  |
|
|
|
The Future of CapitalismThe Privatisation of Politics and its ConsequencesThe increasing privatisation of public and political interest necessitates a change in politico-economic ideology.
The Global CorporationThe rise of the supernational corporations has ushered in a new way of perceiving politics. Money is power; this is Marx’s worst nightmare. Suddenly, profit-seeking businesses find themselves in a global market. Their motives compel them to find the lowest cost with the highest pro-business benefit. In a global market, this dichotomy extends dramatically because of a larger, richer consumer-base, and a larger, more easily manipulated (read: poorer) worker-base. The Political CorporationThere is increasing privatisation of public and political interest in the western world. A particularly sensitive example is the programme that failed to prevent the humanitarian disaster that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005. A previously state-owned board became privatised. Another much more general example is the extensive lobbying industry, which influences wars and peace processes. Take for example the negotiation of the Middle East Crisis as affected by the Israeli lobby in the United States, recited famously, but far from solely in John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s working paper: “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”. These are the signs of corporate interest meddling with political power, with the public sphere. It traces back to the crux of corporate ideal of course: money. The Powerful CorporationMoney translates quite easily into capabilities: capabilities to buy, to sell, to impact, to influence, to control. This idea lies at the fundament of original capitalist creed. Businesses want to earn money because money means power. So there is a definite linear relationship between money and capability. So what really happens when governments are no longer the most capable institutions? What happens when those who are most capable no longer are held accountable by democratic process? Surely, a shift of power should mean a shift of accountability, there is a critical need for a democratisation of business, not so much in a literal sense, but in an ideological sense. The Shift from Capitalism to ConsumerismIt is interesting to note the difference between the two words: capitalism and consumerism. Capitalism takes the side of the capitalists, those who make the money. Consumerism is partisan to the consumers, those who spend. The line between money and power is already clear, and now it seems there is only a small step between money and political will. The term consumerism is a better one because if the consumer base is to understand the true value of their spending - the flow of power from consumers to corporations - then they can harness that surge. Corporations are acting more and more like politicians, but their votes don’t lie in ballots. Their votes lie in money. If a conscientious consumer base chooses to spend according to their political beliefs, then corporations will only develop in accordance to those beliefs. For example, if there were a decline in the demand for polluting cars, then effectively, less polluting cars would be manufactured. This is simple Supply-Demand Economics, though crucial to understanding and taking charge in the coming decades. Consumers - individual thinking, spending people - have virtually no choice but to observe this shift of power from politics to economics, but it is invalid to suppose that it is impossible to adapt to such a shift.
The copyright of the article The Future of Capitalism in Political Philosophy is owned by Paul M H Buvarp. Permission to republish The Future of Capitalism in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
