Capitalism and morality

The topic of capitalism is so large that I couldn't possibly hope to tackle it on this one blog, let alone this post, so this is simply a look at one debate over the nature of morality in the free market.

A Left wing argument goes that left to their own devises companies will act immorally in the fight for profit. Government intervention is required to ensure that businesses pay a fair wage, don't ravage the environment etc. Some on the Right argue that in a fully free market, these issues will resolve themselves. Essentially, if people care enough about proper wages and the environment, then their buying habits will reflect this, making it more profitable to be fair and environmental than exploitative. It is a belief inherent in capitalism that the selfish desire for profit will lead to morality winning out.

An example of moral capitalism could perhaps be seen in the popularity of fair trade, organic and locally produced goods. Most companies are now trying to project the image that they are morally conscious and environmentally aware. The petrol company BP uses the images of their wind plants in their adverts; Mac Donalds now uses fair trade coffee in Britain. These though, reveal the shallowness of this corporate morality. BP and Mac Donalds can profit from their moral image while not fundamentally changing their damaging business practices. In capitalism, companies will act morally as far as it increases profits, but will never act morally to the detriment of these profits.

In a capitalist system the ultimate goal is the pursuit of capital with the hopeful side-affect of morally decent acts. I would argue for a 'moralist' system, where the ultimate goal is the pursuit of morally decent acts with the hopeful side-affect of producing capital. Essentially I would be content if a government were to simply declare this as their economic ideology that their effort would go towards making the world better firstly and corporate profits secondly. In implementation I suppose this would be achieved through a mixture of moral legislative restrictions on companies’ actions that are already in place but also perhaps tax breaks for acts of public good, and taxation on acts that cause harm. This can already be seen in things like cigarette tax that goes part of the way towards paying the NHS bills for issues caused by smoking.

Essentially I am arguing that the current system that the pursuit of money is an abstract notion that receives too much attention from governments and corporations, the public good is of such importance that it deserves to be the central focus of political and economic action, not sidelined as the potential by-product of financial profit.

Immigration and British patriotism - 2

Firstly to the concern about the declining 'indigenous' British population: who exactly is an indigenous Brit? It surely isn't the Britons or early Celts, who were all but wiped out. They may be the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Normans or the Vikings who many would hope to trace their ancestry back to. The irony of the nativity of these early immigrants is fairly obvious. Are the Jews who came along with Normans in 1066 native Brits? What about those who migrated here during Cromwell's rule? The BNP seem fairly confident that the line is drawn in 1945, obviously to leave out the Caribbean immigration that began soon after the war. This arbitrary distinction between earlier and later immigration only highlights how Britain has always been a nation of immigration and that despair over a declining native population is largely irrational.

This issue is then purely racial, the far right is not worried about native Brits, but white Brits, the worry is that whites will become a minority. I must confess that personally the idea of Britain as a minority-majority (where people of 'minority' races make up the majority of the population, such as Hispanics in California and Texas and African-Americans in Washington DC) nation is at least somewhat disconcerting, but if you were to ask me to justify why I feel this I could give you no decent argument, it’s odd, irrational prejudice that goes against my better judgment. If Britain is to become a nation of immigrants then it is keeping with ancient British tradition, and we can take comfort in the research that people loose their prejudice very easily when they meet a person of the ethnicity/religion/sexuality that they fear and see that we’re all just people.

If the racial issue has no solid base, what of the cultural impact? The first thing is for the Left to realise it does them no favors to advocate anything other than universal fluency in English (ignoring the rather separate issue of Welsh and Scottish Gaelic). There are many arguments that British children should learn more foreign languages and that immigrant languages enrich our cultural lives: they should and they do but this does not change the fact that a society functions far better when we’re all speaking the same language and nothing fosters intolerance more than the feeling of not being understood. What is the ideal relationship between immigrant and native culture? To the Americans it is the relationship of the ‘melting pot’. Immigrants come into America and ‘melt’ into American society, becoming American citizens with an American culture. This theory of a uniform American culture is not supported by the reality of the fiercely proud Mexican-Americans, Korea-Americans, Irish-Americans etc. Britain officially supports the relationship of ‘multi-culturalism’, whereby immigrants bring their own culture and live by it. This is needlessly divisive and is not conductive to social harmony. As is often the case, it seems the Canadians have it right with their ‘mosaic theory’, or as I like to put it ‘the stew theory’. In this, immigrants bring their own cultural flavor, like meat or vegetables in a stew, this flavor spreads into wider society and they also absorb the culture of the country and other immigrant communities. Essentially that immigrants should bring a bit of culture and take a bit of culture.

Here I would also make some definitions when we talk about ‘British culture’, I would draw a distinction between ‘cultural values’ and ‘cultural phenomena’ (don’t let it be said that I’m not a mite pretentious~). Cultural values are things like the British love of privacy, self deprecation, sense of humor, one could include welcoming of guests, tolerance of differences, and respect for democracy and the rule of law (though it would be the height of arrogance to proclaim these as especially British virtues) and every person in the country, regardless of their background could well incorporate these values into their lives.

Cultural phenomena are things like architecture, food, music and literature. In this sense British culture includes the heritage of William Shakespeare and Virginia Woolf, The Beatles and Blur. Though these topics have a place on school syllabuses, and are a part of the British experience, an Indian immigrant would not be a better Brit for giving up Bollywood for James Bond, the Japanese immigrant would be no better for giving up sushi for fish and chips (though they would be larger). If immigrant cultural phenomena fuse with the British in the big cities, creating the vibrant art, music and fashion you see in London and Manchester, traditional British culture tracing its roots to an earlier Britain can flourish in the countryside and there need not be any tension between the two.

I want to finish on a note on the psychology of the debate. As I have hopefully demonstrated there are decent arguments on both sides of the debate. The problem is that too many people are not concerned with the arguments themselves as they are with confirming their own pre decided position. Some people fear outsiders and will argue whatever they can to keep people out. Others empathise with immigrants and do what they can to help their cause, even if in doing so they alienate people and foster resentment towards these immigrants. I hope in this blog I have made an argument for continuing immigration that benefits and enriches society rather than divides it.

Immigration and British patriotism

Two interesting, interconnected topics that hit on a lot of political themes. The immigration debate often takes lines over the liberal/conservative divide, though it's also an issue in which many otherwise liberal people take quite a conservative stance. It has interested psychological overtones, is it really a debate over the validity of the various arguments, or is it, as I suspect, more often a proxy debate for people's views on 'outsiders' in general? And what does British patriotism mean today? Let's have a look.

In simple terms, liberals are for immigration and conservatives against it. In simple terms I take the liberal view. Though all my grandparents were born in London further back in my family history I'm a mix of Jewish, Russian, Polish, Belgium, Latvian, Welsh and Irish. I take pride in this heritage, though for all intents and purposes I am a Brit, an Englishman and a Londoner. Growing up in London I know very few people who have more recent ancestors from the British Isles than not. Any politics that attacks immigrants denies the validity of our contribution to society.

Economically speaking I think immigration brings real benefits. Our birthrate is too low to sustain our economy in the long run without immigration and the white, British working class is no longer large enough to do all the jobs on the lowest end of the pay scale that are vital in keeping any country running. I would look to Japan as an example (and here is a good time to note that I will be frequently referring to Japan throughout this blog, I am to be reading Japanese Studies at university come this September) of a country in which a lack of immigration compounded with a falling birthrate has meant serious lack of manpower with repercussions throughout the economy.

In terms of culture I think Britain as a whole, and London in particular have benefited enormously from immigration. In the 1980s Britain was infamous for her bad food. Today London is one of the world's culinary capitals and that's to say nothing of the ways immigration has improved British music and art and slang. Then there are the intangible benefits that having different cultural outlooks brings to society. I have read that the emphasis on education and respect for authority in some Asian cultures translates to better behaved and more attentive students that improve the atmosphere in classrooms around the country. Again, a lack of differing immigrant perspectives could be said to be a cause of the cultural and political stagnation that is ever harder gripping Japan.

Then regarding asylum seekers, I feel that the simple argument that it is inhumane to turn away those facing persecution in their home country when we have the means to accept them into ours, is more than sufficient.

These arguments I feel provide evidence that anyone who would be outright anti-immigration is being unrealistic. Those on the conservative side of the debate do, however, make some powerful arguments which must be addressed.

The immigrant impact on the economy is not wholly positive. Unscrupulous businesses do pay illegal immigrants less that a minimum living wage., this makes it difficult for native Brits to compete for jobs in this sector of the economy. I do think that this is more an issue about persecuting unscrupulous businesses who do not pay their employees a decent living (not to mention the legal minimum) wage. And then there's the issue of immigrants who take more in government services than they pay in tax. I would ask whether immigrants were more likely than the population at large to use government services like that and would blame a system which is vulnerable to exploitation rather than immigration itself.

It is with the cultural costs of immigration that the topic converges with British patriotism. If immigration continues at is current rate, the birth rate states low, and the indigenous British population becomes a minority, will it still be Britain? For all the benefits of a multi cultural society, wouldn't it be a shame is British culture ceased to exist? These are legitimate concerns of decent people that the Left has not adequately addressed. The far right, which has taken up the cause of those who worry about British culture, has stolen patriotism.

End of Part 1.

Another political blog (another "another" blog title)

But I'm clever so that's okay~ Basically this is to be my mouthing board for my opinions on all things political, from ideology to current events to where the political meets the physiological and whatever else grips my fancy. I have an opinion on most things, so hopefully this could be interesting.

The great historian E.H. Carr once said something to the affect that before studying a history book you must study the historian who wrote it, "find out what bees are buzzing in his bonnet". In this way I thought I'd reveal my bees before going any further; lay out in simple terms my political ideology and biases so you know where I stand.

I am essentially an independently minded Left wing progressive. I am very ideologically minded and believe that politics without ideology is like humanity without soul, but I am not dogmatic and believe that parties and politicians should be firm and proud in their ideological beliefs and flexible in their policies.
I have an affection for ideologies I do not necessarily agree with. I smile at the image of the editors of the Morning Star thinking how best to frame the Soviet Union's atrocities over tea and biscuits in one of their Crouch End apartments though I disagree with Stalinism, Leninism and even original Marxism.
More than centralism in policies I believe in moderation in terms of the framing of issues, politics should bring people together: I have no time for shrill Michael Moore leftism.
In terms of political parties I have very little attachment. I prefer the Liberal Democrats to Labour, though would vote for the latter to keep out the Conservatives. I find the Green's policies very reasonable and I can't say I disagree with the Socialist Worker's Party a lot of the time. In American terms I agree with the New England Democrats, and wish the rest of the country did too.
In terms of my own political ideology I would say that the single strongest thread running through all my diverse beliefs is a care for the underdog. I am against racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and anything that does not value the diversity of the world as a benefit.

This however is all in the abstract, and I hope that over a period of times I can articulate this views to you in more concrete terms, put things in ways you might not have thought of before, make the strongest argument in favor of my views and against others and enjoy venting my views to strangers so my friends can have some respite.