indication of the rough consensus as to what something means, and its "Socialism" article starts out referring to "social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management." Your comment is exactly what I'm referring to: people say words as if they have some specific meaning, when they really don't, and their emotional freight is what ends up influencing the discussion.
1
I don’t think that’s the textbook, historical definition of socialism.
1
Capitalism is a tool for society, not the other way around. St Thomas Aquinas was supportive of social justice (fair economy) and against usury. Oligarchies, such as ours, are like weeds in a garden: once enshrined by government, they are impossible to uproot without an upheaval, and perhaps, a revolution. I don't trust any Republican or any establishment Democrat to be the instrument of that change. Most major candidates timidly assume they can't win the primaries, let alone an election without becoming beholden to the oligarchs.
A shame: the founding fathers must be so disappointed in us.
5
The Democratic candidate who can best articulate the big picture argument for policy changes necessary to implement moral capitalism, or what I like to call progressive capitalism, will win the 2020 election. At this stage of the campaign, I believe Elizabeth Warren is that candidate, she's connecting the dots in a way that no one else is, and has introduced bold plans to level the playing field and create a system that provides the basis for a healthy capitalism: universal health care, student debt forgiveness and free public college, and child care. These programs will transform the lives of millions of Americans for the better, and allow us to focus more of our energies on the really big issues, like climate change, instead of worrying about health care costs and how we will pay of massive student loans.
4
Lots of us like Elizabeth -- we'll see how she fares after the debate-introduction on NBC on Weds and Thurs.
American female candidates could take a few lessons in presentation from British female PMs. Not sure the Angela Merkel look flies here. Voice is also very important. IMO message is probably secondary and no
Dem is going to be able to accomplish as much as perhaps some of us might hope.
In the end Bernie is quite personable... but his use of the term "socialism" has everyone upset.
3
"moral capitalism" reminds me of another term "compassionate conservatism". Both are oxymorons.
Conservatives a not com passionate; and capitalists are not moral. The American "way of life", son ingrained, is to make as much money as possible, and accumulate as much wealth as possible, and do so by any means possible. Some of the means of doing this is not moral (think of how many scams are performed each day door to door, in the mail, via phone or online). Then you have people like Bernie Madoff.
In the US the biggest fear is that it adopts a moral nature like where capitalism and socialism operate side by side. This requires capitalists to poorer, but provides a better quality of life fro all.
With maybe the exception of Sanders, pretty much the Democrats, like their Republican counterparts, pretty much support, and are supported by, oligarchs and our system of immoral capitalism.
Hard line capitalism, just like hard lien socialism, results in very few people accumulating wealth and power, at the expense of everyone else. Finally, you cannot have moral capitalism, if those who are the capitalists, do not have any morals.
7
@Nick Metrowsky
Great point on a absence of morality in our dog-eat-dog society where the insatiable GREED rules the day.
The path we're on is clearly unsustainable, and will definitely lead to a disastrous consequences for this country and our children and grandchildren.
2
A shorter-run topic vital to today's subject is that SSA payments have exceeded collections of SSA taxes in 2019. The lower labor force participation rates, among males especially, have reduced the subset of taxable workers to target with SSA taxes.
In Sunday's NY Times (June 23, 2019), both NY Times economic analysts Jeff Sommer and N. Gregory Mankiw, address this topic in their Business columns. Mr. Sommer states: "Solidifying Social Security may be the most important personal finance dilemma that most people will ever face." And, Mr. Mankiw adds that:"If higher taxes are the eventual solution to rising government debt, as seems likely, then we are all going to have to pay more. If we don't, our children will."
With the maximum taxable social security amount capped at $132,900 in 2019, obvious steps toward longer run improvements include: increasing the tax rate, increasing the earned income maximum that is subject to tax, and increasing the retirement age. At 6.2%, each employee pays a max of $8,239.80 in 2019 [(0.062 x $132,900) = $8,239.80]. Earned income above $132,900 is not taxed for social security purposes.
[06/24/2019 M 12:35 pm Greenville NC]
4
The Democratic candidates are falling all over themselves to offer up a counter vision to Trump's vague but highly marketable 'Make America Great Again' that will address the concerns that drove voters to Trump in the first place. It's going to be a tough job because far too many voters feel that they have been abandoned by just about everyone and everything. There is no such thing as job security now, even if you try to do things on your own. Government increasingly is perceived as acting in the interests of the rich and powerful (individuals and companies), not the common person. Religion has been politicized.
Trump managed to position himself as a savior to the disenfranchised, even though couldn't care less about them, and he continues to push that lie successfully. As Kazin points out, Democrats need to explain to voters how they can create a decent society. I wish them luck.
3
Regulated capitalism works. Raw capitalism doesn't.
The direction the US is currently headed, with states filling the federal government void of predicable and clear regulation/standardization, is even harmful to the economy.
Car manufacturers would rather take tighter federal emissions than a patchwork of states with different requirements.
Boeing, in the absence of effective regulation, was pressured into taking reckless shortcuts in the development of its 737 MAX by impatient executives with stock options.
The US stopped enforcing antitrust law and now we are paying much higher rates for mobile communication than in the EU, higher air fares, and overly dominant businesses like Amazon, Google and Facebook have become nearly unavoidable.
Customer service of mono/oligopolies has been traded in for extreme low cost automation, process standardization, etc. aimed at shielding corporations from customers and resulting in poor interactions with unempowered agents halfway across the globe, annoying endless IVRs, ...
6
The problem with feel-good terms like "moral capitalism" is that "morals" are actually undefinable--to use an extreme example, the "morals" of ISIS are not exactly the same as for a tenured professor's. It always comes down to the question: who gets to define these "morals?" And, having done the defining, who gets to enforce them?
Don't ask. Don't tell--the motto of the woke left.
2
Kazin's analysis presupposes the notion that capitalism should be saved/reformed, which I suppose is another topic for a different article.
On the notion of "moral capitalism," I'm not sure how you can put the genie back into the bottle.
For the past 4 decades, corporations and management have run the table at the expense of workers. With the decline of labor unions, there appears to be little desire among elected officials to pass legislation that respects workers and validates the work they do via fair wages.
With the influence that corporations and finance have through campaign contributions and funding of think tanks, there is little optimism about controlling/managing the excesses of capitalism.
It is fair easier for elected leaders to bail out Wall Street than Main Street, and I'm not sure how "moral capitalism" will change that current mentalities. It's about choices not visions.
5
In the fall of 1960, my first husband started graduate school at the Sloan School for industrial management at MIT. One of the courses he took emphasized proper inclusion of employees with profit sharing programs. This certainly was a form of "moral capitalism" and where it worked encouraged workers to perform their jobs with much more enthusiasm. Somehow, over time, too many fell for the idea that it was the top brass that made everything profitable and they wouldn't continue to work hard without outsized rewards. We certainly see what that has come to mean as they jet off to Davos, Aspen Institute get-togethers and the Allen and Company conferences in Sun Valley, Idaho. Now we read about how some are using their billions to buy up land all over the West and cut off public access to traditional areas (and often government owned land) for recreation opportunities. Working for a start up tech company has given many people a big leg up with payments in stock, but how many are rewarding their production line workers with stock shares like Chobani's CEO? Time all those "Christians" out there come back to the idea of sharing and caring. It was sad hearing Mike Pence try to blame the lack of soap, toothbrushes and blankets for the separated children at the border on the Democrats. When the government has enough money to pay for Trump's travel to his golf weekends and rallies , but can't provide soap and toothbrushes for the poor, we have sunk lower than in many years.
19
The Democrats fret about being too liberal. Pelosi wants to tone down the radicalism, like the Green New Deal and universal health care. She is a centrist who sees the electorate unfriendly to liberal Democrats. The GOP and their allies are on a determined push against "socialism" and the "left". The US has lurched so far to the right. Corporate billionaires are looked on with awe. Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google have concentrated so much economic power on the internet they are almost too big to regulate in a meaningful way. They pretty much control access to the new market through convoluted manipulation. The election of Trump could well be a watershed where a true capitalist plutocracy takes a permanent position of dominance in the economy and politics of the country.
10
Despite worthy goals and some erudition, Democrats and free market skeptics have yet to articulate the convincing vision of appropriate market regulation that earlier progressives so easily could, because the world has changed in challenging ways, including these. Progressive policies reducing US economic competitiveness are immediately matched by decreased global market share as other economies underprice us. Our noveau riche have abandoned even the veneer of patrician responsibility, and the single-issue hyper-rich like Sheldon Adelson make a mockery of even the idea. About the best we have are Gates/Buffett types who make the right sounds but do nothing domestically, preferring the less controversial targets of world health, a worthy goal but without enlightened industrialized democracies to pursue it over the longer term, even the Gates Foundation will be no more than a sugar high of evanescent altruism. Short attention spans and single issue outrage addiction has made complex solutions impossible. Joe Biden talks about working successfully with long-dead segregationists, whose views he deplored, to get important legislation passed, and is shouted down by angry Black people, the mirror image of angry White people.
If wealthy citizens of conscience want to do good, the first thing is to set up a group of experts with successful practical experience to formulate exactly what progressive policies can work well in today's world. It's not glamorous, but it's critical.
3
Since when can something that is about profiting from others be considered moral? Under which religion or set of ethics?
Capitalism never was moral and never can be. It’s a ruse, similar to religion, that supports the wealthy and keeps the masses pacified. That it offers a path to riches or even comfort for many people does not make it moral.
4
A few questions and observations before we go forth and do battle for moral capitalism.
I’m for Warren. So far as I can tell she does a pretty good job of explaining her proposals in terms of fairness, decency, and sensibility. We can decide for ourselves what seems fair, decent, and sensible; and we can talk about it and learn from other viewpoints when we disagree.
Proposals to reform capitalism that are fair, decent, and sensible are not amoral or immoral. They oppose the idea that corporations should maximize shareholder value and let shareholders use the profits to find other ways to do good. So what do you get with “moral” that you don’t get with narrower terms?
In the context of the Democratic Party and its base one wonders if one gets the need for arbiters who will tell us what’s moral based on their own favored narratives and postmodernist manipulation of broad terms.
When the D base has a Copernican revolution in its moral philosophy by putting dignity and equality at the center and letting us all discuss as equals what that means in various situations, get back to me on moral capitalism.
Till then I prefer narrower accessible terms like fairness, decency, sensibility, dignity, and equality.
2
Dear Professor Kazin,
The prerequisite to having even a wisp of a national philosophical dialogue is having a populace with even a wisp of an attention span. Better luck next generation.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
9
I wish the author had devoted more attention to the urban/rural divides in the U.S. There are serious moral issues about how or even whether capitalism can be made to to sustain thriving communities in the relatively low-population parts of our country that depend on farming or resource-extraction. There are also pragmatic issues for Democrats if they hope to win reliable majorities in the electoral college and the senate and in more state legislatures.
1
This thumbnail distillation leaves me confused. I don’t understand Kazin’s definition of “moral” capitalism. We are now global, not national. I hold more with the vision of Jean François Lyotard—that people will become loyal to corporations, not countries. Over eighty percent of stocks are owned by ten percent of the population, and the average time of possession of any stock, according to Mark Warner's report, is four months. Is that fact good for workers? Good for products? Oxfam reports eight men have as much wealth as the bottom three billion humans. Tax avoidance, offshoring, outsourcing, franchising, automation, monopolizing all combine to disinfranchise workers. Tax breaks and subsidies from cities, states and at the federal level repeatedly are shown to cost more than they provide. Tax law is skewed to create a pernament moneyed class. The military-industrial complex is in full war-profit swing, and most Americans don't have four hundred dollars in the bank. If economic indicators call this a good economy, we need different economic indicators. There's a little more to business these days than morality—if that was ever included. The government is an employer. Isn't it. I'll hail the first news soure that not only has a BUSINESS section, but also has a LABOR section.
8
Adam Smith argued that for the system we call capitalism to work, it MUST be regulated. He rightly predicted that unfettered capitalism would result in monopolies and put economic power in the hands of a few rich and large companies.
So the "morality" is in the regulation, as is the "immorality". Our government determines this through legislation. The economics goes where the legislation pushes it. Right now legislation pushes power to the rich and powerful. If people want something else, they have to vote for legislators who will do the "something else".
Hint: Not the GOP which has always been for the transfer of wealth and power from the poor to the rich.
13
To place emphasis on "morality" and not income is a dodge. Income for the top 1% has gone up 250 % since 1970, while they who who control the banks and the government have seen to it the income of the rest of us has foundered. Both parties have conspired to bring this about.
Bernie Sanders has a clear economic (stress that word) message that calls for a redistribution of wealth in the country. That's the message those who want to bring democracy back to the US should stress, not (ugh) "morality".
4
The only moral of capitalism is making more money. Capitalists can embrace other moral systems on the side, like Christianity, humanism and democracy, but as those fall away we are left with ever purer capitalism.
4
Yes, "Moral Capitalism" is an oxymoron. But until the prisoners of starvation arise to birth a better world (the communist anthem, "The International" paraphrased), it's the contradiction we have to live with.
So this article is a condensed history of that contradiction and the Democratic Party's legislative packages and visionary messaging around the theme.
Why the author dismisses Warren's extensive set of plans as lacking a larger vision is a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps Warren hasn't branded her package properly. I don't think "Moral Capitalism" is very catchy, nor do I think any reference to the New Deal will capture the modern outlook needed to mobilize Millenials and others with historically low participation rates, like African Americans and Latinx. Bernie's poorly explained "Social Democracy" label is a definite loser. Think about it, Warren supporters: "She has a plan for that" may be accurate for now, but it is diffuse and reactive.
5
I agree that the Dem candidates need a higher order message and would argue that just focusing on the "moral" part of your idea is sufficiently differentiating vs. what the Republican Party has devolved into. Real American Values - truth and honesty, kindness, individual freedom to pursue happiness, help thy neighbor, work hard...that will inspire voters!
4
@Maria B, that conflict between the will to be kind or cruel is the real battle now, and the restraint of capitalism is but one aspect of it.
4
Corporate capitalism is a government that has its purpose to make sure business succeeds and is protected. The citizens needs are very secondary. Usually it needs a oligarchy , government controlled by the corporate industry, to succeed. This is what we have. 400 people have more wealth then 60% of population, poverty rising, health care dismal, and recent 1.5 trillion tax cut for business.
Democratic -social government is where business are left alone to prosper but rules and regulations are enforced to assure no cheating. Government takes over the responsibility of health care, retirement assurance, education for all, infrastructure repair, and makes sure corporation platy fair. This is what many countries have and they are doing very well.
5
With the move of main-stream Republicans to the far fringes of the fanatical ultra-right-wing and their acceptance of total control by corporations the Dems have been forced to move further and further right in order to attract any money at all. As we know, Bill Clinton was center-right, as was Obama, as are the "leaders" of the current crowd of Dem presidential candidates. A few sops of liberalism were thrown out to pacify the democratic voter but with the Senate and Presidency dependent on the gross imbalance of small-population ultra-right-wing states for their majorities in the chamber and the electoral college, and the defacto policy of Senate Repubs to ignore all Democrat proposals, to the point of stealing Supreme Court seats, there is no hope that any rational polices that would actually benefit the American People will be enacted in the foreseeable future.
4
Moral Capitalism died when reagan won in 1980 and he and the republican party proceeded to destroy our government to kill moral capitalism. They had come to believe that they should be able to make unlimited profits and that their responsibility to their fellow Americans did not include seeing to their employment. This view is a knock on effect of slavery which created irrational expectations of profitability.
The correct model isn't about "redistribution of wealth". The correct model of moral capitalism encourages the wealthy to create long term benefits paying jobs and investment in new inventions to create more long term benefits paying jobs to keep the people of the nation employed and able to support themselves by using the tax code and regulation of the movement of money. This method has the advantage of giving the people who work some of the wealth the owners have made in the form of wages but it also makes the owners more money so they aren't losing anything by "redistributing" their wealth in the form of intentionally creating jobs and new products.
Another thing about wealth under that regulatory system is that it was not easily made liquid. So on paper the owner was worth X but that owner did not have X as ready to spend cash which was to the benefit of the nation and the people.
2
We have seen that our brand of capitalism has evolved over time and requires periodic adjustments in order to fulfill the promise of the Constitution. We have such significant programs as social security, medicare, public education, labor legislation, civil rights legislation, primarily because, at critical times in our history, market actions were seen as needing adjustments of one kind or another. These adjustments, in the form of legislation or regulation, were constitutionally permitted and congressionally implemented. The fact that our government is a large employer and purchaser of goods and services is clear recognition that markets alone, will not suffice to meet all the demands of a growing, vibrant, and equitable society.
As long as such programs, legislation and regulation are allowed to grow and change with the changing times and conditions, and as long as Americans continue to believe in constitutional principles and our form of government, we can use capitalism and its principles as an economic engine that serves our constitutional purposes.
So let's not abandon capitalism. Let's continue to take advantage of the positive elements of the theory (including freedom of enterprise, competition to provide efficiency and meet consumer demands/needs, and rewards for creativity) and continue to meld the forces of capitalism with the forces of constitutional premises designed to "promote the general welfare." Yes, I like the concept of Constitutional Capitalism.
1
@Norm Budman
A quibble; There is no such thing as "market action".
Anything that happens in the market is caused by a person taking an action.
The market is like our Constitutional Republic a conceptual entity that only exists as a set of rules.
It matters for how things are described and discussed. Using false euphemisms actual;ly leads to false comnclusions, hence the destruction wrought by the falsehood "government is the problem". How can a conceptual entity be a problem? It cannot, but no one ever bothered to point that out and by pointing that out destroy the reagan/republican lie used to destroy the moral capitalism we used to have.
Moral Capitalism as a course for the U.S.?
The mere fact one would feel the need to add the word 'moral' in front of 'capitalism' to arrive at 'moral capitalism' calls into question capitalism, whether it's something separate from morality. On the other hand, that one would feel the need to drag the word 'morality' and to associate it with what today is considered the direct opposite of capitalism, namely communism, suggests morality has never really existed and will not exist until 'communism'.
The entire dilemma suggests humans do not know what morality is anymore if they ever did, that as humans become better at conceiving Ends and Means (optimum polity and method of getting there) they have increasingly to convince the public of the 'morality' of the course of action. In the U.S. the right wing is typically associated with capitalism, but it finds itself constantly trying to underpin it with religion, to have it held within the rose of religion. The left on the other hand dispenses with religion for a secular humanism, but has to drag morality away from religion and capitalism to alternate economic schemes, most famously the degrees of socialism and communism.
The entire effect is to call into question morality, what humans should fundamentally do, and forces us to envision complex schemes of thought and action 'beyond morality', to indeed improve on 'morality' if possible. It's like a chess player losing faith in favored actions and forced into new positions.
I believe it all goes back to the creation of the MBA. Founded at Harvard in the early 1900s, the underpinning philosophy of the program was based in large part on the adversarial legal system; in other words, replace "client" with "corporate interest."
A good attorney will fight for their client regardless of guilt or innocence. Similarly, a good corporate exec will fight for every penny of shareholder value regardless of the impact of those actions on society. Protecting society is not the MBA holders job - maximizing shareholder value is their mission to the exclusion of all other concerns.
MBA programs teach a ruthless, free market, greed is good worldview that precludes all moral considerations. If it's good for the shareholders then ultimately it's good for everyone. The U.S. business has exported this toxic worldview globally and you can see the results.
4
@Garrick....I worked in research for a major pharmaceutical company. It was a great place to work when it was still family run. Things changed when the "Harvard Suits" took over. I have always thought the MBA business model was flawed in that they gave greater value to short term profits over long term gains, even though long term gains may produce greater overall returns. It is not Capitalism that is at fault but rather the "I want it now" attitude.
2
I’m really not sure what is the point of this author’s piece. Obviously a Warren candidacy encompasses the specific policies that our society needs to achieve the “moral capitalism” espoused. Is it that we need a catchy term for banding sake?
I think the vast majority of Americans understand the concept of a game rigged against us by Republicans on behalf of their wealthy benefactors.
8
Republicans, the rich and corporate are the problem here, not Democrats.
Your romp through American economic history obfuscates steadily growing influence, the creeping power of money per se. Power which brought us where we are today, a brutish society in which most people approve the fake old chestnut "The business of business is business".
A culture formerly embracing the values of equity and good works left all that behind for the cash, ironically, at just the moment fake Christianity demands dominion over American life.
An abomination; until recently it was unique to America's perversely self-destructive capitalism. It hid, as well, the collapse of "free markets" decades ago.
Best of all from a Republican perspective: it cemented forever a picture of those in need as laggards and welfare queens, and the corresponding fiction that business is the hero of America.
Democrats are happy to support and encourage business, its the realization of insatiable lust for money that drove some away. If anything they were late to the anti-American-business game.
You recognize halcyon days of labor corresponding, as you know, to an era of the biggest growth, the most innovation, the development of superior national infrastructure. An era of 90% tax rates. The era crashed to an end at the behest Wall Street and Republicans.
Your problem is on the Right.
Capitalists know their first job the well-being of the nation and the work force. America is no capitalist nation.
5
Mr. Kazin has a useful historical perspective but he's missing the most crucial ingredient. The law. When plunder becomes the way of life for the powerful, it creates a legal system to authorize it and a moral code to glorify it. For over four decades we've had a race to the bottom by way of deregulation, desupervision, and decriminalization. The law has ceased to exist. We don't need new laws as Ms. Warren has continually projected during her in the moment "we've got an app for that..." variation. No, Ms. Warren, we need to enforce the laws we have by reconstituting the regulatory body that has been decimated by both parties. Enforcement is critical through which the facts are made public and the villains at the top are discredited for what they've actually done. This isn't some murky "Tax the rich" or "the system is rigged" because it is! But how? Why? For whom? Who was involved and why? Bernie, Elizabeth, and most particularly Kamela have a very keen understanding of all the above. Why haven't they laid it all out? There in lies the answer to the question Mr. Kazin prognosticates.
7
@Patrick Lovell
I suggest Richard Rothstein’s book The Color of Law, if you haven’t already read it. It answers your questions.
1
@Karen Genest thank you! Just ordered.
The word “Moral” was co-opted by the GOP (as in Moral Majority in the 1970’s) to apply to issues of private morality that aren’t even the government’s business. Despite the idea of “Moral Capitalism” as described here making perfect sense and desperately needed in our times, I am not sure how the word would play with the Democrats. On the other hand, in the heartland and the with working class swing voters - maybe it would have the right ring. At any rate we have candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, who certainly know what it is all about.
2
@JO
Agreed! We need to take morality back. For too long it has been defined as the use of government force to regulate private behavior -- prostitution, marriage, abortion, etc. We need to redefine it as government protection for the little guy -- health care, decent jobs, decent housing, etc.
1
Kazin is making an argument for rhetorical coherence. It is clear that his sympathies are with a Warren or maybe even a Sanders candidacy, but this is where his critique is aimed as well. We can’t win if we don’t package our political aims under a unifying political message that emphasizes belonging. This is a real challenge in our era of global capitalism—an era marked by the expansion and diffusion of interests across ethnic and regional lines. Any rhetoric of belonging also must account for these expansions. A “moral” capitalism is no longer simply a nationalist endeavor. This can be a great opportunity to create meaningful international progressive coalitions across broad areas, even if it is centered in American progressivism, but it will only look like Trump, part Two if it continues to push discretely nationalist themes. Warren is definitely working on it, though I see her recent foray into “economic patriotism” as problematic. Here’s to the articulation of a genuine 21st century civic vision that leaves no workers out—not those disaffected whites in the industrial Midwest, not those immigrants to America of many ethnic backgrounds, not even those toiling to make our affordable goods in foreign countries.
3
Isn't moral capitalism what Andrew Yang is promoting, through his plans for "human-centered capitalism" and universal basic income?
GDP doesn't take into account the work of parenting or mentoring or volunteering, and yet we know those matter a great deal. Yang wants to change how we measure success and honor those, such as single mothers, with $1000/month.
5
There has never been a 'moral capitalism'.
There can never be such.
Even Adam Smith began to set requirements that capitalists never be allowed to meet as they would inevitably begin to corrupt 'the marketplace'.
4
@Paul Overholt
Adam Smith, and every theorist of capitalism, had an app for that: regulation.
Regular, rigorous, reliable.
Just the thing Reagan's Republican perversion of capitalism went after first.
The result was predictable as, despite claims to the contrary, our brilliant, innovative monsters of business slavishly followed the hundred-year-old play-book literally step by misbegotten step.
Nothing wrong with capitalism as it was supposed to be (like Obamacare), the problem is the American crooks and gangsters (and Mitch) who run the place.
Patrick, above, employs the NRA argument against Elizabeth Warren, "We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the laws we have."
We've seen repeatedly for two years our laws are impotent, a tissue of forlorn hope in the face of men with no moral compass, no concern for their country or fellows, no sense they owe allegiance to any but their bankers. Who are also crooked.
If we survive this, we'll need more than a do-over.
We need to arm ourselves against the crooks and maggots of business and Wall Street. We need to not mistake big money, big houses, nice suits, political connections for honesty.
We need to go back and do capitalism as it was supposed to be done, and treat the rich like the spoiled toddlers they invariably are.
While we're at it let's not conflate 'church' with 'Christian'; maybe use the income from abolishing their tax breaks to educate and care for those they've neglected and brutalized for so long.
Capitalism must be regulated to be a benefit to the society. The regulations is what would make it moral, or not. Few would say that the Scandinavian countries are not capitalist (Ikea, Bluetooth), but they are highly regulated. And the people get healthcare, education, retirement, living wages, 4 weeks paid vacation by law and annual budget surpluses, plus get named "Happiest Country on Earth".
(Norwegian oil is socialist, no question).
11
Moral capitalism is an oxymoron, it exists to be reformed, unreformed, which has been its pattern for well over 100 years. It is the power of money that pervades our culture, rooted in government, education, church, all influenced heavily by our market economy of concentrated wealth. As for Walmart being a monopoly, it has economic power because of efficiency and scale over many years with prices helpful to the working class. Where I live, there are 5 separate grocery chains within a 5 mile radius of Walmart.
I don't think you can use "moral" and "capitalism" in the same sentence. There is nothing moral about a system built upon destruction of resources, the planet, people, societies and governments for the sole purpose of profits. But it is the system we have and we need to tame it as best we can but haven't been doing a very good job this past 40 or 50 years. Elizabeth Warren talks about Democratic or regulated capitalism which is probably as close as we will ever get to "moral capitalism".
5
Sadly at least 4 decades of endless propaganda about the wonders of the so called "free market" curing all have worked, and our culture is nearly completely brainwashed and unable to consider common sense solutions that go against this brainwashing. Even if it works.
7
There was another Roosevelt, a Republican (although cut from a different mold from today's GOP), that took on Big Business and Institutions and who argued, for government protection of human welfare and property rights, but he also argued that human welfare was more important than property rights.
Today's Crony Capitalism needs to be remade ... the Republicans and some Corporate Democrats will be against that ...
We need an economic system that looks out for the common citizen.
8
Capitalism is an amoral economic system. Coining a term like "Moral Capitalism" is like the childhood game "If I were king".
If we want our society to be more "just" we can do that through the Congress. Laws are the structure which supports justice. As a country, however, we are far from being in agreement as to what is "just". Everything costs money which we, as a society, don't even want to spend on roads and bridges which almost everyone agrees that we need. The 2020 election has produced ever more grandiose rhetoric comprising promises that a president can not deliver and about which the populace cannot agree. We cannot cure all of society's ills at once. If we put aside grandiosity and tackle issues one at a time we will make more actual change.
4
Adam Smith and the classical economists believed capitalism was more moral than mercantilism. But it took the days of FDR, the rise of the Social Gospel and even Catholic Social Thought (despite its corporatist and semi Fascist nature) to urge a more moral capitalism.
1
@n1789
Adam Smith wrote about a lot of stuff that is socialist in today's view of capitalism. For example, he believed that society had a moral duty to pass to the next generation a society that is better than the one the people inherited. He believed that the rich should pay more in taxes to help maintain the health of the society that made them wealthy. Nobody believes this today. Today we believe the rich should hollow out the base of society's infrastructure so that the next generation will get as little as possible.
5
I think the two words do not go easily together, moral and capitalism. In my view we will depend on laws to provide us with anything moral in capitalism. Do not get me wrong. I am a capitalist because it lifts people out of poverty and brings us all a better life. Unless, though, we did not have a strong labor movement with its demand for fair wages, I am afraid most of us would not have the middle class life style we have today. If we had not had FDR's New Deal and then Lyndon Johnson's addition of Medicare, I would be a poverty stricken old man today. I like the proposals of the liberal Democratic contenders for the wealthy to pay more for what they get, so that capitalism becomes more moral.
1
@Harold Johnson...Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It is people to whom the application should always be applied.
1
Honestly? I don't think Mr. Kazin has listened to Elizabeth Warren closely enough.
6
Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other systems. For those envying the Scandinavian countries social capitalism, you should take note of their very small, homogenous populations with strong shared values built deeply into the culture. It is also worth noting how relatively small amounts of immigration are seriously challenging their model and exposing a fraying of their increasingly secular humanist morality. Tribalism is alive and well just under the surface of even the most progressive countries in the world.
The role of government is not to legislate morality. Government must protect liberty and act as a fair referee of the markets to protect against the excesses of capitalism. Morality can only be taught on an individual level. If you want a better society, you need to produce better people.
2
@JG I fully agree with your basic thesis. But how do we grow more responsible and better citizens? We have an anti-abortion group that apparently is unwilling to provide access to adequate and available means of birth control. Our religiosity suggests this condones out of wedlock sex, which happens. The consequence is we have 50% of childbirths, more or less out of wedlock, funded by Medicaid. That might tell us something as to why we have high crime rates, underachieving students and our other social ills. It is upbringing in the home or place of residence, the environment that is predictive of "better" citizens. This doesn't coexist when poverty, drugs, slums are prevalent.
1
Implicit in your comment is that there is a strong correlation between poverty and immorality. I am no fan of poverty, but having come from a poor background myself and now living in one of the wealthiest cities in the world, morality has nothing to do with personal wealth and everything to do with cultural values that place the highest value on truth, sacrifice, and the ability to learn to love and value oneself and through that learn how to love and value others (the golden rule).
This is not the cartoonish version of Religion that is a straw man for the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins. It is the most profound wisdom passed on to us as religion with a small “r”. It is the observations over the long experiment of human history written down by the Einsteins and Newtons of ages past. Yet, we neglect it as the primitive musing of shepherds.
And for the record, there is nothing I can find in little “r” religion that advocates against birth control. Abortion, I think we can all agree is a much more morally complicated topic. No one should feel happy about an abortion in my opinion and I think that is the case for most people. The calculus we are struggling with as a society is how to determine when this very serious procedure to end a pregnancy is warranted by the circumstances surrounding the situation. We have determined in our courts that only the mother can truly decide (feels like an echo of Solomon).
There was "moral capitalism" when we were in an ideological battle with communism -not before nor after.
2
Can basing political structure on greed ever moral? Who can believe that an investor would decide one morning he is rich enough?
1
Mike throws out Marxist constructs, “moral capitalism” and “democratic socialism”. One the one side is a group of people putting together a “big” business. If the group fails, who cares? But if the group succeeds, then Mike conjures up another group of people, “strict regulators” who can tell the successful group what to do and how to do it—most importantly force the regulators superior knowledge upon the successful group. Thus far, as best as I can tell, Mike’s proposed solution brings only ruin to both groups.
@Scott G Baum Jr
Ruin to both groups. Like we see in Scandinavia that not only has the happiest countries on Earth, but also run at a budget surplus almost every year. Real world.
The problem with capitalism is that sooner or later the rich end up with 99% of the money and 99% of the people share the remaining 1%.
2
"Moral capitalism" is an oxymoron, like "just slavery". The problem is capitalism at its roots, which is inherently exploitative and pits people against one another. You can't "fix" it; it must be removed, leaf and root, and replaced by a radically different system. Democratic socialism seems a good choice. Not ameliorated private ownership, not even government ownership, but public ownership of the means of production. Wealth is a social function that must be controlled socially.
5
@JStrom: "Capitalism" is a system that provides for universal economic exchanges via a fiat currency that has a time value which is monetized by lending it to others and/or investing it in businesses. It is up to political regulation to apply negative feedback to the tendency of wealth to beget power to beget more wealth.
1
How can a historian cheer Jackson’s veto of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States? Most historians and economists believe it was part of the many ways Jackson destabilized the banking system, leading to the Panic of 1837. Unless Democrats want to claim their “moral capitalism” leads to speculative bubbles and crippling economic depressions, this is not a good example.
3
What is it with American liberal politicians, academics and other intelligentsia, constantly trying to put a square peg in a round hole: capitalism (moral, just, fair, etc, or otherwise) is just incompatible with social justice and, in this era, ending the threat of climate change. There is no alternative within the limits of a private market system to neoliberalism, and the constant growth of units of capital and returns on investment from the private investment communities that drive the system.
Time to ask if an alternative social system, that looks to end the domination of private ownership of financial and material resources, and looks to democratically plan them, in the interests of those who do most of the work in our society. It doesn't require the complete elimination of markets. It does require a different way of looking at our society, and a willingness to consider the possibilities of democratic socialism.
9
@Herman Rosenfeld
I would add that Kazin's historical narrative leaves out critical elements of socioeconomic context. For example, the New Deal unfolded the way it did (partially, but crucially)because critical elements of capital and theorists attached to it, sought to strengthen consumption patterns and a role for the state in regulation and fostering this. In today's context, there are no segments of capital that can or would demonstrate a material interest in limiting the ability of private investors to move where they wish; dramatically changing the regimes of work and allowing workers to form independent and collective institutions to represent their interests (EG, independent unions with collective political capacities) and state ownership and democratic controls over key elements of the economy.
@Herman Rosenfeld....."capitalism (moral, just, fair, etc, or otherwise) is just incompatible with social justice".....I disagree. I think capitalism is nothing more than a tool. It is how people use it that is at issue. It is the people who are moral or immoral.
"Moral Capitalism". I bet George Carlin is spinning in his grave this morning muttering "Jumbo Shrimp".
7
Roosevelt was not a strong market supporter.
He was a classic statist-collectivist progressive, whose rampant abuses were masked by World War 2.
@Objectivist
Employment rates during the FDR years were way better than before he took office.
And the market economy is not the national economy. Now Hoover, there was the strong market supporter.
@Objectivist
I can see that evidence-based discourse is not your forte. Annual growth in real GDP per capita over the FDR years PRIOR to the U.S. WWII involvement in 1941 .. was far higher than any other President since his tenure.
Imagine that for a "statist-collectivist progressive" ...
3
@JH & @gratis
History much ?
He came into office at the very bottom of the deepest depression this nation has ever seen.
That there was growth in the GDP is no real miracle, as most of it was government sponsored works projects.
There was huge expansion of the welfare state, and the economy was so heavily regulated under his regime that his own advisors quit.
His centralization of federal government power was an abomnation to anyone who cherishes individual liberty.
He was an enemy of the Constitution.
The unicorn of “Moral Capitalism” was killed by the same “loss of ethics” that Earl Shorris writes about regarding ‘politics’ in his Harper’s essay “American Vespers”.
Moral Capitalism was also killed when the “Masters of the Universe” on Wall Street, when they found that they could use the dark magic of ‘creative destruction’ to game the system and generate more faux-profits by hiding, disguising, and burying ‘negative externality costs’ on “others”; our government, the people, and the world — than they could by building useful and productive products and services.
4
"Capitalism implodes into fascism" Moral capitalism that's a good one. No fighting in the war room.
3
Moral Capitalism? How about 'good wars' or 'just say no'? Life is too short for rhetorical nonsense!
3
Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other systems.
It never existed
3
Clearly an oxymoron.
3
Moral Capitalism? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Could be an ideal but since when have ideals become reality?
3
If you think a firm, take your pick, cares about you or anybody except their shareholders, then you, reader, are living in a dream world. In order for society to be decent, they have to be forced to do things they abhor. And the Democrats need to jettison the Rockefeller republicans, especially those named Clinton, from decision making positions. Biden, the senator from the credit card companies, fits that description.
6
There's no such thing. Capitalism is killing the planet and must be reigned in.
3
Capitalism is broken.
4
@ari pinkus
It was always broken - its insistence on unlimited growth on a finite planet.
5
@Plennie Wingo
That is the American mistake. Capitalism is not for stupid people, such as our business heroes.
Capitalism insists that maintaining the environment (social, material, economic) that allows it to prosper is the first priority.
Because, many people say, if the world that supports you collapses you will too.
American business says "Gimme all of that. If you run out I'll go somewhere else."
Which any sentient being realizes is not true. They are in the best imaginable place already, and they're willing to bring it down to grab the last penny.
Mao was right, American business is a suicidal fool.
And Democrats are right, American business today is neither moral nor capitalist.
There are a number of voters who will vote against their own economic interests in favor of moral or social issues. Obama simplified it as “God and guns.” The same kind of people who believe pro wrestling is a real sport and DJT is a genius.
2
I guess moral capitalism is like compassionate conservativism. Likely an oxymoron.
So, many important parts of our society seem to be devolving into a immoral abyss.
Our federal government is a insider millionaire's club.
Our economy has become a libertarian dream of everyone for themselves, we all love uber and it being such a deal.
We have a social safety net with enough gaping holes in it to drive Air Craft carrier through.
We shot first and ask questions second. Across the country we have a police state shooting more innocent unarmed Americans than armed Americans.
We have militias threatening our elected officials in the name of the constitution.
We litter, we pollute, we waste gas driving SUVs alone, we scoff at public transportation, that's for the poor and working class.
We are inching closer to a failed separation of religion and government in this country as immoral laws are passed in our state houses and possibly soon by our Supreme religious court.
We lost our moral compass a decades ago.
7
To meet this goal you would first have to close down the economic university departments funded by billionaires who extoll disaster capitalism, trickle down to the nieve.
In fact you would have to change the mindset of America. Humility. As well every Entrepeneur would need to be taught ethics in business. Ha ha!
2
I find it paradoxical as a lifelong Christian that my evangelical brothers and sisters in the faith railed (commendably) against "godless communism" but are silent against the injustices of amoral, aka "godless" capitalism. The writings of libertarian Ayn Rand, the godmother of the modern libertarian movement and a demigod among many contemporary conservatives, are virulently anti-Christian. The earliest Christians willingly shared their wealth among themselves out of love. Where is the love in today's capitalist system or for that matter, among today's conservatives?
8
I have several "take-aways" on this article. The first is that we, as a nation, have lost our sense of community, but rather look at ourselves as being factions, with "winners" and "losers." Short-term greed appears to have taken over, blinding us to what formerly held us together as, in effect, a commonwealth.
We've allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked by easy lies and exaggerations ("A rising tide raises all boats," is untrue, for some are raised far more than others.)
Republicans divide us to profit their sponsors, domestic and foreign. Democrats need to unite us. Sadly, the media reports polls rather than substance, and treats elections like a horse race rather than discussing the nation's pressing needs, as was done in my youth by only four television networks and radio broadcasters under the Fairness Doctrine.
10
How moral can an economic system be that depends on profit generated by the exploitation of people and the environment? Too, how democratic is a society where the wealthy control our lives through the politicians they own?
In my view, capitalism is inherently wasteful and destructive. And unless we severely limit individual wealth, we will continue living in an oligarchy.
4
Fine words and worthy ideas. But moral capitalism requires morality, which in terms of racial, financial, and even health equity, America is peddling backwards fast under our fearless leader, a trend that will be hard to reverse quickly.
8
What happened to moral capitalism? Hmmmm. Maybe it got replaced by moral bankruptcy?
9
Capitalism is an excellent tool but a terrible Master. In our present situation the Dollar is King. And our SCOTUS has given it the power over our government. If the only goal is making money then there is no moral imperative for society.
4
Moral Capitalism and Democratic Socialism? Dear me! Both capitalism and socialism are so sullied by their recent history and ongoing manifestations that we might as well add National Socialism to the mixed bag of terms. Let's just take Kazin's term: decent society. Let's not obfuscate that with neologisms.
2
There are more than a few ways to corrupt the soul while making it big.
Venture Capitalism is the classic reason a human being would be against Unregulated Capitalism.
I see that the out of work Steel worker wants to blame the LGBTs.
No, when a viable functioning company is bought, and the assets sold, there will be a bunch of workers without a job.
It is not the Democrats turning on Capitalism; it was the right-wingers turning on Government, and it's role to regulate Capitalism. It can never be okay to sell a bottle of water in a time of emergency for $100.00.
Without Government regulations, there would be $100 bottles of water.
Government was never the problem, the problem has always been "greed".
Stop the lying. We want our Country back.
Mitch McConnell and wife are corrupt.
4
Elizabeth Warren does set out such a vision. Pay more attention.
2
"Democrats today desperately need to articulate a similarly cleareyed, buoyant determination to build a decent society."
This is exactly what Bernie Sanders did in his magnificent recent speech on what he calls "Democratic Socialism" -- what FDR was aiming for in his last State of the Union -- a moral capitalism.
Please don't just settle for the media's interpretations of Sanders's speech. At only 45 minutes long, the whole speech is well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbN9OD83f5I
1
Senator Sanders, as a politician, is fatally flawed. The term "socialist" is too fraught in this country with historical baggage and wild-eyed and rabid political recriminations.
The irony is that Americans support much of what he stands for, but so much damage has been done to that term that as long as he embraces the descriptor it doesn't matter how many well-reasoned speeches he gives on the topic, he hasn't a chance in this election.
The term "Moral Capitalism" is a nice way to package similar ideas and is much more digestible to the elements of the electorate Democrats must appeal to if we hope to end the current national nightmare.
Congratulations on wasting our time with this classic oxymoron.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
1
"Moral capitalism," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Whoops, I forgot about a "just war."
1
I thought it was Republicans who embraced 'morals' or is that just what they preach but don't practice.
1
Interesting column, but it misses the mark. Paul Krugman warns that macroeconomics is not a morality play. Likewise, Kazin misses the mark thinking politics and policy can be guided by morality - "moral capitalism"?
Society is guided by who rules. In this case - Who Rules America? Answer that question and who's morality is setting policy follows. Hint - it ain't the 99%.
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu
1
Governments evolved to define and enforce a floor under public conduct to counteract the tendencies of bullies and psychotics drive out the good and nurture the bad in any human pursuit.
Political Identity politics as a priority strategy for Democratic candidates running for national office has been proven to be a losing strategy. Just ask Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton with his "It's the economy stupid," emphasized the direction future Democrats should prioritize their campaign strategies around. Barack Obama did exactly that. Al Gore did so also but then he had Ralph Nader splitting that vote away from him. This isn't rocket science or at least it shouldn't be for Democrats.
2
The answer is simple - putting aside the fact that “moral capitalism” may simply be an oxymoron, the long history of immoral behaviour by corporations and businesses of all sizes (Exhibit A: the sleazy huckster now living in The White House) is ample proof that “moral capitalism, if it ever actually existed, is now merely magical thinking.
Capitalism needs to have some morality, if it doesn't regulate and control itself then you have populist revolutions and Marxism take over. Donald Trump is actually the first step on that path, relying on the "opiate of the masses" (along with guns) to keep supporters in line. Once that fails, then it gets very ugly very quickly. Regardless of capitalism, communism or socialism, power and money corrupt everything without some moral control.
1
There is no good answer to the question whether capitalism is good or bad because it is both. To get an answer that makes sense, you have to divide capitalism into creative, and destructive or manipulative capitalism, and weigh each separately.
The lines between these two types can be blurry, but the general picture is not. One kind creates the things that people want and need, and the other kind hoards them and/or wrecks them.
Creative capitalism should be encouraged, and destructive or manipulative capitalism should be taxed and legislated out of existence.
"Moral capitalism" is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century. Right along side 'political integrity', 'business ethics' and 'religious values'.
The need is for an administration that can mix regulation with innovation and vision in a way that allows a fair distribution of the rewards. Fair distribution, however, may not always mean equal distribution.
To achieve this requires a shift in education, emphasising civic, rather than individual responsibility and moral obligation over gain.
For how long have we been hearing Democrats utter platitudes about "leveling the playing field", and sticking up for people who "play by the rules", yet nothing ever changes. Joe Biden just assured a room of wealthy donors that they will be safe under him, their vilification unwarranted. That was also the essence of Hillary's handsomely remunerated message to Goldman Sachs.
I'd much rather seer a Warren or Sanders in office, at least seeing how much they can rock the boat, than a Biden or Buttigieg who see their jobs as coddling the markets. As we've seen, the "markets" are now completely decoupled from the economy most of us experience. They are no longer about investment in reality but just casinos where ever more exotic instruments are gambled upon. It always strikes me as absurd when Trump touts a new Dow high. How many of his supporters even have a dime in Wall Street? Why would they be exultant? The only contact the market has with the brick-and-mortar world is that when it crashes, everyone except the actual malefactors is expected to pick up the pieces.
'
3
To understand conservatism, you have to go back to Social Darwinism (The honestly held belief that the strong survive and the weak deserve whatever befalls them.) This, is at the heart of conservatism. It is why Republicans have fought, desperately, to deny healthcare for tens of millions of Americans and make the cost high enough that many more millions cannot use the healthcare they have. It is why they want to end all social supports, would privatize all education, if they could, would make unions illegal if they could. Social Darwinism, and by extension, Conservatism, is the belief that the weak will suffer and it's proper to take moral satisfaction in that condition. That is why Moral Capitalism is an oxymoron in a Conservative universe.
7
In 2016, the most successful capitalist society on earth, after America, China, and Japan--i.e., Germany--had had in place virtually every "socialist" program the "radical" Bernie Sanders was proposing so "shockingly" and "unrealistically" in capitalist America. Yet Germany's capitalist outperformed America's that year, with slightly higher growth and slightly lower unemployment than ours. Even while also providing free college tuition, "Medicare for all," etc. Average Americans have got to wake up and realize that they could have their beloved capitalism and a better life too. Hint: the rich in Germany pay higher taxes. What a shock! What an outrage!
27
Great piece. I understand the qualms of some readers about the phrase "moral capitalism," but it may be a good time to take both words back from the fundamentalists (faux free market and religious fundamentalists alike) and claim them for ourselves in the name of every kind of democracy and equality.
6
History is a guide, but not so good at coming up with new answers.
There's definitely a need for some kind of morality in capitalism today; the flavors of the day seem to be vulture capitalism and disaster capitalism, both of which are essentially negative at the core. They treat the economy like a mining company treats an ore deposit: extract all the wealth as cheaply as possible, then walk away leaving the costs and clean up for others.
Combined with the idea that the only principle that matters is increasing shareholder value, and the lack of any real anti-trust action for decades, the end result is an economy that is using up the planet and creating record levels of inequality. It's a myopia that sees the world only in terms of maximizing profit as quickly as possible NOW. It is blind to the lessons of the past and the challenges of the future.
The Chinese are using State capitalism to invest in infrastructure at home and abroad, tying emerging economies into their economic sphere, locking down natural resources around the world, and inserting their technology systems into the core of businesses everywhere.
Meanwhile, climate change is re-writing the planet; the rules are changing even as the US attempts to ignore them under GOP rule. Moral capitalism has to be incorporated into Survival Capitalism (if there is such a thing) while there's still time for anything except collapse into barbarism and looting.
Maybe the moral capitalism we need should look at Socialism?
4
@Larry Roth: Public sectors are inherently socialistic. Democracy ostensibly allows taxpayers input to how the money raised is spent via elected representatives.
@Steve Bolger: my represenatives don't share my politics, in fact they are all rabid Trump supporters. Alexander will be replaced by Diane Black, another wonderment of the Right.
The reason why democratic socialism and what I'll call "outright" Socialism have the level of appeal that they have these days, esp. among the young, is simple: Capitalism failed in 2008, it hit the young esp. hard, and neither party had the will to do anything meaningful about it.
The Republican Party will never embrace the type of "moral capitalism" that Mr. Kazin espouses, so the Democratic Party must, if such a system, not just of the economy but of governance, is to take root. This mean enacting laws that prioritize protecting the less-fortunate many from the excesses of the fortunate few, and putting real teeth in enforcement, not being afraid to go after any institution, no matter how prominent or generous in terms of political donations. The Obama Administration fell disappointingly short on this front, and forget the Trump Administration.
If the Democratic Party does not take seriously the role of promoting a moral version of capitalism, then eventually democratic socialism, perhaps even "outright" Socialism, will come to be seen as a legitimate mainstream alternative. Indeed, one of them may in time become the only option to maintain public order if the more dire predictions from the coming wave of automation (i.e. resulting in a scale of mass employment, cutting across multiple economic sectors, making the Great Depression seem mild by comparison) come to pass.
8
There is no right to business. In fact its Congress's duty is to regulate commerce. It is something that is almost always overlooked or, more truthfully, we are distracted from: "We the people" allow businesses to exist because we believe it will benefit us or our community in some way. If the community or society does not believe it to be benefit we do not have to grant its application to exist.
This is why companies are fighting so hard to be "citizens" and to have the same or greater rights granted to them as to persons. And right now, they are winning those rights at the expense of those originally granted rights as persons.
5
"...build a decent society", with "moral capitalism or a powerful equivalent." I think Democrats are already trying to do so. Isn't that the Green New Deal?
3
@L. The green new deal is a business plan- it decrees a new set of rules for business to follow. The government can't make it happen, they can only change the rules and adjust the subsidies and incentives from the industries in place now to the new. Normally we should all get behind an idea that would make us energy independent, theoretically improve our environment and make us more efficient. However, common sense has never guided most political decisions lately. It will be a big fight to change government policy with entrenched industries having a lot of money, plus the military/industrial complex constantly itching to pick fights in the middle east to keep oil flowing cheaply and protect their interests.
Moral capitalism on the surface would appear to be an oxymoron, if you look at capitalism as defined by the robber barons of the 19th century and in recent decades by the Ayn Rand driven GOP. In their eyes, capitalism is the accumulation of wealth, the concentration of wealth, by those most deserving to receive it, and if you don't, if you are one of the 'losers', you should try harder to accumulate it. It is a world where wealth is not about meeting needs, but rather in many cases simply attaining more and more wealth is the goal.
These days it is manifested around "shareholder management", where stock price is the only thing that matters. Well off investors and especially vehicles like hedge funds that represent them, want huge returns based on stock price, and unlike the past, those running the companies get 95% of their compensation from stock. In the 19th century, the owners of course made money from the stock market, but much of their greed was in the form of the huge cash returns they got, today it is in stock. In the 19th century callous owners didn't care about the plight of their workers for the most part. Today, it is much worse, because the real guilty parties are far removed from the consequences, it is the stock analysts and management consultants who drive these days, and to them labor is the enemy, they have their formulas taught them by Harvard Business School and the like, and that is all that matters. In the end, it is nothing more than rampant greed.
8
@music observer
For a deeper understanding, read the late Lynn Stout's "The Myth of Shareholder Value" that reinforces the concept that maximizing shareholder values comes at the expense of workers. Workers are treated as a cost to be controlled rather an investment. It further means weakening unions who are the most effective advocate for insuring workers gain a fair share of the economy.
2
I don't exactly love the term "moral capitalism." The phrase is oxymoronic. Capitalism is inherently amoral. The private ownership of wealth and property is not concerned with right or wrong. The underlying principle of Keynesian economics is self-interest. The capitalist is only concerned with what's right for me, not you. In varying degrees, this will lead to both moral and immoral outcomes. Although, there is generally a bias toward immoral behavior.
However, yes. Democrats need to present a coherent vision of a mixed economy. Markets and government working together to promote general prosperity and social welfare. We already live in a mixed economy. Something you might liken to a social democracy. However, we are not very social and we are not very democratic when compared to our European neighbors. The mixed economy we do have doesn't function very well either. From the 1970s forward, we've been digging ourselves into an oligarchic rut.
Time for a change. Equilibrium should have rebalanced the wealth distribution long before now. The fact that it hasn't. The fact that most Americans are insecure in their person to say nothing of their property means the market has failed. We need an external force to correct the market failure. Government is the clear choice in this scenario. That is the purpose of public economics. Social benefit rather than self-interest as the underlying principle that drives decision making. That's the future.
9
There is no such thing as moral capitalism. Capitalism’s history has been characterized by an ever-evolving capitalist class finding new and innovative ways to exploit the workforce, and society attempting to counter these attempts through legislation, regulation, and reigning in the greed of the ruling class. Sadly, the advent of lobbyists, private campaign financing, secretive political action groups with unknown donors, and now with Trump the dissolution of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, we are nearing the stage where capitalism truly runs amok—unchecked, unabashed, and boring through the heart of our democracy by magnifying inequality and division. Democratic socialist policies are the only thing that has kept western capitalist economies from utterly and completely devolving into oligarchy. It’s time to evolve past capitalism. There is plenty of profit to be made without exploitation.
4
Sadly, capitalism has become victim to human nature - greed trumps morality.
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, was a moral philosopher by trade. Before he wrote his most famous work, "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776, he published "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" which included passages about the moral responsibility of business owners.
Back in Smith's day, business owners had a community incentive to be moral and fair - their employees and customers were their friends and neighbors. Stores and other businesses were small and their stake holders local. A person is less likely to take advantage of people with whom they deal face-to-face on a daily basis.
Today business owners and senior executives are far removed from direct contact with employees and customers. In addition, corporate managers face tremendous pressure from stockholders for ever increasing sales and profits.
For many rich Republicans, any Christian value of helping others has been replaced by greed for ever larger fortunes and fear of losing the wealth they have. They feel entitled to the largess provided them by amoral capitalism and strive to keep others down so their own piece of the pie is bigger. Some have lost their souls to the pursuit of wealth in soulless capitalism.
30
As a Christian, I’d recommend leaving Christian values out of the criteria for moral values in a pluralist society.
Capitalism is a system of economic production. It is efficient. A simple truth.
Through out history including most recently American history the economic system has sought to influence the political system.
In theory the political system should regulate the economic system and be separate from it.
Though out history the class and aristocratic system denied basic human rights to the people.
Then came the French revolution which infected the world that citizens and women had rights. The French did not solve the problem of democratic rule but they inflected the world with the idea of democracy and human rights.
Aristocracies were largely replaced by capitalistic and inherited wealth.
So where are we now. The 1 percent is the new aristocracy that controls the American political system. It buys and sells Congress and the Supreme Court. Read Democracy in Chains.
We now have Citizens United and unlimited dark money from the plutocrats.
There is no such thing as "moral capitalism". The morality must be in the political system which is now poisoned by right wing Koch and Fox minions.
Our political system is immoral. The 1 percent controls the right wing and uses it to its self interest. It owns congress.
Read Rawls and Sandel on the issue of Justice
Europe has less inequality, greater social mobility, greater per capital wealth, less corruption, more rule of law and health care. Look at the Fragile State Index.
I am shamed of my generation
Vietnam Vet
37
What happened? Simply the end game of the game theory of capitalism. When morality gets in the way of profit, profit will triumph. Every time. Whether its a capitalist system or any other.
3
To my way of seeing it, the vast internal consumer market necessitates a mentality of personal insecurity calmed by capricious, mindless and selfish consumption (L’Oreal- or whatever- because you deserve it !) as well as competitiveness and greed to keep it going at a higher level. I’d like to think that with robust, well-regulated Keynesian controls, as advocated by Warren and Krugman, a kinder capitalism is still possible in the US, though vested interests and current attitudes are so entrenched. It does still exist in Western Europe. Perhaps part of the difference is that a long history makes the individual self and its whims slightly less paramount and the US is still a young country.
1
Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It is in it's most simple form, a recognition of the fact that the law of supply and demand works everywhere and all the time. Sort of like water running down hill, the law of supply and demand (capitalism)prevails, and will continue to prevail whether people want it to or not. It is the people that are either moral or immoral, meaning that people either have the wisdom to see the bigger picture or they don't.
4
@W.A. Spitzer Its true. Even command economies in the middle ages with fascist king rulers and strong gild systems more often than not fell into market forces despite of the strong control over all people.
@W.A. Spitzer Supply & Demand can work best with moral codes,but can’t with indecent legalized codes. How it will work with immortalized social values adopted by black marketeers who can hijack the markets and sale goods with exorbitant inflated prices with their powerful corporate structures all legalized by corrupt leaders governing the nations no matter what form of governance a nation is controlled!
So assumptions based upon ideologies can’t be standardized without looking @ all facts,acceptance of truths and living with falsehoods shuttering eyes,ears and skull compartments completely.
Systems only works for all if not tainted by corrupts and crooks and its hard to find any such nation because the systems have been imperfections under legalized codes with pushed aside moral standards.
@W.A. Spitzer Capitalism will and has destroyed the planet.
You don't see the bigger picture.
I agree entirely with Michael Kazin's argument about economic fairness and the Democrats' need to frame their policies in some larger picture. But I think "moral capitalism" is not the way to brand policies designed to help workers, promote equality, etc. The word "moral" has unfortunately gotten too closely linked to social and religious issues, while "capitalism" invariably summons the image of Wall Street. Alas, I find it difficult to suggest an alternative. Economic opportunity? Economic fairness? An economy that works for everyone? I dunno, but I hope that the Democratic Party, which has wallowed in centrism and vagueness for forty years, solves these messaging and policy questions.
11
@Chris Rasmussen
Probably the best term is one they actually used to teach in grad management programs, "Stakeholder Management". In stakeholder management, a company didn't operate in a vacuum, they had stakeholders, which included the shareholders, the workers, and the places the companies operated, as well as the customers.
One of the big problems with "globalization" is that companies have become rootless, where the corporate headquarters is located is more a matter of tax policy and where it was founded rather than where it has any ties. When a stock analyst frowns at a stock, and the company decides to lay of 10,000 workers, those making the decision are likely far removed from where the damage happens, so the only stake corporate managers realyl know is the stock market. One of the issues is that those running the show now only know and have been taught 'stockholder management', and the model of business is no longer the company making solid profits, it is the whiz bang company out of Silicon Valley that has the epic IPO that matters.
@Chris Rasmussen
The alternative, to quote Michael Harrington, is to "Say what you mean: Socialism".
A terrific article. Mr. Kazin has captured the essence of what it means to be a Democrat: committed to promoting the general welfare of the people over self centered greed and privilege.
This article is an offering of sound advice to Democratic candidates for all elective offices and to the Democratic base. It provides a coherency and moral imperative for supporting the Democratic Party and it's vision for governance.
And remember voters (of all persuasions) it is not enough to replace Trump. To make a meaningful difference, we must replace Republicans in all offices, especially the US Senate.
Thanks Mr. Kazin. I look forward to reading your history of the Democratic Party when it comes out.
9
"Capitalism is cold an calculating" as one of the commenters states. And rightly so. The business of business is to make money.
And the business of government is NOT business but the maintenance of a free society. For that reason capital must be regulated. The natural inclination of capital IS cold and calculating and it's calculus directs it to control the very force that seeks to control its excesses. Excesses that it sees as a legitimate and worthy goal. As it tends to monopolize it also tends to seek government control, its regulator. And corporate control of government is fascism. This is the mantra of the GOP, however silkily presented. And it should NOT be the mantra of the Democratic Party.
7
Ugh this began in 1985 and NO ONE stopped it. I have no idea where the morals went. Why someone nees 10 million vs 6 million and can't give their employees health insurance or 40 hours of work, or a raise......I am in nursing and I've received 3 yes 3 1.8% since "08. and they wonder why the shortage.
17
@Calleendeoliveira it began with Reagan and Trickle down. Actually it began long before that but was finally deployed with Reagan and his ilk. Unfettered capitalism and greed.
1
There can be no such thing as morality in an economic system solely designed around exploitation, surplus value, mandatory wage labor, concentrated ownership of the means of production and artificial scarcity. This is like asking: why aren’t there more cold spots in fire, or why isn’t there more dry water in the ocean.
14
If there was ever such an thing as "Moral Capitalism" it never had a chance against Jack Welch, an original promoter of the "maximize shareholder value" idea, in which the whole notion of corporate responsibility was reduced to generating cash--at the expense of all other considerations.
19
There are 2 things that Congress can do to make the system fairer again for everyone:
1. Overturn Citizens United
2. Scrap the portion of the tax code involving “charitable donations “ and redefine what a charitable organization is.
19
It seems to me it is not a vision, it is utopia that marries the author love of capitalism with his yearning for morality. But that is impossible marriage without concrete actions. It was not 'vision' that improved the situation, it was concrete actions. It was the Civil war and laws that ban slavery, it was pro- workers laws because of worker movementz, it was specific laws that created SS and Medicare, it was civil movement and laws followed that ban discrimination. Vision especially so abstract (let create moral capitalism) is nothing without concrete action. It is like menu that reads 'we offer best cuisine in the world" and nothing more.
2
@yulia
Actually, the real changes happened because people got scared at the consequences of the Depression. Fox News Nation and the GOP and Middle America love to sell that the depression wasn't that bad, that people 'pulled together and happily survived', as if it was like camping out someplace. They haven't read history, they just don't understand just how bad it got during the depression, the desperation people had, and the consequences of that. Farmers were in open revolt, literally shooting and killing sheriffs coming to foreclose, Huey Long was open about his goal of becoming a dictator if elected. Both Communism and Fascism had its followers, and open conflict was happening. In the wake of FDR getting elected, Congress was willing to basically suspend their role and give him extraordinary powers. Businessmen might have grumbled, but during the depths of the depression businessmen were seen for what they were, those who had caused the depression with their greed and revelled in having desperate people looking for work, and the government knew they had to do something to give labor power or face revolt.
The irony is that once labor achieved power, where in the post war world they achieved some measure of economic success, they turned against organized labor. From the 50's on participation in unions declined, and these days Fox News nation believes the GOP that unions and taxes 'ruined' industry, yet worship the 50's, that had the highest union membership and taxes.
“moral capitalism”
Good people self-regulate and there is little need for laws. It is when bad people spoil it for everyone that there is a need for the government to intrude with signs and laws.
It is true at the smallest level, from public access to passing-zones, to the highest level of theft and wrong doing.
I am not sure there was even a altruistic capitalist but I have known several good and decent business owners and CEOs. Typically these are people who grew up in caring family and community with worked with others to build a successful business. There have always been ruthless, abusive business owners, but once there were more people of character who practiced a moral capitalism - typically because they lived and worked in the same community as their businesses were located and attended the same churches and community events as those who worked for them. The last such person I knew was Ken Olsen of Digital Equipment Corporation. I may be giving him too much credit for those who worked close to him knew his temper and but he built a company that treated its employees ethically, provided excellent benefits, and the communities it was located in.
However global companies and financiers who those who make money with no actual connection to the businesses and the people and only see things in terms of profit are much less likely to comprehend “moral capitalism,” let alone practice it.
7
@Marie I lived in a small Western NY town that during the 50s through the early 70s had several family owned manufacturing businesses with union workers. There was some tension between labor and management but everyone did ok for the reason you expressed. We all lived together. Those businesses were sold or moved. The new owners were holding companies with no ties to our community and we became victims of the rust belt. Very sad.
7
Your term "moral capitalism" is not different from Joseph Stiglitz' "progressive capitalism" or Bernie Sanders' "democratic socialism."
Some European countries have tried to achieve this by respecting the individual as well as corporations by human centered regulations such as a social safety net and fighting climate change.
What I call "immoral capitalism" is our military/industrial complex and fossil fuel industries. They're against a human centered government, which favors negotiations over war and clean energy over continued pollution of our environment. And our judicial system which favors profit over people.
33
"The anti-monopoly theme dominated during the first century of the [Democratic] party’s history, from Jackson’s rise in the 1820s [throughout] 1930s [and thereafter]..."
the most important anti-trust legislation was initiated in the late 19th century and early 20th century, with an economy increasingly based on rail, mining, new types of manufactured goods and other then-called modern inventions. whatever happened to anti-trust law?
in the 21st century, economic production has been fundamentally modernized (away from mining, rail and simple manufactures) and internationalized, and maybe the anti-trust laws should likewise be updated?
descriptions of historic marginal and average tax rates would be useful here as a means to describe redistribution from the rich (aka powerful) to the poor (aka weak).
Capitalism, in and of itself, is an amoral economic engine for the production of wealth. It is actually is a very effective engine for generating wealth (even a very communist country like China has determined this and has incorporated it, in their version, to generate wealth) but it is the political system that determines how the wealth is to be distributed to those that have generated that wealth. The Nordic model harnesses a capitalistic economic system to generate wealth but uses a democratic socialist political structure to determine how that wealth is distributed to those who have generated the wealth. It works very well. Democratic, capitalistic and socialistic, these countries have very high standard of living and live healthy, happy and productive lives where their children flourish in a peaceful and safe environment.
Meanwhile, here, our Democratic Party has strayed far from the philosophy of FDR, a president so popular and loved by the people, and despised by the Republicans and the corporate interests and oligarchs, that a constitutional amendment was needed to prevent him form another re-election. I remember very vividly Chuck Schumer saying "for every blue collar worker we will loose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two, three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan." How'd that strategy turn out? This is what the Democratic Party has become, Republican lite.
7
Morality is codified into law. Law that the public views as part of a fair and objective justice system is how we create compliance.
The Democrats can start by putting a qualified, brilliant person with a clean record and undisputed judgement into the position of Attorney General. They can fill out the regulatory system and Courts with the same kind of people.
Magic will happen.
6
It's because the free market system doesn't work.
If it did, we wouldn't be in all the trouble we are now.
The future is social democracy, as in Denmark and Sweden. Bernie is right about that. It's the only system with an adequate safety net for all the citizens of a country.
There is no other alternative. The present course is toward fascism, which is what Trump and the GOP want.
8
Socialism is state control of the means of production, that is businesses. No one, Democrat, Green Party, whatever, is suggesting the government nationalize industries as the UK did after WWII.
Democratic Socialism demands that the benefits generated by capitalist business be shared with workers and that worker have decent working conditions. Almost all of us are labor, rather than capital. Why should all the money go to financiers?
33
@Boston Barry According to your definition Henry Ford was a socialist ; the labor union were socialist. Just take the word socialism out . Socialism is just a milder form of communism.
2
@Boston Barry Yes, and moreover, why should a country that counts itself a democratic republic decry the more even handed concept of democratic socialism? It's not a curse word if you think about it.
Aye, there's the rub. Unthinking.
Capitalism is cold and calculating. It is not about humanity, it is about specialization and efficiency at any cost. It is about achieving maximum exploitation. The more capitalism becomes itself the further it gets from any kind of moral existence. Studies show the more money you have the less empathy you have. Moral capitalism isn’t happening - it’s an oxymoron. I cannot understand who trust large corporations to think morally in any way (as opposed to trying to buy good PR). They exist to try to exploit you. Any system that actually attempts such a thing needs a new name.
6
@P. Exactly his point. And the balance comes from government.
1
all the more important because the GOP lost all direction plus the moral ability to come with a credible one.
6
From Russia to Texas forces have acquired the power to develop and maintain great schisms in American society. They are deploying this power successfully to ensure the ultimate collapse of free/ fair market based capitalism here and around the world.
3
The U.S. would be best envisioned and served as a nation of Moral Capitalism en route to an ever better democracy?
The biggest flaw of the U.S. is that it does not clearly articulate Ends and Means, thus it devises impractical or trivial political/economic Ends which not only do not justify the Means but wastes countless lives for nothing. The rule with respect to Ends is that the more noble and practical the End not only are the means justified toward it but we can intelligently articulate methods toward making the means as painless as possible.
How much pain, how many lives have been lost by impractical or trivial schemes (Ends) as perfect equality or happiness between people, utopian political schemes, or devising games in which there is one winner and a multitude of losers, etc.? How can the Means toward these type of Ends ever be justified? We need vast education, brutal honesty in clearly stating Ends, the Means to get there, and how we can get better aim at Ends and less painful Means to get there.
Ends though should always be worthwhile, difficult, noble, cause stress with respect to Means, have a price, which makes us want to work on Means to cut down on price, which in turn leads to envisioning still more worthwhile, difficult, noble Ends, yet practical Ends, the doable, that which is within reach only if we make the effort, have right balance between Means and Ends.
The usual political/economic talk makes me sick. State projects and what it takes to realize.
2
If capitalism is a fair but unforgiving competition, then the good or bad of it is in the details. Without the fairness doctrine in media, and anti-trust rules diminishing excess, the system devolves to fascism, oligarchy or kleptocracy.
Like any game, it depends on proper rules being strictly enforced. Therein lies the key trade off, as in life, there is no free lunch.
6
@RjW Yes we need rules. But in a competitive system we also need to robustly protect those who aren't the fewer-by-definition winners.
1
While I am not opposed to ideas like this, it's shocking how little appreciation or acknowledgement is paid to the hidden costs of moving to the type of economy espoused by the Warren/Sanders side of the Democratic Party. It's so easy for them to say, and for people to believe, that the only Americans benefiting from the stock market and capitalism are billionaires. It's a simple message that resonates. Of course, at best this is completely untrue, and at worst it is a bold faced lie. Ordinary Americas of all walks of life are invested in the companies that Warren/Sanders want to shackle/dismantle, via their 401ks, ETFs, mutual funds, etc. When those companies become far less profitable, or cut their dividends, or have to lay off workers, it's ordinary Americans who will suffer.
3
And how many Americans do have 401K through work? According to Bloomerg, almost half of Americans approaching the retirement age have nothing in 401K and will rely exclusively on SS, that is Government program. How these Americans benefited from market?
3
Billionaires and hedge fund managers report class war going just fine, but thanks for asking.
Democrats need to stand up for "job performers" as much as for "creators"
2
"Moral capitalism" is an oxymoron. The sole and amoral goal of capitalism is to increase capital. Period. Anything that regulates it or applies moral strictures recognizes that the welbeing of membeers of a society must be the primary value and then it is no longer called 'capitalism', it's on its way to being called 'socialism.'
Not a bad thing, really.
1
The Democratic Party has been weakened by a continuing desire to compromise with a Republican Party that brooks no compromise. The Dems keep trying to play by a rulebook of civility that the GOP long ago tossed aside. Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment is only one example of this weakness, but a glaring one. The longer she waits the weaker she looks.
11
@Christy
It's worse than that, really: the Democratic Party is largely beholden to the same moneyed interests as the Republican Party is, and is largely complicit in the steady march towards fascism we have been experiencing. It is an entity that tries to balance serving its constituency while continuing to keep the money flowing in from its donors; it's no wonder that it often appears paralyzed and incapable of action.
True economic reform will require addressing fundamental flaws in the way our government operates, starting with the outsized influence on our electoral process. This in turn will require men and women strong enough to resist the lure of easy money and brave enough to make mortal enemies of the richest and most powerful people in the nation.
3
More moderate old school liberals turned into the far left. The party is eating itself up.
America will never be great unless the people of America are great. Dems have always had the better policies ideas. Even a great many Republican voters agree. But it's the vision thing. Even when campaigning, hardly anyone knew what Clinton's slogan was, much less her vision. But, people remember all the 'giveaways' she had for every slice of the population. Her big rainbow tent looked more like she was handing out candy for trick or treat.
This election needs to be about returning the nation to the basics that the right has decimated over the past several decades: progressive and fair tax code, rebuilding our infrastructure, closing corporate tax loopholes, enforcing antitrust, consumer protections on data, hiring incentives, minimum wage, fixing healthcare, and so forth. The one big issue should be climate change -- an issue of urgency with which many on the right agree.
If we were smart, we would wrap all the measures that restore the basic health, protections, and opportunities for the middle class into overall climate change program in a way each will leverage off the other and create a win-win that, should the right object, show them as the party that does not care about the people of the country.
It is not so much about the individual details, but the overall vision and promise that puts the country -- to wit: the people of this country -- back on solid footing for a better future.
It's about making the people of America great
12
Yes, in other words, the Democrats cannot try to win in 2020 based on the idea that Trump stinks. The Democrats have to have a vision and plan that seeks to help everyone. I also believe the Democrats must run on realistic ideas that do not scare many elite financiers, like what Sanders has tried to do. The eras that Mr. Kazin mentions when Democrats did well were not eras of anti-capitalism and anti-business, but eras of pro-fairness.
10
But that era included higher taxation and creation of the Government programs as SS and Medicare. I guess at that time the bankers were more progressive and don't mind high taxes.
@yulia I think bankers cannot be lumped into a single lot. In general, you are probably right though. Although, during the Jackson administration, given that it was a completely different world, there were no income taxes.
If we want to see the ultimate result of capitalism, take a long look at the kleptocracies around the world. The few live behind walls tipped with razor wire or shards of glass embedded at the top. They have guards at the gates to prevent the masses from getting too close. Their children attend private schools while the masses get little or none. Their taxes are low or nonexistent because taxes only encourage laxity in labor and moral fiber. Their luxury cars are armored for “safety” as they steer around potholed streets.
The rest of us are fed a diet of fast food and social media to keep us occupied, bloated, and on the road to disease. We are riled by the swamp dwellers chanting about draining the swamp—no matter that the dark water keeps swirling around us. We are warned about “them” heading to our borders. Demonstrable facts are faked and reality is what we are told by our morning “Friends”.
Mr. Kazin points to the few—too few—times when we remembered that our national goal is the pursuit of happiness, not the accumulation of property. We once honored our endowed rights as human beings, not cogs in the vast machine called the Market.
He is right to caution us that half-thought measures will not suffice. They will leave us in the gray shadows rather than the fullness of the light.
19
For all the talk and posturing about ideas, moral capitalism, social democracy or whatever, little is actually done. Ideas that require change or roll out of a new vision are dismissed out of hand, ridiculed or branded as impossible. And the beat goes on, the can gets kicked down the road and we have the same old same old, with little changing.
America used the be the greatest nation on earth. We used to strive to be better, to lead, to do hard things, to innovate. But that train left the station long ago, without many Americans on board. Now mostly, Americans whine.
Last night I watched Apollo 11, the CNN film about the first moon landing. For all the right and wrong reasons behind that venture, it was still a matter of national pride. Where did that America go? Now we have professional career politicians in the pockets of corporations and special interests. They politicize the weather, worry only about the next election or party loyalty, and send thoughts and prayers to citizens devastated by natural or man-made disasters.
As Pogo noted years should, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
25
Noley: True. But whatever America used to be, it flourished in a bipolar world. With the end of the USSR, capitalists lost the need to placate and cherish Labor. Consumerism drove us deeper and deeper into our personal ruts. Education, as always, failed to keep up. And "thought-leaders," from pulpit to Capitol Hill, reneged on their responsibilities. Now, in NYC for example, private profit pursues ever more expensive apartment buildings while refusing to fund the basic infrastructure on which their buildings rely. If they all travel by helicopter, they won't need public transport, roads, bridges, and tunnels. But the age of the helicopter hop over Manhattan may be ending--and that may be a metaphor for the fate of extreme capitalism.
3
@Des Johnson. I know, we are in a very different world, one that requires adjustment, not abdication of leadership. America can and should do better.
2
@Noley - " We used to strive to be better, to lead, to do hard things, to innovate." "Where did that America go?"
Thank you Noley. This is something I've asked before and haven't been alone in the asking.
I think the short answer is that that America disappeared with he Vietnam war and Richard Nixon.
Its not like there haven't been great goals. America could have embarked on program for clean and abundant energy available to all, for curing of cancer, for extending life, for exploring (we *are* explorers) further in space and more of the vast oceans, and so on.
But we've had economic and political forces that stood in the way, that fought against a NASA style or a "Manhattan Program" for energy.
Can you imagine a world if a President with vision had said: "We choose to develop clean & efficient energy in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too" and could sell it and make something we believed in?
Can you imagine a world where the United States took leadership and developed a means to energy that would truly make us great in the eyes of oil-dependent world?
2
Excellent description of a vision that pulls together the many moral capitalist ideas floating in and around the democratic party. And, if I could add the bumper sticker for this vision: Make America fair again.
6
In the 1970s Congressional Democrats largely muffed "deindustrialization" (as globalization was then called) issues by preferring a cozy relationship with corporate donors accumulated while in power to solidarity with working people. Little moral vision there, and an historic strategic mistake.
Also when one speaks of "moral capitalism" where, pray tell, is that morality grounded? Whose morality is it? Progressives have a hard time with these questions and it's a reason they often fare badly.
2
Capitalism is a legal construct used to formulate the rules of free enterprise, the natural self-supportive mechanism employed by humans to survive and prosper, integral to the American credo. As a legal construct, however, it has no moral character per se. If we want morality built into capitalism, we will have to legislate it. To a lesser or greater extent, that is what all the democratic candidates are trying to do.
I'll be choosing whom to support based on actual policies that demonstrate moral commitments, rather than an oxymoronic concept, as speciously appealing as "moral capitalism" most definitely is.
8
Capitalism is not naturally self-supportive free market system. Left to its own devices it will lead to monopolism that will stifle the free market.
1
@yulia
I think you misunderstand me. It is "free enterprise" that is natural, not capitalism. I agree entirely that, left to its own devices, the end game of capitalism is monopoly.
1
@Roger C "the natural self-supportive mechanism employed by humans to survive and prosper"? And feudalism and empire were what exactly?
It’s not our task to make Capitalism “moral”. It’s our task to demand our birthright of representative government wherein legislators do the bidding of the community and prioritize the common good over the narrow self interests of those with wealth and power . Corporations should operate within the auspices of society , not the other way around .
72
@Paul G Knox
"Corporations should operate within the auspices of society , not the other way around."
Exactly right. The tail's wagging the dog.
7
@Paul G Knox
Every line you write after the first is an exercise in "making capitalism moral."
Your first sentence is wrong. And all your other sentences help prove it.
Capitalism is amoral. People may or not be moral, but the modern corporation separates investors from the decisions a business makes to maximize shareholder value beyond the possible reach of an individual executive’s moral instincts. With the current capitalist model the only way to get moral behavior by corporations is through regulation. The sooner we accept this the better.
36
@Norwester
"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation."
-- Adam Smith
3
This is the companion philosophy to economic K-waves, 50 to 60 year economic cycles that, at their beginning generate new industries and new jobs and primarily benefit workers not capital. That’s why the Green New Deal is so important. Despite its vagaries and pandering the GND has the elements that would embody moral capitalism. Our focus must be in sustainability, in providing a stable energy supply as fossil fuels deplete, and clean water to support agriculture and other domestic needs as the global population swells to 10 billion by mid century. The carrying capacity of Earth is 10 billion and a moral capitalism needs to be put in place to help us work through the population implications of that math.
2
"Moral Capitalism" sound a lot like the "Social Capitalism" I've been talking about in these comments boxes for a while now in an attempt to circumvent the toxicity associated with the word "socialism".
No matter what it's called, all of these have room for labor with strong bargaining power, a commitment to strong social safety net, a reasonable minimum wage, and a view to establishing health care as a basic right as opposed to something you have the privilege of purchasing if you've enough of a bank account.
And, given we have already "socialized" our police, fire, sanitation, primary education and many other services, moral capitalism should have room for other collective enterprises, including secondary education and regulatory oversight. This does not keep anyone from starting companies or making profit, it just keeps people from exploiting others who have no redress in the process of starting companies or making profit. It recognizes that there's a need for "freedom from", not just "freedom to".
Of course, one aspect that drags on our ability to accomplish this is our Calvinist heritage that obsesses over who "deserves" what and locates the problems of the poor and of exploitation in the poor and exploited themselves. We will likely only accomplish some form of moral capitalism if we can defeat the oligarchic Social Darwinist "if you're so smart why aren't you rich" mentality so prevalent in our rapacious profiteers.
56
@Glenn Ribotsky
" . . . one aspect that drags on our ability to accomplish this is our Calvinist heritage that obsesses over who "deserves" what . . . "
Excellent insight
8
@Glenn Ribotsky
I’m thinking that this Calvinist heritage is what is also referred to as “the Protestant Work Ethic.” I may be wrong, but this is how I recall it from one of my college history courses.
Unfortunately, it seems that those who really do the hardest and most unpleasant work are rewarded the least for their time and labor. A more humanistic approach to moral philosophy—to me—is that the Creator made everything to be shared by all. The Protestant Work Ethic needs to be replaced by a more “kind and gentle” ethic that recognizes the humanity of every human being, no matter their contribution to the GDP.
7
The writer would do well to spend a little more time on actual accomplishments of the touted concept. Make an argument, if you can, that moral capitalism is something more than an election ploy.
4
At bottom, this debate rests on more fundamental underlying philosophies and issues.
One is (as philosopher Michael Sandel puts it) the tension between freedom and virtue. The first favors unfettered independence to act, the other imposes limits on action in the name of some other value, like equality among people, decency, fairness. One is the stereotypic Wild West, w its opportunities and opportunists; the other is a thicker, more constrained community.
Another tension is between the model of scientism and the model of values. Permeating our society-- from business management to tech--is the value-free, objective, materialist perspective of modern science. Adam Smith's view of the economy-- ruled by a collective invisible hand-- is consistent W this: each actor pursuing his/her individual best economic interest, free of constraint. On the other hand are human values, whether from religion, broader moral codes or individual taste. Challenged by science, though, religion is a less persuasive source of values today: If the universe is ultimately only material and brains are merely electro-chemical (not "minds"), values are illusory or merely "subjective." And under the First Amendment, religion per se cannot serve as the source of governmental priorities, unless distilled into more secular, humanistic terms.
All these underlying issues influence whether you support activist government or hands off, a Darwinian struggle or a gentler, regulated marketplace.
8
We need this conversation. History teaches that there are many ways in which capitalism can work, with varying degrees of suffering & prosperity. No scenario benefits everyone equally, but anyone’s benefit is proportionate to their political voice in regulating the economy. Today, the Republicans tell people to surrender their political voice to corporate & financial interests, who, unlike all other actors in their economic philosophy, supposedly eschew self-interest and write rules altruistically to help us all. The Democrats offer no real theory, but act as if ridding the economic system of racism and sexism will make it fair—something painfully untrue to millions of beneficiaries of white or male “privilege” who also live in declining economic circumstances or poverty.
There is a strange dynamic going on between economic & identity issues. The Republicans advocate policies that transfer political power & benefits to the economically powerful; because these policies have statistically racist implications, the Democrats respond to the racial question but not the economic one. The Democrats become, for anyone the Republicans address, the party that helps “other” people. The idea that our interests are divided primarily according to race or identity benefits both parties in some ways (Republicans more than Democrats), but offers no opposition to the merging of political and financial power that maintains the divisions.
5
Law is the lowest common denominator for moral agency and behavior. Absent a culture that adheres to a moral code beyond individualism, materialism, and consumerism, the legal solutions born of our politics will be minimal in their impact. Look at Trump and his actions to obstruct justice an willingly interact with foreign governments not to mention his business practices and misogyny. The fact that it is “not illegal” does not make it moral or right.
5
Freedom is not only about having a right to choose, it is also about having choices. A government with a focus on opportunity enables the pursuit of happiness and economic growth as people select and embrace their own production.
Freedom’s just another word for many paths to choose.
2
@Gerard" Many paths indeed--if we all have walking shoes. We don't. Rising tides do not lift all boats--some are holed.
1
It is precisely what is needed. Morality and Capitalism is not mutually exclusive, despite what people think.
Profit is only a dirty word when the fruits of workers production are not fairly compensated. The only reason we ever got there was that major Corporations had some enlightened self-interest going on.
The reasons we are no longer there is it is more evident than ever that it is the Corporations who are running our Government. This started long before Citizens United, but that vote by the Supreme Court sealed the deal.
Republicans used to be a moderate bunch and actually did care enough to support the EPA, the Department of Labor and most other agencies that were put in place to help the ordinary person.
The Democrats, for the most part have always been consistent in their support for the ordinary person.
We no longer have Moderate Republicans, so the Democrats need to continue to push for Equal Opportunity, to push for Moral Capitalism and to fight for all of our Freedoms which have been threatened by Trump, his Administration and the Republicans
in Congress.
It is an uphill battle, but we now have enough fine Candidates and hopefully some of them will run for the Senate or Congress, if they are not already serving, when the field gets winnowed down.
It is our only hope, as the Republicans no longer have a moral compass.
11
@Jean
My governor, Steve Bullock, took the objection to Citizens United all the way to the Supreme Court, where it lost. Montana knew what immoral capitalism looked like when Anaconda Company ruled the state and left a lot of toxic waste sites.
Bush’s “compassionate conservativism” proved to be an oxymoron. I do not think “moral capitalism” is equally an oxymoron. Fair wages and concern for our climate can be part of a business model. Local, state and national governments are all part of encouraging this-one way of bypassing big money is community involvement.
3
@Anne
I so agree with you.
Capitalism is the only political system that guarantees freedom for its citizens. it is incredible that the writer of this piece can write about the morality of capitalism without once mentioning the word freedom or liberty.
1
@Henry Nasser:
insatiable corporations have misinterpreted "freedom"
to mean "freedom to exploit natural resources and
cheap labor" to the extent that slavery has returned
or been exacerbated in its modern form while environ-
mental destruction has reached life-threatening levels.
BIG industrial conglomerates also feel free
- to evade taxes,
- to take governments to court bc laws made to protect people [e.g. from cancer due to smoking
of from diabetes due to too many sweet foods]
supposedly deprive companies of 9-digit earnings,
- ... the list is Long
and freedom does not mean freedom to harm others.
3
@Henry Nasserk
Capitalism is just a set of rules. It can be used to enlarge freedom or to restrict freedom. It has prospered through slavery as well as through civil rights. Democracy is the only means we have to try to ensure that it does the right thing.
1
@Henry Nasser
"Capitalism is the only political system that guarantees freedom for its citizens. "
The Trans-Atlantic slave trade, segregation, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the interment of Japanese-Americans during World War II clear show your statement is clearly false.
America isn't about liberty or freedom. These are lies we tell ourselves. America is about exploitation and greed.
1
Nice idea, but I am afraid we have reached the same point we were at when FDR was elected: namely, the extremely rich are beyond the pull of morality. Only actions that are directed and specific can change the status quo, not a shift in perspective. Once change actually begins, attitudes can change about the overwhelming power the rich wield.
17
I’m in, but good luck appealing to reason in the post truth world we’re being boxed into.
8
The ones most qualified to speak about workers rights & needs are, of course, the workers themselves. For much of the later part of the last century, unions filled that role in a collective sense. Yet that system, too, had problems. On the one hand, unions negotiated better contracts, stood for politicians and policies which would serve their membership well, and brought us the 40 hour week, 8 hour days, overtime, breaks, better wages etc.
On the other hand, many workers found that while their work needs were in line with union goals, their personal political/moral beliefs were out of sync with union leadership positions. So, conflict arose as unions supported candidates who might be pro-labor, but also held "values" positions anathema to some of the rank and file. Workers began to resent, then complain about, having to pay union dues which helped support candidates/positions they found repugnant. Enter the 'right to work' movement, which held that workers should not be forced to pay into a union if they disagreed with it.
The weakening or disappearance of unions has meant that workers are often at the mercy of the largess of their employers. While some more 'enlightened' employers may do right by their workers (& are held up as proof that unions are not needed) others main concern is the bottom line, not workers. Human nature being what it is, it is hard to see how, without a strong collective voice, workers' rights will ever be a primary concern across the board.
6
Not sure of the solutions, but looking forward to hearing the ideas of the Democratic candidates during the upcoming debates. We are a wealthy country and the level of homelessness we witness every day with our own eyes should not be. The ideals from FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" and LBJ's "Great Society" have not yet been realized.
16
That would be indeed visionary. Enough of small things.
1
"Periods when they made persuasive arguments about the need to create and then preserve such a system were the only times when the party gained durable majorities: from the late 1820s until the mid-1850s, and again from the 1930s to the late 1960s."
I think you can see "moral capitalism" in the ideas of Elizabeth Warren. She frames the biggest question about goverment versus free enterprise like this: "Who does our government represent and who does our government work for?"
And then she defines the central challenge of our time: inequality levels not seen since the Gilded Age at the turn of the last century; the gradual transfer of wealth and income from the great middle to the tiny top; and the dominance of money in elections.
Traditional capitalism has run amok, predicted by numerous political scientists and economists over time. Unless America levels the playing field, and quickly, capitalism will complete its transformation from risk taking to kleptocracy.
94
@ChristineMcM
You and Elizabeth Warren may be interested in an actual model of "moral capitalism" that surprisingly exists in mainland China. It has been established by the Hebei Dawu Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Group Co., Ltd. The Dawu Group was established by SUN Dawu (孙大午) about 30 years ago. The actual name of this type of moral capitalism is Private Entrepreneurial Constitutional System which was devised in 2004 and has since developed. Voting is undertaken every two years and everyone is required to vote. The case of SUN Dawu and the incident involving SUN Zhigang (孙志刚) marked the beginning of the civil rights movement in China.
2
@ChristineMcM
You will twist anything to satisfy your campaigning for Elizaabeth Warren.
"Capitalism" has nothing to do with "government" as in: "Who does our government represent and who does our government work for?"
Her sound bite refers to our democracy, not our economic system. A capitalistic economy can function under a democracy such as America or a communist nation such as China or a socialist one such as Germany.
Warren's plans are attempts to provide government regulations on our economic system through taxation. That has nothing to do with "moral capitalism." Her taxation schemes and government regulations are attempts at improving equality but that is not "moral capitalism." Her plans are not even ways to give workers more control over their employment.
Moral capitalism means encouraging moral behavior and conduct in the economic system - morality that is lacking today in that corporations are driven to increase shareholder value instead of worker value.
That is what is missing in today's capitalistic economy.
Unless capitalism considers morality, there will be no workers, no middle class, no consumers, no creative ideas, no entrepreneurs, no more equality.
“In the current century, alarm about climate change and a commitment to L.G.B.T. rights have been added to the top of the party’s agenda”
The party has first and foremost become the party of comfortably off career oriented college graduates.
The unemployed white steelworker who lives in a town of high unemployment and who happens to be gay will be more concerned with getting a job than getting more LGBT representation in corporate boardrooms.
21
Capitalism and morality are incompatible.
23
@Jackson Chameleon
Not so!. Before he wrote "The Wealth of Nations" the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, Adam Smith, wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". And the ethics contained in the latter infused the economic system of free market capitalism described in the former.
He also described some of the likely defects and limitations of his economic system including: the tendency to develop monopoly and its close cousin oligopoly, boom and bust, monopoly capture of Governments (East India Company), and externalities.(in our day Climate Change). These all would detract from the ethics he described and promoted.
He also saw the need for government to do what his system could not do and the need to fund its activities through taxation. However, he would be aghast at the size of Government today and its interference in the free market and hence its negative impact on his ethical construct.
Warren is a capitalist but sees the current version as exhibiting all the potential defects pointed out by Smith along with a very serious defect, inequality, that Smith also belabored if it resulted in penury or dependence for vast numbers of the population. Arguably this is the case today.
None of this has to be but changing much of it will demand dynamic political action and leadership.
2
@Jackson Chameleon Why do you believe that?
1
Perhaps the idea of "moral capitalism," like enlightened self-interest, are all packaging that attempts to make capitalism something it isn't.
Companies, particularly publicly-held ones, exist to do only one thing: maximize the return on investment of owners and shareholders. They create jobs only as a side-effect of their primary objective; the fewer jobs created to do the job, the better. If the costs of getting caught don't exceed the benefits, do what's possible to socialize the costs and waste-products of production, like pollution. Invest in politicians who set tax policy that favors retaining earnings rather than paying for social programs, infrastructure and defense. Avoid responsibilities by throwing out crumbs of charity and engage in enlightened activities to co-opt new regulations. Demand tax concessions for relocations and jobs that you may or may not generate.
All in the name of revenue growth and better profitability. Companies do not exist to be good citizens. Indeed, they are not citizens and owe no loyalty to any country. Corporate leaders may be citizens, but that's not what they are paid (handsomely) to do.
Corporations aren't evil, but should be considered to be no more than what they are. That's why we regulate them, so the people, the citizens who are loyal to the country, can pursue life, liberty and happiness, rather than subservience to corporate interests.
264
@MassBear
According to the Supreme Court, corporations are citizens. More's the pity.
36
@MassBear
Corporations consist of people who can act morally and counteract the paradigm of maximizing profits. Corporate charters can emphasize community good for all as part of their mission.
9
@MassBear you are correct. Capitalism is amoral and some is immoral. The system is based on buying commodities cheaply and selling for more. One commodity is labor and another includes all the natural resources planet earth provides. Capitalism defies regulation with every breath, and seeks to use the same planet's land, air, and water to dispose of all the waste of production. The immorality comes in when capitalists buy government, subvert democracy, and advocate for war.
27
While I enjoy the positivism of Adam Smith, a harsh critic could refer to it as lackadaisical, as such with this article. I suppose it is possible to say that Warren and Sanders fall in the tradition of Adam Smith seeking the potentiality of capitalism (Warren has gone out of her way to refer to herself as a capitalist), but in truth, there can be no moral societal code, through capitalism or any other means, while there is still inequality. I think, assessed with a critical view (and possibly supported by those whose work most qualify as moral philosophy), a society without inequality would in the process expel capitalism as well. Exchange and commerce do not abide in the fairness of a moral societal code and the reciprocal nature that society depends on to function is not at its root dependent on capital - as so many have been conditioned to believe.
@Sammy the Rabbit Unfortunately, time and again we have seen that attempts to reduce inequality by forced redistribution of wealth lead to only an equality of misery (the Soviet Union).
Underlying all of the pitches of the two dozen (!) Democrats currently running for President is the seductive appeal of “free everything for everyone.” Free college tuition, free healthcare for all, student loan forgiveness, guaranteed annual income, etc., even for non-citizens.
I know, America is rich, but it currently cannot (or chooses not to) afford to meet the needs of its citizens: veterans, the elderly, the chronically ill, improved education, etc.
Just keep raising taxied on the rich and those wealthy corporations? I don’t think so.
As Margaret Thatcher noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
6
@Mon Ray
A sensible median is possible.
15
There we go again!
You are confusing Socialism with a soundly financed government that empowers it’s people by providing basic services such as schools, roads and healthcare. Not to mention a level playing field so that all people have the chance to prosper, not just the lucky few and their children.
144
@Mon Ray. "Chooses not to" is the right phrase. We have chosen to be who we are. When labor unions were strong, workers did well because unions fit into the capitalist picture - they were people with economic power (the power of bargaining, or striking and depriving the owners of their business - all reined in by the joint economic interest of working things out). Unions are dead now, in part because workers abandoned them in foolish short term desire not to pay for them and in part because owners developed the power to go elsewhere to make their money. Workers have no power now, so the owners wield it all and, as usual, abuse it. Power corrupts, unless there is a counterbalancing power.
104
Capitalism is never moral. At best it's an uneven bargain between capital and labor.
78
Owning the means of production has relevance only to the question of exploitation. If regulation, and worker mobility, eliminate that risk then it is just that some people are rewarded for producing the means by which others produce.
2
@Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Since all of us actual citizens are humans, shouldn't We the People demand an economy based on humanism.
Why should We the PEOPLE want an economy based on machinery? Is Our goal to be completely replaced by robots and Artificial Intelligence? The Supreme Court is already turning corporations into citizens. Why would a human want to share our human rights with a corporation?
Why would anyone want to live in a "Capitalist" society that replaces workers, not because they are less efficient, but because machinery gets favorable tax treatment?
Capitalism is the constant demand by the owners of capital that government interfere in the economy on their behalf. Don't believe me? Next time you hear a capitalist talk, listen more carefully.
2