"There`s nothing wrong with Capitalism. There`s nothing wrong with free enterprise." - Oingo Boingo
All due respects to one of my favorite bands, I think there is something wrong with capitalism. I think capitalism is a flawed economic system. Its weird though, because I think in practice its been better than it is in theory; and in that way it is the opposite of socialism (which I think is a great theory, with everyone helping each other, but in practice its a disaster because human nature dictates that people are greedy assholes, and because absolute power corrupts absolutely). Capitalism is different than socialism mainly because it embraces human nature rather than going against it the way socialism does. Capitalism is essentially Darwinism on an economic scale: the survival of the fittest. Sure, capitalism is generally paraded around as "the free market" and how that spurs on competition, but what most people fail to look at (and I don't understand why), is that in any competition there is a winner, and naturally a loser. And, as in most competitions, there really is no second place, and there isn't in capitalism either. Companies compete against each other, they drop prices, the market is set by supply and demand, and that is all to the benefit of the consumer. However, as this "free market" progresses, eventually one of the competing companies wins, and then as a result they no longer need to worry about the consumer because they are the only option. This is something that has been thought about extensively, and why we have anti-trust laws preventing monopolies and whatnot. However, even if we don't have absolute monopolies right now (and believe me, some would argue that we most assuredly do), the fact is that the competitive field is getting smaller. 50 years ago you might have had dozens or hundreds of choices, but as the competition wore on, some of the competitors fell by the wayside (or more accurately were bought up by the winners, to the victor goes the spoils I guess). As a result, now we have a few companies that really are running most of everything. But we have these major corporations still competing with each other, and the results are that the lengths that the corporations will go to so that they can win are really discouraging. From paying off the goverment to bend through rules with lobbyists, to things like the RIAA attempting to go after 60 million people who should be their target audience, to companies making products that intentionally break or cause harm to the people using them, multinational corporations have to resort to these types of measures to remain competitive with each other. And as much as I want to really fault the corporations that do this, it isn't their fault. These are the rules of the game. If they don't do it, the competition will, and they'll get swallowed up the way that so many of their competitors that fell by the wayside did. The problem is with the game itself, and with the rules. The problem is with capitalism itself.
Capitalism worked great for a while for both corporations and for the people who lived in this country, and the market really was free and competiting business didn't have to resort to Machiavellian tactics to beat each other. But eventually those days passed and the Industrial Revolution was born. Big businesses tilted the odds in their favor by getting the same rights as individuals, and learned to use people like machinery in assembly lines and factories. Safety for the workers and quality of life became secondary concerns compared to profits as thousands died in coal mines and steel mills and meat packing plants and factories of all kinds. Unions and govermental regulations stepped in and helped, but it taught the corporations to be sneakier about what they were doing. Mass media also made corporations begin to fear public scrutiny and public opinion. But things changed and soon the corporations owned the media and began controlling public opinion, and in many ways began to own the goverment through campaign financing and lobbyists. Big business was booming, and in many ways at the expense of the average citizen who has air that's toxic to breathe, water that's poisonous to drink and food that will kill you.
The corporations used their competitive advantage over "the little guy" who was only techincally competition to squash them and consume them, and all that's been left are the biggest conglomerates, but these conglomerates are still competing. This is where it gets bad, because consider all the devious things they've been doing to get to where they are, and now consider that they're going to have to raise the stakes and sink even lower if they want to progress to "the next round." Whole industries basically suiing their target audience or eliminating civil rights are just the beginning.
This brings us up to date, and brings me to what prompted this whole entry: the future. I don't know how many people are aware of this, but one of the most recent things that big business has been doing to cut costs is sending work overseas. Now, that's not a new idea, I know. Sweatshops in third-world companies to crank out American products have been going on for decades. But no, what I'm talking about is different. I'm talking about white collar jobs, techincal jobs, skilled jobs. A report by Forrester Research which just came out this week says that 3.3 million of these types of jobs will be sent overseas in the next 12 years, and many have already been sent to countries like India and China. The reason is because in those countries companies can get away with paying employees about one tenth of what they would pay for the same workers here in America. This is a similar debate to the one that Hollywood has been having with people who work on movies and why films are being made in Australia and Canada as opposed to here in America (because its cheaper, of course). This means that people who have worked at the same company for 30 years had to train their replacements overseas and then have their jobs taken away from them and be given entry level positions. But that is the "free market" for you. Its what companies in a capitalistic society have to do to maintain their competitive edge. Its because in capitalism it is not about who makes the best product but who makes the most money, because with money you can crush your opposition (or buy them out). But the jobs going overseas isn't what worries me. If someone else can do the job for less, fine. No, what worries me is when you think of what the next step is. What about getting the work done for free? What about replacing workers who work cheap with ones who work for free?
What about using robots?
I've mentioned this before, us being replaced with robots, simply because it is more efficient. Well, its also a hell of a lot cheaper if you can get it to work. Naturally, right now, we can't. Or can we? McDonald's is sure trying to see if they can by introducing an automated grill to cook burgers, and are also getting close to making the process of having your order taken automated as well. Now think about it, these types of jobs are less-skilled, low paying jobs. These types of jobs are the type that were initially sent overseas to cut costs decades ago when corporations saw that outsourcing their work to sweatshops was cheaper than having factories filled with American workers here in the US. That was how things went for a while, until recently the corporations started sending the rest of the jobs overseas as well because it was cheaper. But now McDonalds looks like its going to drastically cut its expenses by eliminating a large part of their work force, and if its successfull, surely other fast food companies will follow suit. And then other types of businesses will begin automating other types of jobs as well. Hell, they already have. ATMs, pay-at-the pump gasoline stations, even automated checkouts at supermarkets. These used to be low-skilled jobs, now they're a kiosk.
As Marshall Brain points out in his essay "Robotic Nation" its really just a matter of time before electronics and computing power make machines or even robots capable of performing most tasks that people can. From there its not too far of a leap to getting robots to perform almost all tasks that people can, and to where most jobs are being given to robots who work for free, instead of people who work for money (or people who work for less money overseas). Then corporations don't have to worry about frivolous lawsuits from their workforce, they don't have to worry about vacations, or overtime, or strikes, or slacking or anything else. They just push a button and they're off, while their R&D team comes up with the next wave of machines to do a better, quicker job. It sounds insane to think that companies would do this, and really put their entire consumer base out of work, but capitalism dictates it.
The REALLY scary part is what happens after all of this. What happens to people who have limited sources of income in a society where machines do all the work and there are only a few companies who control the government and the media and who provide us with a homogenous mix of choices? The worst case scenario is the ones advanced by sci-fi movies like "The Matrix" or "Terminator" in which the machines take over, but I think that's unlikely. What's more of a possibility is a society that's similiar to what was in Stephen King's novella "The Running Man" (not to be confused with the movie I talked about yesterday) or George Orwell's masterpiece "1984". Its a society where the people have once again become the tired, huddled masses who live in fear of each other and the world around them. I'm not sure what the best case scenario is, but it could be that the best case scenario is some kind of huge revolt to more equally redistribute things with the realization that capitalism is not the bastion of freedom that we've been taught to believe. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.
I sure hope I am.
