The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
The United States of America is the most governmentally-promoted capitalistic country in the world. Compared to the rest of Earth’s nations, we have the most de-regulated, corporate-dominated, legally protected system of near-laissez-faire capitalism that exists on our planet. Our economy, in other words, is based on hyper-capitalism, which might be described as “capitalism on steroids.”
There are several reasons why the USA is more committed to capitalism than all other nations, but I will cite only one of them. America evolved from a British colony established in what they called “Virginia” in 1607, later followed by twelve other colonies. From that we eventually became a national colossus extending from sea to shining sea by the mid-nineteenth century.
Because we had so much land with so many natural resources, and eventually so many people, and because Adam Smith and other capitalistic economists and politicians became so influential in our culture, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, America became the best possible spawning ground in the world for hyper-capitalism. Many names come to mind of highly successful capitalists or politically-focused capitalistic politicians. Among them are John D. Rockefeller (Sr. and Jr.), Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Mellon, Jay Gould, J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Thomas Watson, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, George W. Bush, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and, in a completely unique and as-yet-to-be-fully-explained way, Donald Trump. (There are no female names in that line-up. That is not the fault of hyper-capitalism; it is the fault of male chauvinism from the origin of the human race.)
Hyper-capitalism wants as much financial and legislative support from government as possible with the least government interference as possible. Historically, therefore, “conservative” politicians have tended to promote hyper-capitalism while “liberal” politicians have attempted to promote as much reasonable capitalistic regulation as possible, while still nurturing the obvious advantages of capitalistic enterprise.
Capitalism’s earliest roots were first sunk deep into European soil, starting in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Both the Renaissance and Reformation had proto-capitalist traits, although economics was not a major impetus in either of these huge social transformations. Suffice it to say it was European economic philosophers and early European capitalists whose invisible hands oversaw the early stages of world capitalism.
Hyper-Capitalist Corporation Traits:
- The primary aim is financially to benefit the corporation itself, the highest-paid executives, and the stockholders, each to the greatest degree possible
- The corporation strongly discourages the formation of workers’ unions
- No hourly-paid workers are members of the corporate board of directors
- As few worker benefits are offered as are legally and morally acceptable
- Philosophically the highest concern is always what is best for “the bottom line, i.e., what is best for the corporation
- Hiring practices aim to employ as many part-time workers as possible, giving them as few benefits as organizationally feasible (no pension, no profit-sharing, no corporation-assisted individual retirement plan, etc.)
- No vacation time for part-time workers, briefest acceptable vacation time for full-time workers
- No child-care provided on the worksite or elsewhere
- No maternity or paternity leave when a child is born
- A fundamentally anti-government corporate philosophy
* * * * *
Socialism is NOT what Americans or most other people think it is. We think socialism is what I shall shortly describe as socialized-capitalism. Because it is so important to understand what socialism is and is not, I am going to quote the entire definition of the word “socialism” from my beloved Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1975, which means it’s not so new, but never mind; the definition is timeless.)
“Socialism n 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”
The important thing to note about socialism is that it necessitates the collective or governmental ownership of all the means of production and distribution. It is also important to realize that in its highly flawed and idealized Marxist form, which is truly its only form, it has never been fully attempted in any nation on earth, including the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Viet Nam, and Cuba. North Korea and Cuba are the Marxist countries which come closest to fitting the dictionary definition of socialism, but even they have many vestiges of pre-revolutionary capitalism still in existence.
It is also a fact that no nation is entirely capitalistic in its economy either. Capitalism to one degree or another characterizes both the economic and political foundations by which nearly all nations operate today. The most hyper-capitalistic country is the USA, and the least hyper-capitalistic are such states as Saudi Arabia, Mali, and Venezuela, though for very different reasons.
Curiously, in America, particularly in the nineteenth century, several isolated small communities attempted to establish socialistic group living in which there was to be no private property. Examples are the Oneida Community in upstate New York, the Shaker community on the east side of Cleveland, Ohio, the New Harmony community in southern Indiana, and the Amana Colony in Iowa. None of these attempts at utopian socialism survived, because socialism is an ideal which human nature is simply not capable of fully adopting on a permanent basis. The personal profit motive is too strong.
There are several factors which explain why Marxist socialism never succeeded either, but it is unnecessary to list them. Anyone who is sufficiently long of tooth and has kept up with the news over the past half-century-plus knows why the anticipated blissful withering away of the state in classical Marxism never occurred in any nation which attempted Marxist socialism. In every single instance where communism was tried, it sank into an unavoidable dictatorship. Thus “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was never really tried, because it is systemically unworkable. Marxist ideology always failed before it came close to the utopia which Messrs. Marx and Engels envisioned.
* * * *
If hyper-capitalism is a badly flawed economic system (which it is), and socialism has never measured up to its principles (which it hasn’t), then what is socialized-capitalism? Socialized-capitalism is the political/economic system which exists in nearly all European countries of long-standing duration and in the United Kingdom, in Japan, Indonesia, Australia, Israel, most developed or developing African nations, in Latin American developing or developed states, and in Canada and Mexico. Singapore may be the only state which has achieved the golden mean between hyper- and socialized-capitalism. If so, that may be explained because it is a small island nation with a cohesive population which has been homogenized by a very wise if slightly ruthless family-dominated government since it became independent from its British colonial masters.
Further to define socialized-capitalism, it is the widespread recognition by the citizens of every nation where it is practiced, along with an acceptance by both the government and corporations that they, in partnership with government, are obligated by their social contract to provide financial, medical, educational, and residential assistance to citizens on the lower end of the income scale. The social safety net is wide in those nations that are committed to socialized-capitalism; it is quite small or almost non-existent in those hyper-capitalistic countries which insist on proclaiming the notion that all citizens are required to support themselves in whatever ways they can.
Socialized-capitalism is a conscious and conscientious partnership between corporations and government to provide as much financial gain to everyone in society, while still achieving the fundamental purposes of both the government and the corporations. Thus the government-corporation model is seen to be a collegial, not an adversarial, relationship.
Through the passage of time, either government or capitalism become too dominant in a national society, and adjustments constantly need to be made by both corporations and governments to achieve equilibrium. That is true in both hyper-capitalistic and socialized-capitalistic states. In general, however, citizens tend to support one system or the other, most of whom may not even be aware of their tendency.
What are the capitalist features of corporations which operate in socialized-capitalist states? Here is their list.
Socialized-Capitalist Corporation Traits
-The primary aim is to benefit all the workers in the corporation and in the whole society to the greatest degree possible by means of the corporation itself
- The corporation willingly allows unions among its hourly-wage workers
- Hourly workers serve on the corporate board of directors
- The corporation attempts to provide as many worker benefits as is capitalistically feasible
- Philosophically the corporation is always concerned with what is best for every employee in the corporation
- Hiring practices emphasize full-time workers who receive full-time benefits
- The corporation gives extensive vacation time
- It provides child-care for infants and very young children on or off the worksite
- It provides maternity and paternity leave when a child is born
- The corporation views government as a colleague in its operation, not an adversary
* * * * *
It should be obvious that the listing of hyper-capitalist and socialized-capitalist traits is both idealized and hypothetical. In fact, no corporation and no nation is capable of exhibiting these factors as clearly as is delineated on paper. Every company and every national government is constantly tweaking these features all the time, and fluidity, not constancy, characterizes all governments and corporations at all times. Nevertheless, the conflicting traits do exist, and they are operative everywhere.
The USA is the supreme hyper-capitalist state because from our earliest days as British colonies, getting rich to one degree or another was the essence of “the American Dream.” Rugged individualism was our most admired trait.
The primary problem with that modus operandi is that economically it is impossible for everyone to get rich. Getting rich inevitably means financially getting ahead of others, but there are no others to get ahead of if everyone is wealthy. It is a philosophical impossibility.
Another way to describe this is to say that capitalism cannot avoid creating a widening gap between the Haves (of whom there are always relatively few) and the Have-Nots (of whom, without some form of constant equalization, there will always be a growing percentage.) That is because most people with more liquid assets than they need will always invest their extra income in capitalistic enterprises which they hope will give them the highest return on their investment. That is why the rich get richer, and the poor, relative to the rich, get poorer. Those who have wealth they neither need nor spend will invest that wealth in the most lucrative enterprises they can find, and they will become ever-wealthier in the process.
The inevitable result of the rich getting richer is that everyone else is bound to become poorer relative to the wealthiest citizens. This gap can create socially unhealthy envy and political dissatisfaction. For the least affluent citizens, it also can create financial desperation.
In the European model of socialized-capitalism, governments deliberately provide for many of the needs of lower-income people by taxing the wealthier citizens at higher rates than is the case in hyper-capitalist countries. For this reason, in a smoothly-operating socialized-capitalistic state, there is less social unrest and unease. To validate this observation, international polls often list the Scandinavian nations as having the happiest citizens. If lower income people are happy, everyone is happy.
How do governments manage to make that happiness happen? That will be the theme of the essay that will follow this one. - April 17, 2021
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.