CHAPTER XIII.
CAPITALISM AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SELFISHNESS.
********
Western Capitalism has evolved for more than three centuries, and during the time of its expansion it has been a progressive force in many fields.
It brought a degree of personal freedom to the populations of the industrial countries, and it instituted a democratic system of government adapted to capitalist requirements, but with a constitution that hampers or prevents qualitative changes.
The bourgeoisie needed the help of the masses of peasants and workers to wrest power from the nobility; the peasants serfs and workers, in their turn, opted for the 'liberty, equality and fraternity' of the bourgeoisie and against the oppression of the obsolete feudal system.
But Capitalism, notwithstanding its proclamations of freedom and democracy, has never obtained complete respectability, nor the justification of a definite ideology. Because it could not break down completely some of the old Christian and Human values, it had to apologies and pay respect to ideals and institutions which were incompatible with capitalist business.
It had to try to combine and disguise its blind selfish nature by a sort of hybrid union with Christianity by a hopeless attempt to marry its own values with those of Christ; hence the inherent hypocrisy of capitalist apologists and the emptiness of those religious institutions which accepted such hybrid union.
Capitalism's drive for expansion is hampered while it has to pay at least lip service to Christian and other Human values. Because these values cannot be associated with open or veiled exploitation of man by man, they produce a sense of guilt and the need to justify actions which cannot rationally be justified, especially to the new generations, including the capitalists' own children.
Because of the present world situation, the capitalists have never felt like today the necessity to have their own philosophical basis, and, in this way, to be free from the impediment of values which are alien to the nature of the system.
Some sections of the main religious institutions are beginning to distance themselves from capitalism. They are beginning to qualify their alliance and support; therefore, the capitalists have been forced again to find an ideological crutch to support and justify their values or lack of morality.
Some apologists of the system have tailored, out of some old and well worn rags, a philosophical coat of sort to suit the narrow minded selfishness and presumptuousness of the modern capitalists, who are no different in essence from the old merchants and master manufacturers that Adam Smith often berated and sometimes vilified in his analysis of the capitalist system.
This new philosophy breaks away completely from the old Christian values. Its motto is not Christ's "love thy neighbor", but Cain's "I'm not my brother's keeper". It puts selfishness, with some obscure qualifications, on the altar of capitalist worship, together with the gods of Money and Material Success. There is an upsurge of 'Right wing Christianity' that practically puts business before God, and whose high priests are in fact ex commercial salesmen.
Concepts and opinions that in the past could only be whispered are brought into the open with all the trumpets of modern advertising. A book is written about the "Virtue of Selfishness" another about "Capitalism, the unknown Ideal". In these, capitalist businessmen are depicted as the salt of the Earth, as Atlas supporting the world on his self sacrificing shoulders (?!), all those who profess or practice altruistic or Humanistic, not to mention socialist principles, are painted as subversive and evil, a danger to western values and civilisation.
As a scientific support for their doctrine, they twist Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, to fit the present unnatural environment of capitalist economy and society. They equate the natural instinct for survival with blind selfishness.
Capitalists are convinced that selfishness was, is and forever will be the nature of things and, consequently, the law of nature; this is their genesis: in the beginning was Selfishness, therefore, Capitalism.
On the economic side, this miserable doctrine is a nostalgic and hopeless attempt to turn social and economic history back to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when Capitalism was unfettered and rebel workers were transported to penal colonies. The capitalists seem to forget completely that early situation was precisely the origin of the present one.
They extol the virtues of free enterprise and free trade, as during the Industrial Revolution, but they forget the misery and the excesses which brought about bloody revolutions and government controls. They seem to forget completely that history has progressed since then. They seem to ignore the development of trade unions, socialist movements, the results of two world wars, the formation of socialist countries, overpopulation in the world, overproduction and saturation of the markets, pollution, etc.
Their idealized notion of early Capitalism has more to do with the nostalgia created by Hollywood movies than with documented reality.
Their assumptions are quite superficial. In fact, with few exceptions, free enterprise and trade have never been a reality, except in the sense that capitalist merchants 'freely' robbed the people and the lands they dealt with. Capital accumulated and prospered more from the blood of slaves and the sweat of child labour than from the individual hard work of capitalists.
Their philosophy promotes the belief that capital, not labour, is the origin of all wealth. From their point of view, the capitalists assume that it is in the interest of the whole of society to make capital investment as profitable as possible. To this effect, they propose that all controls over production, planning, safety, the environment, minimum wages, should be removed; that the government should never interfere in economic matters, that it should only be concerned with defence, law and order, the protection of private property, and acting as referee in the squabbles between those capitalists who may have conflicting interests. In this way capital investment would become more profitable, more people could be employed, more taxes would be paid to the government, and, consequently, the economy and the society would prosper. Their conclusion is that it is in the workers' interest to cooperate with their employers as partners in the economy towards the 'common good'.
But because of competition and the other factors in the nature of the system, this idyllic partnership has seldom become a reality. The workers had always to be on their guard, and without their protective organisations they would be lost.
If we examine this partnership proposition more closely, we would find that the capitalist has a big advantage, he is not pressed by immediate need, and he is motivated by the prospect to increase his own personal wealth; while the worker's main incentive is his immediate survival, fear of unemployment and poverty. It should be evident that the worker is in reality a captive at the discretion of the capitalist. This is not a strong foundation for a good and long lasting partnership. Such relation could only be described as the partnership of a master and servant.
Another flaw in the proposition is that, because of competition, an increase in capital investment may not produce more employment of labour, but rather a more intense use of machinery and automation. Moreover, in the present situation of overproduction and saturation of world markets, the worker is compelled to compete against the cheaper labour of the developing countries. In fact, to produce profits for the capitalist to stay in business, he would have to resign himself to accept a cut in real wages; if he cannot compete successfully, he will soon find himself unemployed and abandoned by his partner. The partnership would collapse, his employer would pack up and invest his capital in a developing country where labour is cheaper and he could make a profit.
In such partnership between capital and labour, in the present situation, we usually see the capitalist increasing his wealth and his lifestyle, while the worker is reduced to accept a lower standard of living. The first extol the `virtue of selfishness', can avoid making sacrifices, and justifies his often successful attempts to avoid taxes. The other is exhorted to be 'altruistic', to make sacrifices for the common good (?) of the Country; he has no security, he has no chance to avoid taxes, but when he becomes old, sick, unemployed, or just tired, he is treated by the capitalist like a beggar, a bludger or a failure, a burden to the economy and to the taxpayer (?).
Who would accept such a partnership, and a philosophy which says in fact: work hard and tighten your belt to increase wealth for the master, because the more food there is on the master's table, the more chance there is that some leftovers may fall for you under the table. This is the philosophy of the `man and servant', of the 'master and dog'; and, in my opinion, it is only fit for whoever has the mentality and attitude of a servant or that of a dog.
Only foolish and servile people would accept the capitalists' maxim that, for the same economic necessity by which the capitalists clamour for more profits and personal gain, the workers should make sacrifices, the sick, the old and those out of work should lose even their dignity.
There are many fools who believe that there is no alternative but to accept this logic. They have been made to believe that anything that is against Capitalism is against God and Country, against Freedom and Democracy.
This is the philosophy promoted by the merchants, and only the cunning and sophistry of the merchants could have persuaded the public to accept it. The merchants, "an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the publick", today rule the world; and what Adam Smith had dreaded and warned against two centuries ago, that they should never become "the rulers of mankind", has come to pass.