Monday, May 17, 2021

There is no Woke capitalism

There is only Capitalism.  As I've been told a million times over the years, it's the bottom line.  Why do businesses meet added expenses born of government regulation by screwing their employees?  It's the bottom line.  Why do businesses meet the burden of taxation by cutting quantity and diminishing quality?  It's the bottom line.  The bottom line doth solve a multitude of problems. 

Well, I suppose it's time to admit the obvious.  Why is corporate America at the vanguard of the movement to destroy America, the Western Christian tradition and its values, and even ideas of equality, liberty and democracy?  Well my friends, I guess it's the bottom line. 

At some point, corporate execs and bean counters ran the numbers and realized there's more money to be made sucking up to tyranny and totalitarianism and appealing to people who want to see America and the West burn, than there is trying to preserve those same traditions.  And since conservatives have sanctified the bottom line as the end all 'get out of jail free' card for whatever corporations do, it's hard now to hear them bemoan what is logical per their own sanctioning of corporate decision making.  

Why are corporations promoting racism, tyranny, censorship, group identity, and a basic assault on America's history and the heritage of the Judeo-Christian West?  Because that's where the money is.  That precious bottom line.  

So by now, if we are clever, we'd start thinking long and hard about how long this has been the case.  How many things did conservatives of old cherish that the corporate interest concluded had to go?  Ross Douthat ponders the relationship between Capitalism and Conservatism.  

I'm no economist, so I can't speak to the details.  I can, however, admit that the problems conservatives are now struggling with as the corporate interests they have so long defended turns on them, are problems that are nothing new.  It's just now, they're more obvious than ever. 


  1. I like the saying comparing capitalism to marriage because they share a lot of commonalities too. Some marriages are a sham. Some of them are about something other than children. Some of them are abusive.

    So does that mean marriage is just completely wrong? Do those bad examples mean conservatives are wrong for supporting marriage? Should we just get rid of the institution all together?

    I can't read Douthat's article (free limit reached and I don't care enough to route around it) but I'm willing to bet my reply wouldn't change: it has the same flaws all institutions run by humans do. Namely that humans have to be involved. It is a tool by which we accomplish certain tasks, but it cannot save us nor solve the problem of our sin any more than marriage can.

    (Though I have also noticed tendency on the Left to proclaim any disagreement with them on a topic as a sign of "worshipping" that thing. Otherwise you would just let their wild, insane slanders go unchallenged.)

    1. I think that's a good example. The problem is, in defense of marriage, too many conservative continued to defend abusive spouses or anything done by married people in the name of defending marriage. It wasn't the defense of capitalism that was a problem. It's that as corporations increasingly abused and misused their position, often to the detriment of what capitalism was supposed to accomplish, that abuse was defended in the name of the superiority of capitalism. And appeals to that bottom line were often the excuse made. Now, I just can't help but notice it's still the bottom line. It's not woke capitalism. It's just capitalism. If that's what capitalism was all about.

    2. You're not wrong.

      “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

      ― H.L. Mencken

      If I had any insight as to where the "sweet spot" was I would gladly share. Such is the condition we must muddle through the best we can.

    3. That's sort of what I'm saying. I agree that sometimes defending a scoundrel is needed. But not defending the enemies. And I think somehow, in some way, corporate interests became the enemy of the very capitalism that conservatives were so energetically trying to defend. Somehow, we lost sight of the goal (defending against things like socialism) and began to defend the ones becoming the biggest threat to the very thing we were trying to preserve.

    4. What happened is probably that most Conservative activists don't think long-term. They think every threat is like WWII, where a bad guy pops up, you beat him, and he's gone. Then another bad guy pops up, you beat him, etc.... they lose sight of broader patterns in society. Rather than analyze leftwing tactics and come up with an effective counter, they spent most of their time waxing eloquent about Tradition, and Patriotism, and The Good Old Days, and how the younger generation was Degenerate and didn't know how good they had it etc...... whenever a nonsensical socialist talking point is thrown at them, it's like their brain short circuits, almost like they can't answer a question they didn't prep for. Rather than calmly, rationally tear the left wing propaganda to peices in plain English, they pull out some quote from some philosopher they heard about in college or something. They don't think outside the box very well. When Tim Kaine asked Mike Pence "why do you want to ban abortion, don't you TRUST women?" Pense should've countered with something like "the same reason we don't trust men not to commit rape," or something similar. What we got instead was some vague philosophical speech about how "a society is judged on how it treats children, " which is true, but did nothing to counter Kaine's dumb argument

    5. I think in the broadest of brushstrokes, you’re correct. I think there has been a tendency among conservatives of not catching the changing times, while reminiscing on the good old heroes. In fairness, however, I think the changes have been so radical, so fast, and so loony, anyone would be caught off guard. For instance, that many of the younger liberals today almost proudly dismiss concern about history. At best, history is there to demonstrate how superior we are to those reprobates who came before. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant, as I’ve encountered many times myself. How do you even debate someone like that? Or the modern Left’s post-reality, post-truth world where X is whatever I want it to be, even different things in the same sentence. Again, without compromising the conservative insistence that things like truth and reality matter, how to counter that? If Pence had said that? How dare he compare abortion to rape! Or how dare he compare men to women! Or how dare he say C-A-T doesn’t spell DOG!! In the post-modern, most-truth world, the Left has the advantages. Especially when those institutions that once would have stood against such insanity are now the ones egging it on. And that includes the vast corporate interests who have been eating away at Capitalism’s benefits for some time, and who now clearly see the benefits in this post-Truth, post-Christian, post-Western and post-American world that the post-truth movement is heading for.

    6. I wasn't saying Pence could change everything. Just that maybe it could strike a nerve in a few of the right places. Trick your opponents into going ballistic over something stupid rather than allowing them to walk all over you. I bet Kaine would've blown a headgaskett. It wouldn't have been perfect, but tricking Kaine into blowing a gasket is more likely to achieve results than allowing his nonsensical ramblings to overwhelm you. In any case, it wouldn't have been any worse than what we got and would've been hilarious to watch

    7. I think you are correct. That's just the first thing that came to my mind when I read what Pence could have said. He could have said it, and have been right to do so. Like so many things, Kaine's is just a lame talking point meaning nothing. But likewise, all reactions would then be the same. Outrage and more outrage meaning nothing. I do think you're right, in that we have to stop the usual 'I'm sure we're all of good will here, except those conservatives over there.' Start calling them out for the stupid and for the evil. Do it directly, since they don't hesitate to frame their arguments that way.


Let me know your thoughts