Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism

Instilling Morality into Capitalism?

Richard — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:54:10 +0000

According to a Channel 4 (UK) article, “instilling morals in capitalism has become a key theme of all the main political parties” in the United Kingdom.

Instilling morals into capitalism is impossible. Why?

Because capitalism is a system; it’s a process. It has no conscience. It has no mind through which to absorb a value. So, an attempt to instill a moral value into it will meet only with failure. If capitalism is moral, or amoral, it is because of the morality, or amorality, of the people who participate in the process. Any failure of capitalism due to people’s lack of adherence to moral standards can be placed squarely on the people lacking moral guidance.

So, more correctly it should be said that in order to instill “morality” into capitalism, we need to re-awaken morality sensibilities in each of the individuals who participate in the process.

Anti-Capitalists Need to Get Their Facts Straight

Richard — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:34:42 +0000

My recent article “Controversy a Weapon in the Battle Against Capitalism” discussed the Levi Strauss & Company decision not to employ suppliers that were considered a “controversial” source. The way this story came to my attention was via a Google Alert on a post on the Rainforest Action Network‘s site.

In that January 17, 2012 post, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) stated:

Levi Strauss & Company’s recent public release of its revamped forest products purchasing policy ensures it is not sourcing from the world’s endangered forests. The company’s implementation of the policy makes it the latest major brand that will not be doing business with Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) due to APP’s ongoing involvement in rainforest destruction and human rights abuses in Indonesia.

(The above accusation aside, as you may know from reading here on Telofski.com, Asia Pulp & Paper has been involved for quite a while in public argument over their manufacturing practices. You’ll also know from readings on this site that those practices have been denigrated by some (e.g., Rainforest Action Network) while they are supported by others.)

RAN said that Levi Strauss & Company (LSC) “will not be doing business with Asia Pulp and Paper”. And indeed, Mongabay.com, an environmental news site, on the same date (January 17, 2012) as the RAN statement picked up on that RAN statement saying:

Levi Strauss & Company became the latest firm to drop Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) as a supplier due to concerns over APP’s continued clearing of rainforests in Sumatra, reports the Rainforest Action Network, a green group in the midst of a campaign against APP.

RAN and Mongabay.com need to get their facts straight on two items.

The RAN and Mongabay.com stories are both based on the LSC forest products purchasing policy statement found, per the above RAN statement, at this link. But when I went to that link on the LSC Web site, I found no reference, at all, to Asia Pulp & Paper nor any statement that LSC would no longer be using APP as a supplier. The RAN and Mongabay.com “statements” that LSC would be dropping APP therefore are not statements; they are merely conjecture and supposition.

Additionally, the Mongabay.com article said about a LSC document “According to a forest products purchasing policy [PDF] posted on its web site last month, Levi’s will . . . ” Follow that link to the LSC Web site. The date at the top of the PDF there says “December 2010″. December 2010. December 2010. 2010. Remember that this Mongabay.com article was published on January 17, 2012. How is that last month?

The simple answer is, it isn’t.

Before activists claim victory, perhaps they, and the news organizations that report on them, need to apply more diligence to their reporting. Certainly in this case, this is true.

Controversy a Weapon in the Battle Against Capitalism

Richard — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:31:45 +0000

The “war on capitalism” within the American Republican party was quite ironic. Ironic because Republicans are known to be champions of capitalism and stalwarts for the free market system. When Republican primary candidates snipe at each other for making “too much” money, their wry antics form another battlefield in the war on capitalism. This paradoxical combat zone is well-known thanks to mainstream media which has soaked up the dispute with relish.

Irony attracts eyeballs. Yet, there is another ironic battle against capitalism that is not as well-covered by the mainstream media. This little-known skirmish is a type of conflict surrendered to by business, other stalwarts of the free market. I’ve discussed this type of battle before.

In my article “Controversy Drives Mattel Vendor Selection Process” I talked about how Mattel used controversy, rather than consumer market pressure, as a criterion for the selection of a supplier. The article described how Mattel chose to refrain from purchasing from certain suppliers because activist groups had labeled those suppliers as “unsustainable” and generated controversy in doing so. Similar to the Republican reproachment of free market principles, such actions by business form an ironic action. Eschewing vendors because they or their practices are called by some “controversial,” a controversy generated by small interest groups, subverts the free market system so dependent upon the opinions of great numbers of consumers rather than the narrowly defined agendas of activists. And yet another “controversy” battle against capitalism has occurred, one not covered by the mainstream media.

In its Sustainable Forest Product Procurement Policy, Levi Strauss & Company states that the company “will not knowingly purchase wood and paper products from endangered forests and other highly controversial sources . . .” (Emphasis mine.)

Now that several companies have announced, and probably more companies will announce, that they will avoid “controversial” sources, such a policy greatly simplifies the war on capitalism for anti-capitalist groups. With such an inclination toward supplier selection, the anti-capitalist challenge is made easier, and that is to generate controversy regarding one particularly targeted company or group of companies.

With social media and its ability to distort meaning, and a gullible population willing, seemingly, to believe almost anything in writing, how difficult of a job would the generation of controversy be? And more importantly, how will this make their war against capitalism simpler?

Congressional “Slimy-Capitalism” Coming to an End?

Richard — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:41:00 +0000

Imagine being one of a group of people that make the rules on what business can or cannot do. And then imagine being able to buy stocks just before those rules go into effect.

You don’t really have to imagine this scenario because it actually exists. Currently, there is no law that prohibits members of the U.S. Congress, the folks who know before the public does as to what rules are coming down the pike to affect business, from buying stocks based on the non-public and non-confidential information they acquire at work.

However, after this anti-free market Congressional exploitation was publicized in various news reports, the U.S. Congress is now in the process of embarrassingly producing legislation which would prohibit members of the federal government from profiting on the non-public information which they obtain through their jobs. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2011 was introduced recently in the U.S. Senate, with a similar bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Yes. The politicians in Washington, DC, on either side of the aisle, are all for capitalism, or should I say perhaps “slimy-capitalism,” until it becomes a little too slimy to capitalize any further.

Greenpeace is No Friend to Capitalism.

Richard — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:47:22 +0000

About that title up there, you’re probably thinking “Duuu-uuh, no kidding.”

I believe many would share this opinion. But the theme of today’s post is to go beyond belief and to actually provide a rationale for the title statement.

As I’ve defined on this Web site, capitalism equals economic freedom, the freedom to profit commercially bounded by the democratic forces of the marketplace. I’ve emphasized democratic forces in that definition because it is a critical factor in understanding the war on capitalism. Capitalism derives its strength, and legitimacy, from democracy.

The point of today’s post is to demonstrate that Greenpeace applies a non-democratic effect on business, and by extension the capitalistic system. Groups like Greenpeace claim to act in the public interest, however in reality Greenpeace is run, with decisions made, by fewer than 100 persons. This is not a democratic organization. And if they are controlled by so few persons, making them non-democratic, by definition this means that Greenpeace is not acting in the public interest. To do so, Greenpeace would need to be elected by the public. Greenpeace was not elected by the public.

In their battle against capitalism, Greenpeace with a limited and polemic view not franchised by the public, applies pressure on a company to change a specific behavior. This is a prime example of an interest group limiting economic freedom, limiting the capitalistic system. In many cases, the company accedes to the activist demands. It is in this way that Greenpeace, a relatively small group of people, affects the capitalistic system. But it is not Greenpeace alone that is inflicting the damage against the democratic process, the system of capitalism here; the company acquiescing to the activist demands is themselves complicit in the attack on the capitalistic system. Ironic, isn’t it?

So, we can see that indeed Greenpeace is no friend to capitalism. It is no longer just a belief. Now you can see that it is fact. But let’s not stop here. Let’s take this idea just a few steps farther.

I can guess what you’re thinking. You might be thinking that some might counter my point that Greenpeace is anti-capitalistic. They might counter by saying that Greenpeace in its corporate campaigning is merely trying to protect the environment against harmful manufacturing procedures. If that is their, or even your, assertion, I would respond with these questions and answers.

Who says those procedures are “harmful”? Let’s face it. Greenpeace are advocates. And by the nature of advocates, their view is narrow and self-interested. You will not get an objective opinion from Greenpeace.

What makes Greenpeace the final arbiter of right and wrong? You are the best arbiter. You and millions of other consumers like you are smart people. Given the level and ease of access to information here in the second decade of the 21st century, you and other consumers are perfectly able to suss out answers in the debate over which companies follow sustainable procedures and which companies do not. Consumers can acquire their own information and then,

Continue reading Greenpeace is No Friend to Capitalism.

Billionaires Complain About Inequality

Richard — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:16:55 +0000

When billionaires talk about income inequality, it’s time for the people in the middle to hold on to their wallets.

Per a Bloomberg article, “Billionaires . . . Bemoan Inequality,” billionaires at the World Economic Forum are putting their heads together about income inequality. Proposed changes to capitalism will be discussed in a panel scheduled for today, “Remodeling Capitalism.”

On the subject of changes to the capitalist structure, the conference is highlighted by such quotes, per the Bloomberg article, as, “these growing inequalities are not acceptable,” from Rahul Bajaj, chairman of Bajaj Group, and that business should concentrate on “a more just distribution of wealth,” by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk.

It will be interesting to see if their confabulation has any effect on the capitalist system, and if so from where the “redistribution” originates.