The point of Norman's book, at least as he explained it during a C-Span talk, was that
Capitalism needs a morality which it does not have as intrinsic to itself. Hence Smith's other and usually overlooked book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which says, in brief, in the West this is Christianity. This is not a mere formality. Smith was discussing a living faith with real world effects in the economic sphere. My own point being that we do not have that now, or only have vestiges of it, and the consequences are near-catastrophic. Its all self interest now, with little concern for the common good, and this ethos infects everything. The results are seen in the new outlook of the working class which, in 2016, despite the fact that a full 25% of Trump supporters felt he was unqualified for office, voted for him anyway -and doubtless at least another 25% were not sure on the question. But these voters knew that they were getting screwed by the system and sure that Hillary represented that system and wanted no part of her in office. How did we get to this situation? I think that a big part is the rise of libertarianism, not the political party which is a zit on America's rump, but the philosophy of libertarianism, which is now everywhere, including in the Church. One dimension of libertarianism can be taken as "Christian," its emphasis on freedom to choose and freedom to be yourself, but it is no mystery why most libtars are Atheists or no better than indifferent to religion. The whole emphasis of libertarianism is self-centeredness -and it has a baggage train in the form of selfishness, covetousness, greed, and so forth. Sure, there are libertarians of good will, that is not in question, but in terms of how people generally think,, in terms of their priorities in life, and so forth, everything but the common good. "Every man for himself, sink or swim," in other words. And that outlook, as I see it, is utterly anti-Christian. It is modern-day Social Darwinism. This problem cannot be solved by repackaging Capitalism or re-labeling it, it is structural and cuts deeply. That is, the real problem, -"real" as in "the real economy"- is the splitting apart of the social system, with the 1% controlling and owning more and more now about 25% of everything, and the bottom 20% owning 1%. What does that bottom 1% think when they hear someone in the upper 1% whine about not being able to comfortably afford the upkeep on his 5 cars when that bottom 1% cannot afford to even maintain a bicycle? That is what it amounts to. And that upper crust 1% wants to foist more immigration on us all? A study also discussed on C-Span during a panel discussion / debate on immigration, noted that recent figures tell us that working class incomes have taken a 9% hit, lowering of wages, due to a 13% ruse in the workforce because of immigration in recent years. Calling the Capitalist system "marketism," or anything else, cannot possibly make one iota of difference in fixing the problem. And who wants open borders the most? There are two answers, the Democratic Party on the Left and the libertarians on the Right. You don't think the worsening class divide won't have real world effects? O yeah? But, hey, you live in a gated community -all of Silicon Valley is a de facto gated community- and that is not your problem, right? And who needs to follow the news anyway? The real world simply doesn't matter. Right? If it can't be reduced to abstractions that are eternal verities nothing really counts. Right? If it can't become an algorithm what good is it? Right? Maybe I am being too critical and not nearly self-critical enough, but to try and be honest about my feelings. Billy ________________________________ From: Centroids <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 8:49 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Billy Rojas Subject: beyond capitalism Re: [RC] The Economist Review of "Adam Smith: Father of Economics." By Jesse Norman Heilbroner’s was the first book that led me to Radical Centrism. I find in surprising how people argue about Smith like a philosopher, as if what he knew or meant was the most important thing. I’d rather read him like a scientist, to figure out how to fix what he was unclear about. As a comment on my blog said, I’m thinking we need a better term than capitalism. Capital is a great Servant, but a horrible master. Some alternatives: - marketism - competism (competition) - flourishism - gloryism The basic idea is that ambition by itself is assumed neither good (as in capitalism) or bad (as in socialism). Rather, it is natural but needs to be aligned with the greater good. >From a practical perspective, both Big Business and Big Government tend to use >their power for self-protection, against which competition on multiple levels >is the best antidote. Thoughts on how to make that a rallying cry? E Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 26, 2018, at 18:57, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Mr Norman gets all this right, but he is not the first to do so. Robert > Heilbroner’s “The Worldly Philosophers”, published in 1953, offered a fairly > nuanced understanding of what Smith stood for. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
