Comments 12

资本主义威胁资本主义

May 23, 2014 Paul Polman , Lynn Forester de Rothschild

伦敦——温斯顿·丘吉尔有句名言，除已经尝试过的其他形式外，民主是最恶劣的政府形式。如果他能活到现在，他或许会认为资本主义是实现经济和社会进步最差劲的形式。

资本主义引导世界实现了空前的经济繁荣。但事实证明它在很多重要方面作用都相当有限。它往往鼓励短视、拉大贫富差距，并且纵容轻率处置环境资本的行为。

如果这些成本无法得到控制，对资本主义的支持就可能消失——同时消失的还有实现经济增长繁荣的人类最美好的希望。因此是时候考虑世界各地正蓬勃兴起的以自觉资本主义、道德资本主义和包容资本主义为代表的资本主义新模式。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Featured

Why Is Bangladesh Booming?

Apr 23, 2018 Kaushik Basu
What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Apr 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Political Machismo

Apr 10, 2018 Ian Buruma
Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Apr 2, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Mar 30, 2018 Simon Johnson

Paul Polman

Writing for PS since 2014
1 Commentary

Paul Polman is the CEO of Unilever.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild

Writing for PS since 2013
2 Commentaries

Lynn Forester de Rothschild is CEO of E.L. Rothschild and co-chair of the Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 in all 15 Comments on this article

Michael Harrington Dec 23, 2014

What does inclusion mean specifically for capitalist market economies? I'm not sure what transformational changes we're contemplating here but I would suggest that inclusive capitalism means we all participate as capitalists in one form or another. The 20th century industrial and post-industrial society has focused on class definitions in relation to production, i.e., capitalist or labor. I would argue for any form of inclusive capitalism, this dichotomy is not only obsolete, it is a barrier to positive change. If capitalism is so successful for the capitalists, why aren't we all capitalists? (Not managers, but owners.)
Poor Richard May 29, 2014

I have nothing against capitalism (the private ownership of property is the core of capitalism) as long as private ownership is properly regulated in the public interest. But the famous "invisible hand" is not at all adequate to that task.

Capitalism should stop being evil. It should be green, renewable, sustainable, and just. Capitalism should be a good citizen. It should stop being a bully and a reckless slob. It should pay fair taxes. It should adopt some ethics. It should act in good faith (bona fides). Markets should be fair (level) first, free second. It should be positive sum rather than zero sum. Rich criminals should be punished even more severely than poor criminals.
Poor Richard May 29, 2014

What should capitalism do?

I have nothing against the private ownership of property which is the core of capitalism as long as private ownership is properly regulated in the public interest. But the famous "invisible hand" is not at all adequate to that task.

Capitalism should stop being evil. It should be green, renewable, sustainable, and just. Capitalism should be a good citizen. It should stop being a bully and a reckless slob. It should pay fair taxes. It should adopt some ethics. It should act in good faith (bona fides). Markets should be fair (level) first, free second. It should be positive sum rather than zero sum. Rich criminals should be punished even more severely than poor criminals.
Douglas Costello May 29, 2014

Why should we be surprised by the point that less than 50% of the people trusts their governments. All seem to have fallen to the sway of trying to retain power at all costs which is usually a significant economic impact to the public, the economy and future economic growth.

Politicians create more linguistic moves than an aerial skier or ice skating in an Olympic Final.
Robert REYNOLDS May 28, 2014

The headline “The Capitalist Threat to Capitalism” sounds like a mild reinterpretation of Karl Marx’s warning that “Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction”. As a democratic socialist myself, I always find it difficult to understand why the more liberal supporters of the capitalist system wring their hands in despair when their favored system delivers the dysfunctional outcomes and shortsightedness described in this article. Such lamentations are reminiscent of the brothel owner who complains that the staff are having sex with the customers.

Even the capitalists in their frenzied clamor for profits seem unable to comprehend that they are like the parasite which will eventually kill its host. Anyone who has studied biology will appreciate that in general, the most successful parasites are the ones that exploit the host without killing it. But this is not a new phenomenon. As Marx also indicated, the capitalist who was scheduled to be hung in the morning, would sell the hangman the rope in the evening if there was a profit to be made.

One of the most disturbing claims made in this article is that, “less than half of the global population trusts government”. For governments not elected by universal adult suffrage this comes as no surprise but when people elect their representatives and then express no trust in them then what does this say about the behavior and rationality of the voters?

One final observation. I hope that Lynn is successful in her endeavors to create a more “inclusive capitalism” because, if these endeavors, whether they are instigated by her or others, are not successful, then I feel that we are in for some unpleasant times in the future. It seemed to me that we actually did have a comparatively more inclusive form of capitalism in the west, at least for some of the years after World War 2. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the Ayn Rand proponents changed that in the 1980’s and the trend to a more exclusive form of capitalism continues apace, championed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
David Beard May 28, 2014

I have not seen if Piketty has lived by his own creed and donated his excess wealth, generated by book sales, to the State coffers...Anyone know or would Mr Piketty care to respond?
Nathan Weatherdon May 28, 2014

Why not have a backstop built into tax policy so that inequality can't get too high.

For example, a maximum Gini of 0.4. Then, if rich people want to get richer, they have to figure out how to motivate (or otherwise help) poor people to access opportunities which will make them more money.

Then, there will be a concentrated class interest on the part of the rich to ensure sustained income growth among the poor.
Tom Shillock May 28, 2014

"None of us can thrive in a world where one billion people go to bed hungry each night and 2.3 billion lack access to basic sanitation. Nor can business thrive where public optimism about the future and trust in institutions are at historic lows."

But that is what has happened and continues to. There is a gap between short term interests of the rich and their politicians trump long term interests. Inequality will grow unless the majority can make it too expensive for the rich and powerful to continue with their policies and institutions, or unless the policies and institutions break down in some manner, say, because of pollution / global warming or the costs of raw materials of various sorts exceed their monetary value.

As Hume noted, the intellect is at the service of the passions. One can add the banal point that short term passions trump long term passions and rationality.
- Nathan Weatherdon May 28, 2014
  
  I think a "get opportunity knocking in the ghettos" rather than a "bring down the rich man" campaign would be more likely to attract broad appeal, but I feel what you're saying.
de Lafayette May 28, 2014

I've often thought that it is not capitalism per se that is disappointing, but the manner in which it has been employed. And, given the present controversy stimulated by Thomas Piketty's book, how it has been ill-distributed causing both Income and Wealth Disparity.

I attribute mankind's mismanagement of capital to a lack of Social Justice in much of the world, with perhaps the EU being the one entity to have wanted to install it into a Social Democracy.

Income Disparity, let's face a given truth, is due to a lack of progressive taxation. If anyone should doubt this, just look at the history of income obtained by America's top 10Percenters here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68758107@N00/14266316974/ .

Note in 1980 the inflexion upwards of their share of Total Income in the US. Who was elected PotUS that year and proceeded to reduce upper-income tax levels (once around 90% prior to 1960) to the the 30% range of today?

Our present income disparity in the US is a result of that era in American history. Any economy must reward initiative, risk and entrepreneurship. We know that very well.

But at what cost is the question we have not yet answered adequately. Glaring Income Disparity is to high a price to pay, since it has a direct impact upon societal well-being.
Nik N May 26, 2014

This sounds a lot like a PR article. I doubt Unilever is much different than most other for-profits in this respect. Some of their activities noted here don't really make me think that they practice inclusive capitalism, especially outside the west:

http://www.corporatewatch.org/content/unilever-corporate-crimes#env

Section 8 on environmental pollution is especially worth a read. Is Unilever only for the betterment of the poor in the west ?
Gerry Hofman May 25, 2014

Anybody who believe the solution to the damage caused by capitalism is more and better targeted capitalism, is like someone who believes that communism could have been be saved by better control of the population. Believing that such a close cooperation between companies, corporations and governments will lead to social justice and save the world from environmental destruction, is believing in a fairy tale.
It is also debatable if capitalism has made our lives so much richer or if it has simply filled them with endless volumes of fashionable junk. The relentless stream of targeted advertising combined with the designed redundancy of goods means that the poorest half of the planet must be compelled to work in near slave-like labor camps to manufacture the endless stream of consumer goods that makes the developed world feel so much richer. But of course corporations will also target the poor since they now have a dollar to spend, getting in early now could manage sending them down the same road of mindless consumerism and thus keep economic growth positive, thereby saving their business.
In a world reaching nine to ten billion people, where the next wave of automization will destroy work opportunities in east and west, with a wealth versus poverty gap not seen since the renaissance, business as usual is a recipe for total disaster, leading to dramatic social adjustment that will tear western culture apart. The way forward for capitalism is to dismantle itself. There must come a strict regulation of the stock markets and limits on the products they market. There must be a limit to wealth, as there should be a limit to poverty. Products should be designed to achieve the highest level of use and durability. The advertising industry, complete with its teams of psychologists and public relation marketing agents, must be taken to the back of the station and shot dead. There must come a guaranteed basic wage in the west, and developing nations must follow in that path, as a large loss of employment due to technological advances will devastate them. There must come a global conversation on the management of waste and resources. Only along this path or similar can we a way forward to the latter half of the century without the whole framework collapsing upon us.
- Edward Ponderer May 27, 2014
  
  What Winston Churchill did say was that the vice of Capitalism was the unequal distribution of blessing--the plan being, the rich get richer, and the poor do better. A tiny minority get much richer and the vast majority get poorer is a complete betrayal of the general populous--it means that the best interests of the majority have been substituted for by the best interest of an oligarchy. Simply put, egoism isn't a "good boy" that doesn't realize what it is doing--whether that ego come as the Communist party, or the "free enterprise" elite. It is pure selfishness and greed that requires not only wealth, but the differential in wealth (it needs a lot of poor people) to feel good. It uses media, buys politicians, armies of lawyers, manipulates between automation and false promises not legally backed to direct work to near slave labor, utilizes the cheapest, most unhealthy substitutes to further increase profit margins, etc. The discussion at present is a common-sense self-preservation that seeks to hone in minimizing risk to the system into the total profit-maximizing picture--greed's longevity course-correction.
  
  Ego is any group that gets into power in any system. The only way to fix this is by a good general education in the significance of global integration -- that we are all ultimately in the same boat -- and a media environment promoting values emphasizing mutual responsibility. we must not make simplistic theories about ego anymore--that a gun will control it, or that the right system will mathematically make it help everyone like some cybernetic Pavlov's dog. There has been enough damage in the 20th and 21st centuries to understand how foolish any approach to the ego will be--say the direct one.
- Gerry Hofman May 27, 2014
  
  It often strikes me how at nearly every turn of events in history, people could have chosen to either do the right thing, or something entirely else. And that 'something else' seems to have been the conclusion time and again. But then it's debatable if we are even at freedom to make such a 'right' choice, as every action is determined by the result of previous actions. If we are able to freely choose 'good' then it doesn't show very often.
  But I agree with you that in the end, change for the positive can only come about by an accumulation of positive decisions of many individuals, and in an age of global awareness many elect to make their decisions for the good of all. We can only hope that the positive will find a way to dominate general thinking, as the numbers seem to suggest that we either evolve into something better or drive ourselves, and everything with it, to destruction.
- Zsolt Hermann May 26, 2014
  
  I tend to agree with most of what you have said.
  I would even say something else.
  If we knew what the root problem is, and we corrected that root problem before, even communism or free market capitalism, or any other structure, governance would have succeeded in giving us a sustainable human society.
  The only problem we have to single out and then adjust/overcome is our own human nature.
  We are born inherently self-serving, egocentric, all seven billion of us.
  Of course all of us a different strength of desire, "heroism" to sacrifice, stubbornness to go towards a self important goal, so according to the strength, rawness of the selfish desire humanity renders alongside a pyramid.
  Thus it does not matter what the starting point is, sooner or later a new pyramid is formed and those at the top would keep distorting even the most democratic, free ideals, laws until they secure their place permanently at the top.
  The whole human history is about running around in circles, building the human civilization anew only to run into a dead end later, when the intolerable state causes an explosion, revolution, war and when the dust settles a new rebuilding starts.
  But we have to be cautious, the last such explosion caused two World Wars, unprecedented suffering, the birth of WMD's, thus if we "sleepwalk" into the next "intolerable state" requiring an explosion to solve it, we might wipe out ourselves completely.
  It is time we behave truly as "humans", rising above our inherent nature, becoming fully aware and conscious instead of simply following our basic instincts and desires.
  This concerns all of us, including 1% or 99%, in a global integral world nobody can escape, succeed alone, pull away, hide, we are all sitting on the same sinking boat.

http://prosyn.org/0MMvdk7/zh;

Log in/Register

资本主义威胁资本主义

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

Why Is Bangladesh Booming?

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Political Machismo

Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Case for Secret Diplomacy

The Upheaval Italy Needs

Populism Bites Back

The Future of Tech Policy

Beating Malaria in the Greater Mekong Subregion

A Crisis Playbook for Big Tech

Russia’s World Cup Opportunity

America’s Weak Case Against China