Journal of the mental environment
"It is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie!"
Steve Forbes' Deadly Notion
Steve Forbes claims that capitalism will save us.
- Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:27 pm — Posted by Micah M. White
- | 39 comments
“Collect”, 2003, oil on canvas, 36 x 48. Used by permission of the artist Wes Magyar. www.wesmagyar.com
A dangerous idea is floating around the halls of megacorporations. It is seeping into the pages of popular magazines and the minds of sensible folk. If this idea continues to circulate freely, it could spell death for our already unwell natural environment. The deadly notion is that capitalism will save us from an economic collapse.
Steve Forbes clearly articulates this argument in his article “How Capitalism Will Save Us.” Forbes argues that as long as people don’t try to hinder capitalists, everything will work out fine.
Underlying Forbes’ logic is nostalgia for a mythic past, one in which capitalism bestowed great gifts on the world. Forbes writes, “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years.”
What Forbes doesn’t say is that this so-called Golden Age was dependent on the massive, systematic destruction of the natural environment. Capitalists took nature, mixed it with toxins and sold it as disposable garbage to consumers. All in the name of profit. Capitalists can only refer to the last 25 years as a “great time” by ignoring the destruction of the natural environment. We all know the alarming statistics: world biodiversity has declined by almost one third in the past 35 years; twenty-five percent of all mammals now face extinction.
What we are seeing now are capitalists’ desperate attempts to stay on top. As Naomi Klein explains, “today’s preferred method of reshaping the world in the interest of multinational corporations is to systematically exploit the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies moments of great shock and crisis.” The question is, do we have the courage to propose alternative ways to get out of this state of fear?
Micah M. White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters Magazine and an independent activist. Micah is currently writing a book on the future of activism. He lives in Binghamton, NY with his wife and two cats. www.micahmwhite.com
Comments
It’s so amusing to see Capitalism’s apologists (and some of the biggest leeches in society) try to explain to us that greed is the most benign agent of development ever morally conceived.
Hmmmm.
Not to complain or anything but is it really that good of an idea to let non-transparent, non-democratic, monopoly-creating, proven to be sociopathic, inhuman legal fictions like corporations determine most of the laws that govern our world?
Why would an inhuman sociopathic entity be the best one to determine the rules and limits of our financial system?
Kind of a bizarre choice from the alien in space or logical perspective.
Humanity only developed because of its propensity for intelligent society-building.
That wasn’t the result of every man for himself (plus vs the corporations), that came from empathy and logic.
What is the moral purpose of money anyway?
And exactly what rules would allow money to circulate most efficiently and effectively in such as way to make of the economy a tool of human development?
Like, yeah…
Let us ponder that a little…
Capitalism’s current problems and the attempts to solve capitism’s current problems are like rearranging the deckchairs on the RMS Titanic the ship is still sinking but everyone is only concerned that they have the best seat
What Steven Forbes, as an AMerican capitalist, meant to say was:
“Capitalism will save us, after it attempts to murder us…and it will continue this way as a killing, bloodthirsty savior until the damage is too great to repair.”
That sums it up.
Hey guys, don’t even bother trying to argue with “I am so Wise” it’s the biggest misnomer I’ve ever seen. I’ve argue with him on other articles, and he puts forth just as much bullshit about everything, even things he could NEVER conceive of. He likes to make it sound like he’s an expert on all things, and treats these posts as research essays for some university professor like “if I quote some article, that MUST make it true!” without validating any of the points in said articles. While the rest of us are on here looking for meaningful discourse about the themes that Adbusters brings to the table, he is trolling the message boards trying to figure out who he can piss off the most, by saying the stupidest things possible. In regards to this consumption issue, let him consume himself into the ground. If enough of us work together to make a difference, hopefully we can offset his carbon footprint.
Let’s all cool off for a second. Has anyone dealt with the Post office, the DMV, or some other Federal, State, or Municipal agency recently? I have, and the experience has not been pleasant. Here’s the problem as I see it: these employees don’t have to make sure that their “clients” leave with a smile. Do you know why? BECAUSE THERE’S NOWHERE ELSE TO GO!
The “profit” sector has competitors. So, if I’m being treated like garbage at Walmart, I can head to Macy’s, Target, KMart, etc. They need to make the consumer happy, because if they don’t, we can take our business elsewhere. This results in employees who give a damn and quality of service.
What’s my point? Picture a world with “nanny state” government. Do you want the above mentioned type of work ethic when you’re facing serious healthcare issues.
Consider Hurricane Katrina: FEMA and the state of Louisiana couldn’t find their butt from their elbow. You know who was prepared for the Hurricane? “Evil” Walmart, who made sure their stores in the region had plenty of water and other needed items days before the storm hit.
Capitalism can really stink, and I’m no fan of greedy pigs who exploit others. However, capitalism works much better then the “not for profit” sector. Let’s all keep that in mind before we replace it with a system that leads us back into the Dark Ages.
P.S. If you can get your hands on it, about 10 years ago ABC news ran a special called “Is America #1?” It compares business friendly climates like Hong Kong and America with socialist ones like parts of India. The difference was striking. In Hong Kong you had a crowded “rock” with no natural resources that had developed one of the world’s highest standards of living. In parts of India (I can’t recall which state) you had complete poverty despite 40 years of nanny state socialism.
“treats these posts as research essays for some university professor”
God forbid, someone actually engage in some primary source research, engage the historiography, and actually know what they are talking about rather than spout off the party line without giving thought to its accuracy or validity. Such rank anti-intellectuals makes Baby Jesus cry.
““if I quote some article, that MUST make it true!””
Quoting and citing one’s source is the most basic convention of scholarship. It’s also a matter of basic politeness. It’s also a 4th grade level skill.
“While the rest of us are on here looking for meaningful discourse about the themes that Adbusters brings to the table, he is trolling the message boards trying to figure out who he can piss off the most, by saying the stupidest things possible.
This is a rank tactic shamelessly and ignorantly plagiarized straight from Rove’s playbook. It has the intellectual integrity of claiming critics of America hate America, but lacks the originality in usage that Rove brought to it. It’s basically admission of defeat without the decency of a concession speech.
Frankly, I think Black Spot Sneakers, if stripped of their sanctimonious fans and promotion and bad supporting arguments, would be a fine addition to my wardrobe. Adbusters would do a great if it made kinder, gentler capitalism the norm.
“I am so Wise.” What kind of a name is that?! First of all, you have one main good point which is that you propose to reform capitalism rather than absolutely trashing it. Capitalism can spur technological and scientific achievement as well as allow for a sense of “value”.
We are questioning capitalism because of what it is predicated on: crisis, short-sighted decisions, and creative destruction (see Carl Polanyi). I mean, just look at history: right when its about to blow, we regulate it slightly and allow it to continue. People are starting to question the foundations of capitalism as unsustainable if the government has to always save the day. So many theorists hate government involvement, but what they don’t realize is that it always has been necessary in the past to allow capitalism to endure through its own catastrophes.
Capitalism, especially free-market capitalism won’t help at all, Forbes! Rather, the cash will be invested into key areas (not spread around to those mom and pop stores), many will lose their jobs at the snap of fingers, the environment will be polluted more than ever…I mean, free market capitalism happens in Free Trade Zones in developing countries and its horrible.
Last, capitalism not a PURE free flowing system that provides for us. Rather, it is entrenched in power relations and involves interests and manipulations. Some people think we need to all rise up and manipulate capitalism in our collective interests and reform capitalism - others say start fresh.
It would be nice to see some positive comments on how we can improve the situation, rather than people continually shouting each other down. Whether or not adbusters is a brand or an anti-brand or a capitolist-model entity or not, it provides this very forum designed for free-thinking individuals to come up with creative solutions. I feel that is wasted if all we do is argue with each other over semantics. I would be pleased to hear something as I’m having a really hard time coming up with answers myself.
I wasn’t criticizing Adbusters. I was criticizing Forbes. The linked article is full of sputtering, unconvincing praise for the bailout alongside sputtering, unconvincing praise for market freedom.
The article in two very, very simple sentences:
Government intervention in the market is very, very bad. Government handouts to the market are very, very good.
I think it’s a big shame that people feel a need to attack each other in threads rather than just tackling the issue, regardless of how strongly one feels about the issue. I would put personal attacks in the same league as greed - both are dysfunctional and anti-human. Anyway…the main thing I wanted to say is that I believe the capitalist system is pretty close to, if not already, a form of pathological insanity. We live in a way that is not ultimately in the best interests of any party…humans, animals, the physical environment.
Legislating for change makes a difference…racism in the US as an example. Ultimately, I believe it is only when we heal ourselves of the emotional scars gained through early life that create a sense of deprivation and shake off the indoctrination of consumerism, that we will be individually motivated to make lasting beneficial changes. When enough people attain that level of moivation, significant changes occur. Sadly, or perhaps necessarily, it would appear that many of these changes will be dramatically forced upon us in the very near future both economically and environmentally. Change with choice would appear preferable but desperation is a good teacher! When we start to care about each other and the planet on a large scale, then some sanity might prevail. Until then, it feels somewhat like pockets of sanity in a global psych ward!
I’m not sure that ‘capitalism’ per se is the problem. It’s the idea that “as long as people don’t try to hinder capitalists, everything will work out fine”.
Fine for who? For you? For the environment? For me?
Anyway, I just finished a bit a discussion on Buy Nothing day and Laissez-faire capitalism on my blog (link above) so I wont repeat it all here - except this good quote from Edward 0. Wilson:
A very Faustian choice is upon us: whether to accept our corrosive and risky behavior as the unavoidable price of population and economic growth, or to take stock of ourselves and search for a new environmental ethic.
Edward O. Wilson
What do other wealthy people suggest we do? If the majority agree with Forbes then i’m sure capitalism is the solution.
This is a large misuse of authority. I looked at you home page and it seems quite clear that you were not the kind of person take your early education as absolute. So why would you think that it would be reasonable to trust in purely based their support by others. Also because you can not immediately find another solution does not mean that the first theory is correct. I think that it would be safer for all of us if you spent less time proclaiming your certainties and doing a little bit of research.
Dear Concerned Fellow Human,
We’ll assume you’re not a simpleton and that your reply was just sarcasm as was our post.
Peace
If we are truly to enter a golden age we have to deregulate our economy. Separation of economy and state is necessary for the same reasons as the separation of church and state. The only powers the federal government should have are to protect the country from foreign enemies and to facilitate trade between the states (provinces). Two examples: All schools should be privatized and income tax should be eliminated. These two things alone would raise the standard of living dramatically.
Two examples: All schools should be privatized and income tax should be eliminated.
We tried that and it did not work all that well. Also why allow the feds to facilitate the trade between states? Let them do themselves.
raise the standard of living for the top 0.1% of the population maybe while they rape everyone below them and the environment. The golden age forbes talks about only exists because of oil the production of which peaked during the said golden age. We will run out of oil in the next 60 years and then all these moronic growth economists and neoliberal economists will be tarred and feathered by everyone they screwed over (aka everyone who has survived the famines and resource wars).
Now THAT I can agree with completely.
Wow…you’re an angry little lot, aren’t you?
I agree that the entrepreneurial spirit needs to be rewarded far greater than it is now, but to think that the little mom & pop businesses can support concentrated populations of 1-million and more is just naive and, IMHO, far more ideological and blind to reality than these mega-corps you despise so much.
Now, that being said, I do believe the Wal-Marts of the world can simply shove off. Being a large corporation is not necessarily synonymous with unaccountability (W.L. Gore & Associates, anyone?). The N. American auto industry is one in particular that requires serious revamping.
Again, I agree that the “greed is good” corporate mentality to the point of where it has gotten us today need to change…but to denounce capitalism as a whole (especially in areas of high population density) is just…well, ideological and naive.
Flame on….
Why is wealth “good”? Why do we feel we should depend on the manufacturing of things to provide for our own existence and wellbeing rather than simply providing for one another?
the replicators fucking themselves right out of exsistence…
Capitalism will not only fail,it will tear up the carpet as it leaves. Too late, too late, too late. The generosity of life has ben lost on humanity; he has a grand aversion to death and this is the thing that blinds him, drives him on, running running from the dark one. Oh, deary me. Man is too greedy to die. That’s the problem. We have so little grace.
Well, capitalism IS failing, right before our eyes, but it is up to us to introduce a system that rewards the entrepreneurial spirit, and simultaniously spreads wealth, inspiring sustainable business models, and humility. what do u propose we do?
I’ll bite:
How about simply renouncing our ideological insistence upon neo-con economic absolutes, especially the idea that the ultimate economic structure is the mega-monopoly. Stop the government subsidy of these “to-big-to-fail” monstrosities that kill cultures, the environment, export jobs and drive down wages. Do that and small, localized business’s natural advantages such as knowing the locals and reduced transport and advertising will put the dinosaurs out of business. Support the public sector where it makes sense, such as in health care and education. Support an expanded non-profit sector including the arts. Support NEW structures such as cooperatively owned institutions that are nearly impossible under current law simply because they are not ideologically pure, not because they’re impractical. And finally, where necessary, we can allow corporations, such as with an auto industry. But they should be regulated. And finally: educate! Show people that the external stuff they buy does not make their lives “meaningful.”
——
Ironically, what I just described, while we’d call it a “Mixed economy” today, would just about match what Adam Smith would have called “capitalism.” Go figure.
I currently work in the center of the Financial Markets - the hub of greed and hypercapitalism as we know it…for about 4 years now. I made this decision in order to collect enough ‘ends’ to launch a venture that can compete with the ‘profit’ driven Music industry labels, that I believe have ruined Humanities’ most precious art form. This mission (which is in the works), has recently taken a back seat (for now) to my core belief that some of our Brightest young minds are being duped/herded into a world that knows only greed. My background is as typcical as any other finance douche that u see walking down wall street. However, what most do not realize, is that there are many like me - many that have the tools, skills and passion (and $) to overturn the current model, that is so obvoiusly destroying our society. I believe this group (call it the late bloomers - those who are waking up to the lies we have been fed by our parents generation) are willing and ready to mobilize - we just need a push - and I want to be one of those that provides that push.
IN my opinion, this group is vital to implementing the changes we need, and can do so from the inside (though I am leaving imminently)- who know the inner workings of our greed filled institutions.
Make no mistake, the attitudes are changing from the inside - some of the most senior playeres on wall street are looking in the mirror and questioning their contribution to society. The time is now - these ‘hail mary’s’ thrown by Forbes and those like him are being recognized as the facades they are.
Can someone please provide me with some feedback as to the best places/sites/blogs/organizations that are specifically geared to young ‘professionals’ (whatever the fk that means) looking to implement positive change, primarilly to our sick model of capitalism. tx
reply
Heath and Potter nailed it in Nation of Rebels, when they showed how nothing Adbusters has done or is currently doing is subverting capitalism. Uncooling Nike? Reebok and Vans have been trying that for years.
On the contrary: Adbusters is doing the only thing that will ever truly change corporate capitalism: propagating contrasting ideas in a venue that reaches many people and supporting institutions that compete with “capitalist” (corporatist) companies, but with fundamentally different basic assumptions regarding the “Bottom line.”
——
If you can’t see the difference between Blackspot and Nike either your values are very, very simplistic or you live in an alternate reality.
——
First off, Blackspots are much better ecologically, socially, and animal-ly, that’s right, they’re so bad-ass I made up a word to describe them.
——
But most importantly: they drastically shift the primary operating principle from high executive salaries (the real “bottom line” in corporations today.) And they don’t rely on over-the-top constant advertising. Nike on the other hand….
——
While I’m not entirely familiar with the work you referenced, I can’t image an argument that supports your absolute assertion that isn’t ENTIRELY based upon misrepresentations, oversimplifications and VERY loose logic such as oversimplifying the left’s opposition to capitalism in its present form and trite appeals to “hypocrisy” based upon pea-brained non-sequiturs like (imagine whiny voice:) “adbusters says they’re anti-capitalist but they sell stuff!!!!”
But I would be open-minded to your critique if you care to elaborate.
“First off, Blackspots are much better ecologically, socially, and animal-ly, that’s right, they’re so bad-ass I made up a word to describe them.”
Look, if there is a market for shoes or any other product that is “better ecologically, socially, and animal-ly” capitalist competition will ensure that a firm will arise to meet that need or existing firms will adapt to fulfill that marketing niche. Nike itself is evolving that way with Philip Knight’s charity, Nike’s green efforts, and its responses to sweatshop allegations.
“they drastically shift the primary operating principle from high executive salaries (the real “bottom line” in corporations today.) ”
I am not sure what that means, so correct me if I am wrong, but read that you believe corporations primarily exist to further compensate executives. IF that is so, that is largely incorrect. Throughout the history of capitalism top executive talents generally gets the best salaries. Modern aberrations in salary aside, this is still true.
“And they don’t rely on over-the-top constant advertising. Nike on the other hand….:
The uncooling efforts of Vans, Reebok, Adidias, Adbusters, and the plethora of other shoe companies obligate Nike to engage in massive advertising campaigns to maintain their customer base. I am not familiar with Nike’s history, but I am willing bet a modicum of cash that Nike didn’t build their brand with advertising, but like Starbucks, Subway, Whole Foods, and other popular brands, they only started to advertise massively after establishing themselves. This is aneffort to hold on to their customers.
Besides, advertising has limited effectiveness. Ask any beer company. The beer industry tosses billions into ads and every year beer consumption continues to slip.
Friend, you’ve clearly stated the Corporatist, or better yet, Monopolist dogma (our system isn’t remotely “capitalist”:)
QUOTARAMA—→”Look, if there is a market for shoes or any other product that is “better ecologically, socially, and animal-ly” capitalist competition will ensure that a firm will arise to meet that need or existing firms will adapt to fulfill that marketing niche.”
$
But other, more foundational capitalist principles reveal a contradiction in the dogma: the goal of a corporation is to make money! NOT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CUSTOMERS OR MARKETS.
So—→
the only need of a corporation is to CONVINCE CUSTOMERS they’re better.
Not to actually BE better.
Hence we have a whole new industry of “green washing” companies at the very moment they are most environmentally destructive (because that’s when their need is greatest.)
$
As to executive compensation:
My assertion was made ironically. I understand that corporations are SUPPOSED TO BE serving their shareholders. But the way mega-monopolies are set up today, with limited board involvement etc, it rarely works this way.
Friend, OUR Friedman-Reagan-Thatcher-monopolist economies based on the GREED-IS-GOOD-premise are broken. If we want a different result, ie. social justice, ecologically sound, sustainable business, we need to change the basic assumptions upon which we do business.
$
By challenging our UNQUESTIONING DEVOTION to Corporatist dogma, Adbusters is doing the work that it will take to fix it.
Post new comment