Objectivism/capitalism... something is wrong here.

I know that objectivist thought promotes capitalism and an absolute separation of state and economy. I also know, and can visibly see, how this, in theory, implicates positive prospects to the concept of objectivism; capitalism allows for unhapmered economic and philosophical growth, one benefits from ones own merits, and their is no "parisitical" function that allows for success in capitalism, and one does not have to compromise beliefs (i.e price appropriations) for the sake of others, unless trade is being conducted, in which a medium price is reached. Capitalism would seem to embolden ideals of pure objectivism, intertwining acheivement with effort and success( pride), with fair trade and just dealings. This sounds okay, doesn't it?

However, as captialism grows in America, what we are coming to see is entirely anti-objectivist. For as the barriers between the capitalist and governing funcitons of this nation dissolve, the capitalist dimension is engulfing the other. The business world has grown so complex and powerful, and the competition to appease buyers and boost consumerism is so tense, that capitalism has overtaken the White House. Every poltiical endeavor is measured not for its political quality, but its financial quality. In fact, ever endeavor is measured in terms of revenue and financial incentives.

Among many, many other things, this means, moralistically, that corporations and business entities have not only the means and the resources but the unwavering will to impose means of moralistic subversion on the people; moral boundaries and aspirations are not being achevied and expanded, as Rand purposed, but instead being trampled. Companies have the ability to change your opinion on an issue by battering you with advertising, whcih has essentially transcended to propaganda. We are being brainwashed, and there is no evident way to change this massive sociological plunge.

So how can objectivists support a system that allows for unprecedented growth (and encourages it), and therefore unprecedented control by corporate powers, who "rule" on entirely financial, and not poltical, sociological, or, hey, moralistic grounds. The rise of corporate powers is challenging the environment, the health, and the mental stability of our people. Advertising is being directed directly to children, consumersim is fueled by psychological pressures, political maneuvers are viewed as financial gains, everything about capitalism helps the corporate powers, and everything about strengthening corporate powers doesn't help the moralistic psyches of the people.

Objectivists, what will you do about this?

Post 1

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 1:04pm

"Companies have the ability to change your opinion on an issue by battering you with advertising, whcih has essentially transcended to propaganda."

Oh? I don't think so. There are so many watchdogs out there from Ralph Nader to Consumer Reports and 60 Minutes debunking everything and anything, legitimately or not. We see both extremes of opinion everywhere.

"The business world has grown so complex and powerful, and the competition to appease buyers ..."

Don't you mean satisfy?

"Objectivists, what will you do about this?"

Your premises are wrong. The more capitalism the better.

Sam

Post 2

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:53pm

Objectivists, what will you do about this?

Remember that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Objectivists do not claim to be able to create a perfect world, but a moral world whereby men trade freely with one another value for value.

The greatest check against exploitation, propaganda or corruption is more freedom, which allows for dissent and competition, not less.

Collectivism and market regulation do not solve these problems, but monopolizes them into the hands of politicians and moochers causing economic decline and wide-spread suffering.

Post 3

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:55pm

Besides, corporate welfarism is not capitalism - let alone laissez-faire capitalism...

Post 4

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:38pm

There certainly are "corporate watchdogs", but I don't see how seeing both sides of the problem helps "the people" and demeans the corrupt exploits of the corporations. Selling products, in the corporate sense, means selling to as many buyers as possible, no matter who they may be. Now, to an intellectual who actually watches the news, reads books, and is concerned with these things, the "corporate watchdogs" will be heard by them.

But the bulk of this nation is left in ignorance, and instead of hearing testimonies by Ralph Nader, they hear cathcy McDonalds commercial. And lets be frank, the corporations would rather "win over" the massive collection of unobserving citizens rather than the minorty of acute observers. More people, more profit.

Also, "dissent" is possible in this country, but not very effective. Remember, dissent, either expressed through writing or film, will have to compete with the "agressor", the corporations. And also remember that the corporations are multi-billion doller establishments. This means that a book expressing dissent, among millions of other books and buyers, will have to compete with a billion doller effort to spread a brand name. Dissent is possible, but not effective. There is simply no financial incentive to produce works or dissent, because the entire orientation of this country is built upon financial growth. This means that every exploit to propagate an ideal (in this case, works of dissent), will need to produce an economic gain greater than the rival. What is the rival? The corporations. Who will win? the Corporations.

And capitalism, which encourages financial growth by allowing an atmoshpere of absolutely no restrictions, encourages corporations, who are byproducts of the capitalist system. Dissent is produced under the banner of "democracy and freedom", but the true ideal of this country is money. And if money is the principle concern of a corporation, and if a corporation has the resources and exists in the environment to blossom into a giant, then these giants will be able to do almost anything. Ethics will be forgotten.

Furthermore, dissent, in such a case (which is the present case, I must add), is even less possible because greivances toward the corporations cannot be directed toward them. The corporation is a privatized institution, and unlike a government, it cannot be held accountable for anything. The only source to direct greivances is the government, but hey, the government has nothing to do with this, right? Because that's capitalism, right?

Dissent, and thus expression, is only possible if it can be concerted at a source. The captialist society is like a broken dictatorship; there is no central command unit, and thus no one to present a case. All legilslative matters are dealt with warlords and wealthy persons. Totally barbaric, huh?

Not to mention the corporate onslaught on the environment, the house of all life...

Post 5

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:32pm

The corporation is a privatized institution, and unlike a government, it cannot be held accountable for anything.

It is held accountable by directors, shareholders and consumers.

The only source to direct greivances is the government, but hey, the government has nothing to do with this, right? Because that's capitalism, right?

Wrong. Not as far as Objectivists are concerned. Minimal governments are still needed to uphold law and order. The use of force and fraud against an individual or his property are not permitted.

Post 6

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:24pm

A.B.A.H: The logical extension of your argument is that you would like to see corporations disappear. Do you have any concept of the havoc that would engender? No cars, no airplanes or modern transportation at all. No telephone companies, no computers � and on and on and on. Your standard of living would crash to the level of 1850.

Or perhaps you would like to see the government expropriate all the corporations and run them itself?

Sam

Post 7

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:32pm

A.B.A.H.,

Back in 1996, a tape of Texaco employees -- using racism -- was released. Within 1 week of the release of this tape, sales had dropped 5-8%. Loss in stock shares amounted to over $1 BILLION!

Don't tell me that morality is gone and that corporations aren't adequately reigned in by Free Markets (reputation is EVERYTHING in a free market). There is only one thing that can keep bad corporations around -- government intervention.

Only the cream would rise in a truly free market -- and only filfth rises to the top under conditions of political pull (the type of conditions that filfth, above all other kinds of people, seek fervently).

Ed

Post 8

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:33pm

Marcus wrote

It is held accountable by directors, shareholders and consumers.

A corporation is accountable by consumers and shareholders, but not by commitment and duty, but by necessity. Because the reliance on these economic factors is not pure necessity, corporations can find ways around this, without fear of penalization. If a government is caught doing such, it has strictly defied written, indelible constitutional rules. A corporation follows rules that are not inscribed in the form of law, but rather by economic necessity. Thus, they can be broken, mended, twisted, and subverted. Furthermore, I should add that shareholders and consumers should not be used side by side. Shareholders are "in with it" purely for financial gain, and they, like corporations, do not need to pay heed to moral and ethical values. Consumers are what really concern corporations, because consumers are the ones who, essentially, benefit least from corporate power. Efforts at distorting the corporate reliance on consumerism is hidden quite well. An example of this: Ever heard of attempts to boycott a corporate product? It sounds unthinkable, and it is purely this thought that is corporate induced. A boycott wouldn't work, (and the economic atmosphere has been established in such a way to deter this), because corporate powers influence means of mass media and communications, therefore spreading their "empire" in such a way that to bring it down would involve combatting it with contrary propaganda, an option that doesn' t work because there is no financial incentive to do so, and the corporate game has aligned the nature of society in such a way that success is determined by the inherent presence of a financial incentive. The people are left in the dark about the power that they hold, and I realize that the idea of a corporate bully almost helps corporations; it stops people from realizing they, the people, are the true bullies to corporate dominance. A sly psychological trick, I presume.

Wrong. Not as far as Objectivists are concerned. Minimal governments are still needed to uphold law and order. The use of force and fraud against an individual or his property are not permitted.

Again, Marcus, I've been misunderstood. Certainly "law and order" can be maintained by the government, but what I speak of is drastically different. Dissent and greivences cannot by directed at corporations even if there is a government ready to intervene on matters of "law and order". But what I speak of are not legal greivances, but ethical, environmental, and political greivences. Legal matters are a different story. But these more trivial, and perhaps more influential, problems are the ones that fit into the paradox of corporate power and capitalism.

Sam Erica-

I agree with this entirely. I am not in any way a communist, and I am entirely pro-progression and technological advancement. However, what I see happening as a result of this "logical extension" is that corporate powers will not be dismantled and the economy will not be lain waste. Instead, I propose that capitalism remains, but to a significantly relaxed degree. This would mean that government would be accountable for corporate favor, and that taxes would be issued to corporate powers upon reaching a certain extent of expansion. My model that I propose would keep corporate powers under direct, yet relaxed control of the government.

What this would entail is that because the capitalist economy would not allow for such unprecedented growth, there would not be such a diversity of corporate powers jostling to benefit from the unrestricted breeding ground for wealth. Certainly, some corporations would still proliferate, for money still would be made. The essential element of my model is that the lack of serious competition (as a result of the lack of corporate diversity)would stop the corporate battle from escalating to major heights, because the consumerism would be large and the companies few. And relaxed competition would mean less "ruthless" attempts at subverting the public and winning the public customers, and less drastic attempts to control the political agenda (that means no wars waged for oil, and no political endeavors based on financial and purely corporate incentives). And if too many corporations did join the minimal battle, some intrusions would be denied by the lack of corporate and economic space (allowed by government restrictions). No intrusions means no escalated competition, which means no ruthless tactics.

Another element of this corporate game we have yet to discuss is the environmental dimension. Less corporate proliferation means less corporate environmental abuses, so we could then avoid the real "havoc."

Ed, you wrote

reputation is EVERYTHING in a free market

Reputation is everything, but reputation can be faked. If the facade falls, sales do fall. But the fact of the matter is that in a capitalist society, the lack of restrictions means the lack of certainty. The facade may not fall, and racism will continue uninterrupted. To return to my first sentence (of this rebuttal)

Reputation is everything, but reputation can be faked. Corporate powers can create an image for themselves. And this goes beyond the logo and the mascot. The psychology of it is truly powerful, and truly scary.

Post 9

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:47pm

A.B.A.H.,

"Freedom is a very dangerous thing. Anything else is disastrous." -- James Baldwin

Ed

Post 10

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:49am

ABAH.

Your problem is that you have taken on board a bunch contradictory assumptions.

1) Money is evil
2) Corporations are evil
3) Power is evil.
Everyone is associated with the above in some form or other.
Therefore, everyone must be evil?

In your world there is "them" and there are "us".

Therefore, we are all potentially "evil-doers", but we are also the oppressed "us".

"Them" with money, power and corporations are corrupt "evil-doers" that need to be restricted by "us", i.e. those who do not have these.

The "us" are justified because we are oppressed! "Them" are evil because they are free to act in their own individual self-interest.

However, this is a contradiction and a false distinction. There is nothing inherently "evil" about acting in ones' own self-interest. There is nothing inherently "evil" about men trading freely between themselves value for value. Indeed, no one can avoid doing so, even if they do so inconsistently. To deny your own "self-interest" is to deny your own means of living.

Before you get past that contradiction, you will never understand Objectivist philosophy.

Post 11

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 9:06am

A.B.A.H:

There are so many things that are erroneous in this rambling generalization, but the worst is:

"The facade may not fall, and racism will continue uninterrupted."

all in the context that capitalism or corporations are responsible for racism.. That is an outrageous claim and, IMO, disqualifies you from any further debate.

Sam

Post 12

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:18pm

Marcus-

Money is not evil.
Power is not eveil.
What I'm saying is that corporations are evil, because they manipulate these elements of "self-interest" in an evil context.

Money becomes evil, when in the corporate context, because the prospect of wealth is held above any ethical, environmental, or political necessities. Power becomes evil in the corporate context, because it too is manipulated to influence politics, not to bolster the constitutional values of political necessity, but to benefit them(the corporations) financially. This blur of ideals can be disasterous.

Also, I'm not trying to say that the rich are the evil and the poor are the innocent. What I am intending to say is that the economic and sociological fabric is oriented in such a way that this division is almost inescapable. The capitalist society is deterministic in that:

Success is measured by wealth, and wealth is acheived by holding the prospect of wealth over ethical values.

To shun and deny support for the corporate world in any way never reaps success, for success must mean wealth- and for this, there is no financial incentive.

Simply put, the corporate world has expanded so incredibly that the only way to benefit economically is to join in the "evil" and to disregard ethics and attune focuse on financial gain. To refuse to comply with this is to fail in society, because, once more, success is financial gain. To support a corporation is inescapable, and as I have said, a boycott or large scale demonstration would never and has never worked. The only way to win is to join the corporations, and play by their rules. We can only defeat them with propaganda, as they have defeated "us" (the anti-corporatists or people who do not comply with the corporatist ethical code, which is the ethics of ethical disregard). To succeed you need to play by their rules, and to "defeat" them you must too play by their rules. Corporate control is inescapable.

The only thing that would fundamentally awaken the world and influence a shift in the economic order would not be an activist movement, but some serious environmental disaster brought about by corporate disregard.

In my former post, I have listed what I believe to be a faint insinuation at a solution. It is what I would consider a "first draft", and still a sketch of a new economic fabric.

Sam wrote-

all in the context that capitalism or corporations are responsible for racism.. That is an outrageous claim

Sam, I am not at all accusing corporations for racism. I was simply using that in reference to Ed's comment on Texaco. What I meant to say (which it seems I stated too bluntly), is that corporations uphold a reputation not for the moralistic appeal of a reputation, but of the increased consumerism from such a reputation.

What I'm worried about is that corporations are building false reputations. A corporation can donate to a cancer society, for example, and then in the same year impose cancer on a new gamut of people by cutting the money put into food examination (if the corporation is a restaurant,). Sam, this claim, unlike the "racism claim" which was misinterpreted, can be entirely supported by factual data. The corporate disregard for sanitation, combined with hiding such discrminating evidence or by working just above the "sanitary line" to save a profit, is a practice all ready in place at all levels of corporate extremity.

Consider this, too, when on the case of corporate disregard: sweatshops. It is entirely plausible and extremely practical to set up sweatshops in developing, povertry-stricken third world countries. It saves a massive profit and is incredibly expedient. And this is what success has come to mean in the corporate world: a boosted profit. And, hear this, the most successful companies in the world employ such method, and continue to reign successful in the corporate market even when this ethical abuse becoms apparent. Its just that the movement to publicize these depravities is a unsucessful endeavor. To repeat myself, there is no financial incentive in such an exploit. And, to repeat myself once more, this bit of information would have to compete with a multi-billion doller marketing arena in order to win the prize: the consumers. And that's why it can't work; why would consumers by anti-activist material over a brilliantly advertised product?

Furthermore, Sam, I find it quite silly that you are constantly alluding to "things that are erroneous in this rambling generalization", yet you only list one, which you claim is the "worst." In my opinion, it was simply a misinterpretation. I'm not hoping to invoke a feud of sorts, but please, do not dramatize "erroneous things" that you hasten even to list or mention. I find that a very unsuccessful debate tactic, and is not assisting in your case. I can understand how you hold strong views on this issue, as is the objectivist philosophy, but I wish you would list them, instead of dramatizing their undisclosed existence.

Ed-

I understand this quote, but I believe I have circumvented this paradox. I do not hope to reinstate a less free system, but rather a free system under a minimal control. What I'm trying to do is not to shift ownership, but to tighten the legalities as to discourage unlawful, unethical, or un-environmental abuses.

In my opinion, this is still free, and significantly less dangerous.

Post 13

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:54pm

A.B.A.H.,

You say that corporations can lie (to fabricate the kind of reputation that they need in order to survive on a free market). And you are right that they can lie. But here's the rub: If they're caught lying, then THEY PAY FOR IT.

You argue for government control. Well, government politicians can lie, too (I'll just assume that this is common knowledge among rational men). And here's the clincher: If they're caught lying, then WE PAY FOR IT.

There is a court case on the books -- O'Reilly v. Mitchell, 85 Misc. 176, 148 N.Y.S. 88 (Sup. Ct. 1914) -- where a voter sued a political candidate for reneging on all his campaign promises (after getting elected). What do you think the verdict was, A.B.A.H.?

What central power actually does, for the most part, is make innocent individuals pay for the misdeeds of others. The Free Market makes individuals pay for their own misdeeds. One is unjust, the other is just.

And, though neither of them is absolutely perfect, absolute perfection ought not to ever be used in order to criticize something (it is inherently dishonest for a rational thinker to use absolute perfection as a standard for judging something).

Tell me what you think of THESE quotes ...

----------
The chief beginning of evil is goodness in excess. -- Menander (c. 300 B.C.)
----------

----------
The ... motive of many socialists ... is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them ... because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. -- George Orwell (1937)
----------

----------
[They] try frantically to order and stabilize the world so that no unmanageable, unexpected or unfamiliar dangers will ever appear. ... [break] ... They are much like brain injured cases ... who manage to maintain their equilibrium by avoiding everything unfamiliar and strange and by ordering their restricted world in such a neat, disciplined, orderly fashion that everything in the world can be counted on. -- Abraham Maslow (1943)
----------

----------
The radical error of the modern democratic gospel is that it promises, not the good life of this world, but the perfect life of heaven. -- Walter Lippmann (1955)
----------

----------
We may describe utopian thought as a belief in an unspoiled beginning and attainable perfection ... [T]he utopian may be pessimistic about individual human nature, but optimistic about the ability of man's social nature, as embodied in society, to overcome the recalcitrance of the individual. To overcome individual resistance will mean force, but the utopian holds that, if the goal is goodness and perfection, then the use of force is justified. It is even justifiable to establish a special government of the elect as repositories of the doctrine of the perfect society. -- Thomas Molnar (1967)
----------

Ed

Post 14

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 2:11pm

A.B.A.H.,

--------------
... wealth is�acheived by holding the prospect of wealth�over ethical values.
--------------

A.B.A.H., in the last 2 centuries, we have increased per capita production of goods 36-fold.

Tell me, where did all that extra wealth come from?

Was it created (or did it already exist -- to be "looted")?

Was it created by the rivalrous, entrepreneurial discovery and innovation which is only possible in a free market economy?

Is it ethical to produce so much value (making our lives now, so much more comfortable -- than life was then)?

A.B.A.H., I understand your point (that corporate corruption IS happening). But corporate corruption ORIGINATES with government control (via initiation of force). Read Rand's book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" for undeniable examples of this.

Corruption (lying, cheating, stealing) couldn't survive in a totally free market -- because, in the long run, it is inherently unproductive (and only producers survive).

Ed

Post 15

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 2:38pm

A.B.A.H:

My patience is growing weary, but I'll give it one more chance.

"A corporation can donate to a cancer society, for example, and then in the same year impose cancer on a new gamut of people by cutting the money put into food examination (if the corporation is a restaurant,)."

Would you please explain what you are alluding to? How does a restaurant corporation impose cancer on its patrons?

Sam

Post 16

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:17pm

Sam, I know that your patience is already worn thin, but please forgive me for defending this part of this point -- by our shared arch-nemesis in socio-political justice: A.B.A.H.

Food-borne cancer, explained:
One way to increase cancer in folks would be to offer them organic peanuts. Peanuts are often infected with a fungus that produces aflatoxin, a carcinogen.

Disclaimer:
I am in now way agreeing with A.B.A.H. about implications, Sam. Just take a look at my anti-social-democrat quotes above -- to confirm this. Social-democrats are a scourge on society (as Orwell, Maslow, Lippmann, and Molnar so eloquently illustrate).

A.B.A.H.,
If, after reviewing the several undeniable examples of government being behind the problem of corruption (in Capitalism book), you still require even more evidence -- then I have several recent examples to share with you. Examples which show that it was precisely the initiating force by the government that was required in order to hurt individuals and propagate corruption.

Ed

Post 17

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:30pm

Rather than try to use a discussion forum as a venue for economic education, it would be more fruitful perhaps to recommend several books, and ask A.B.A.H. if she/he has read them, or is willing to. If "no," then I think further discussion is pointless.

Post 18

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:42pm

A couple things:

Corporations are not entities in and of themselves. They are made of people. In an ideal Objectivist capitalist society the people who made up the corporations would be people who�s drives in their lives would be to pursue perfection with their company and its products and services, and thereby pursue, and, preferably, attain happiness doing so (possibly through monetary profit). Therefore, a capitalist corporation�s main goal would not be only profit. It would be through customer satisfaction that they gained any profit.

People who make up corporations are also customers of other corporations. These corporate people don�t exist in a world in which they are not customers. One company�s bad decisions would be a deterrent for other companies considering a similar direction.

As far as environmental issues go: why poison your own drinking water? Corporations that don�t consider the effects of their manufacturing, etc., would be hurting/killing their customers. This would be incentive for their customers to find goods and services elsewhere.

Perhaps a reputation can be faked. But how? A corporation with horrid, dangerous, unsatisfactory, etc., products would run out of money if it were maintaining a reputation with fakery. There�s only so much money with which they can pay off their faking customers.

And then ideally the customer would be smart enough to not fall for misleading advertising, the customer using their own rational logic to decide what is the best for him or her. This of course ignores that an Objectivist advertising firm would not mislead a customer. Advertising firms would advertise to the best of their ability products that they know to be worthwhile.

Post 19

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 5:29pm