Yet efforts to wipe out poverty, hunger are branded "socialist".
We are heading into days when even if the Pope speaks of social inequity and a more balanced distribution of wealth, he will be chastised as a the spokesperson for socialism. Never mind that the constitution including that of the United States of America promises "general welfare" of all its citizens.
Are we encouraging vested interests who have redefined capitalism to include just their privilage to beg at the doors of government (as if government owns its own money) to keep them alive after they have played around with their companies and proved their incompetence by driving them to bankruptcy. A point in case is much of the auto industry.
Let us not forget that there is a real threat of socialism only because we are failing to realise that social inequity is the the breeding ground for socialism. In that case the threat in the near future is real, unless we move fast. These are unusual times even for capitalism. Mass layoffs across countries and across continents does not do service to capitalism. Traditionally capitalists have been conservative and reinvested capital wisely in expansion, build institutions that so define America to the outside world.
Enron style capitalism needs to be stymed. As long as a larger swathes of people are making money, capitalism is safe.
Is it time for governments and corporations to look at the consequences of mass layoffs and failed corporations?. Is it time to ask corporations to incorporate fundamental duties in their corporate constitution?. Fundamental duties towards a small group of shareholders is making corporations shortsighted and as a consequence endangering democarcy and capitalism.
Many pundits have alreay started talking about a new face corporate social responsibility- one that moves beyond corporate donations. That's old hat. Perhaps Microsoft can provide a valuable lesson to the corporate world about the new meaning of corporate responsibility. La Microsoft may be over reaching for the narrower vision of many corporates but in looking at social responsibility - one must understand that even there, money can be made - albeit smaller margins.
Similarly, corporate responsibility for oil companies could be the care of our common heritage, the enviornment. Again - if you are innovative there is money to be made even there.
Perhaps corporate culture needs to change. Perhaps what's ailing is the insides of these great big corporations which are being run like oligarchies. Medicority and not boldness is being rewarded. Talent is not always easy to fit into the narrow confines of conventional structures. Perhaps we need mavericks at the top to undersatnd and encourage mavericks at the lower rungs of Corporate America. As of now, corporations like governments have started rewarding faithfulness to the boss rather than an institution.
Is socialism the punching board for people who have a vested interest in not talking about improving not just the lot of those that are at the lowest rungs of the social structure but the many talented employees finding themselves throttled to obescience to the always correct boss?. If yes then that clashes with the concept of democracy as enshrined in our democratic constitutions. In countries like Ireland and India there is something called the "Directive principles". And to quote (Wikipedia):
"The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by promoting a social order in which social, economic and political justice is informed in all institutions of life. Also, the State shall work towards reducing economic inequity."
It is high time we talk of constitutional "welfare " as enshrined in our constitutions. Checks and balances in the United States constitution is precisely to strike a balance between authority and liberty. Authority should not be narrowed down to just governmnet authority but to corporate, institutional, individual authority as well. The right of an individual within a State, a Corporation is what I'm talking about.
Individual liberty includes creation of a national fabric that does not create a set of differential opportunities, allowing some to succeed and impeding the success of others. That philosophy impedes the long term success of a nation.
Yet propping up failed institutions and corporations run by those very people who are whipping up passions about the resurgence of Obama type socialism - is being turned a blind eye to. Wonder why there is silence on this issue? Why in a capitalist society should the government prop up an institution that has failed and is crumbling? In my opinion any kind of intervention by the government is socialism.
How wonderful it is to be rich and yet this very wonder remains a far off dream for millions- nay billions! The question is not whether it is capitalism vs socialism. The question is how do we make present day capitalism, rich enough to spread like a fungus.
