hiero2 said:
A winner-takes-all attitude would be more associated with anarchy, or laissez-faire capitalism (where regulation is discouraged). Capitalism, as a system, is not inimical to regulation of itself. As a matter of fact, it is my strong conviction that history and current economic analysis tell us clearly that SOME regulation is essential for a healthy, capitalist, economic system. By "healthy", I mean a system that best serves many people, not just a few.
But as things stand 'Capitalism' does effectively mean laissez-faire, 'neo-liberal' Capitalism. In fact this seems to be, if not the only game in town, the dominant one.
I would agree with you about the need for regulation, as the current banking / economic crisis proves. As one might expect, it is the proponents of neo-liberal Capitalism who are most vocal in their opposition to such regulation (and in turn the promotion of so-called 'Libertarianism') primarily because this favours the '1%' who benefit from the current state of affairs.
Perhaps the best functioning system is one that is broadly capitalist, but which embodies a high degree of 'state' regulation and a range of 'checks and balances' on corporate power, such as having strong labour unions, a fully-functioning democratic system that offers real choices (unlike the USA) and so forth. The 'Nordic' European countries probably offer the best example of this. For example, Sachs (2006) compared the economies of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (which are characterised by a high level of taxation and central government control) with other major European countries and a number of ‘English speaking’ countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (all of which have lower levels of taxation and have moved towards ‘minimal government’ policies). Sachs found that, rather than high levels of state intervention and taxation leading to low levels of economic growth, reduced standards of living, a disincentive to work and reduced political freedom, the reverse was true, with the ‘free market’, English speaking countries comparing badly with the Nordic countries on such measures. See Sachs, J.D. (2006).
Revisiting the Nordic Model: Evidence on Recent Macroeconomic Performance.
One final point, you also say:
It is not capitalism that encourages a winner-takes-all attitude. Like the consumption of sweet things - this is a prevalent characteristic of human nature.
I would say that in reality there is likely to be a two-way process at work here. That is, even if selfishness and a 'winner takes all' attitude are a part of human nature, contemporary neo-liberal Capitalism (and 'role models' like Armstrong) help to validate and encourage such traits.
Similarly, hostility to those perceived to be 'different' or who pose a challenge to the social norm is also a strong trait of human nature, but the degree to which such traits are turned into overt action depends on the environment the individual operates in. In some cultures the overt expression of hostility to 'others' is discouraged. In others the existing social system gives free-reign to these tendencies, leading to phenomenon such as the 'show trial' lynchings of 20th Century America, the Rwandan massacres or even the genocide of the Nazi era.
In any case, just because something is 'human nature' does not mean that it is worthy or inevitable. As 'Rose Sayer' puts it in
The African Queen,"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."
Oh Dear, that all went rather OT. Lets hope we get some dramatic developments in the Armstrong case pretty soon before everyone becomes bored or 'burnt out'.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram