 |
CAUSE OF THE MORAL CRISIS
Although there are a myriad of
contributing
factors, the New Dialogue participants are persuaded
that there is a major cause of the current moral crisis deserving special
scrutiny. It is a cause in the sense of a triggering event which
has brought about great change and, in the process, has thrown
persons and society out of the practice of thinking about collective
problems from a moral point of view. The cause is the new economic order of
global market capitalism. The new way of thinking is a form of
economic rationality that we have termed the "rationality of cash
flow capitalism". It is not an immoral, but rather an amoral way of
thinking.
Legitimate in its proper domain of economics, finance, and
business calculation, the
cash flow capitalist rationality has proven disruptive when used as
the total mindset in formulating corporate or government policies
required in response to changes in
the global market. Having made a charge that could sound like a
criticism of capitalism in general, we hasten to add a
qualification and clarification. This charge is not intended as a
judgment about capitalism as an economic ideology. We are not
suggesting that the solution to the crisis lies in replacing
capitalism with another economic system. This charge is an internal
criticism. We believe that capitalism
is by important measurements the most successful economic system
ever developed. It has raised the material well being of the masses
of citizens in those societies which have practiced it to levels
never dreamed possible. However, there are aspects of
the current mode of marketplace rationality that require close
scrutiny and care in using it.
With the defeat of Communism and the decline of other totalitarian
political economic forms, global market capitalism emerged as the
new economic order, the most powerful institutional force in the
world today, dominating people's lives in ways that those who
control global markets and those who are controlled by them may not
even be aware of. The charge of causative factor of the moral
crisis is directed then not against capitalism but against the amoral cash
flow
capitalist rationality which has come to be accepted as the rationality
necessary to compete successfully in conducting economic and
business affairs in the new world order. Moral considerations have less
and less chance to enter economic decision processes. Global market
capitalism is under scrutiny and criticism because it has given license
and a wider franchise to this amoral rationality, as it has
employed it
while spreading the ideology of capitalism in the post Cold War world.
This has come about without being noticed by many who are
occupied in just keeping up with the changes taking
place. As capitalism found itself in an environment of
unopposed power, the goal of maximum economic return was being interpreted in business
contexts through the finance paradigm of "cash flow." In this
paradigm, money, that is, "cash", and the speed at which it moves,
that is, "flow", was the primary concept through which
economic benefits were being calculated.
Similar sounding concerns about "money
capitalism" and "finance capitalism" have been raised before. However,
the increased emphasis on the
short term which "flow" adds, and the newly available computer power to
project
the present far into the future and then return have combined to produce
a different form of economic rationality. The idea of short
term financial returns and maximum macro-economic benefits being
coincident
found its way into general economic thinking. The new rationality
became a major element in the way
that economic policies, institutions and systems were developed and
evaluated. In this way of thinking it is money in a fast rate of
flow that has value as capital. Other traditional forms of
capital, such as land, physical assets, human beings, natural
resources, etc. were no longer considered intrinsically valuable
but were valued increasingly in terms of what they were able to
generate in cash flow. Against this amoral rationality and the
concentrations of economic power that have ensued in the new
economic order, the moral heritage of capitalism and the unstated
moral boundaries inherent in the system were largely forgotten. In
the face of such powerful global economic forces the separate
states and nations have found it difficult to reassert
these
moral boundaries through political process. Close scrutiny
would reveal, we believe, that the widespread application of this
rationality, and the one dimensional
view of economic value that it represents, has resulted in many of the
social problems that are symptoms of the moral crisis in both
developed and developing countries: excessive corporate downsizing,
growing disparities in the distribution of wealth, inner city
decay, the corruption of political processes, the commercialization
of the medical and legal fields, and the economic instability and
human oppression now being felt in the developing world.
An especially troubling aspect of the process is that the
cash flow is increasingly controlled by, and therefore is ending up
in, fewer and fewer hands. Because of the growing concentrations of
wealth administered under this economic rationality, and the
resulting social and economic hardships experienced in both the
developed and developing countries, we have become gravely
concerned that Marxism's criticism of capitalism, namely, that it
will generate monopolies of power resulting in widespread
disparities of wealth and social injustice, are beginning to appear to
manyas
ominously prophetic, even from the grave of its seeming 1989 demise. We do
not agree with Marx that this outcome is an inevitable result of
capitalism but feel it may yet come about as a result of this
rationality and the associated forces which have been
unleashed alongside global capitalism. We are concerned that if
these forces persist unchecked that the world could soon experience
increasing social disorder. The result will be great pain to persons and
societies, and capitalism itself will be found at
fault.When market capitalism was the bulwark against
Communist imperialism, its economic activities and structures may
have had a clearer moral mandate. On close examination under
current circumstances, however, the global market system as it
is now operating is no longer entitled to automatic moral sanction.
Times have changed. Capitalism is no longer the counterforce to a
repressive totalitarian ideology. Economic activities that may have been
tolerated
in a Cold War context may not to be condoned in peace. To regain its
status as the preferred economic system, capitalism must
acknowledge its moral heritage. As a part of this, the rationality under
which it
is being conducted must also account for itself under moral principles.
The situation seems to be this. Despite the economic benefits
the system seems to offer, the new economic order is engendering a
rationality
which disregards the unique value of persons, allows conditions
which distort moral freedom, and tolerates a disrespect for the
natural world that is morally out of bounds.
In short, the current economic order does not appropriately sustain human
persons or human community and does not represent a sustainable use of the
natural world. If each human is viewed as having intrinsic value
and needing certain conditions of freedom to live the moral life,
then it follows that there must be a limit to the degree of
economic inequality that those who operate the economic system can
permit in a global society. A proper respect for nature is another
limit that a global economic system must observe to retain its
status as a moral
institution. A legitimate economic system cannot view the increasing
depletion of Nature's bounty as a way to get around the problem of
economic inequality. Providing a moral response to these charges presents a serious challenge to
advocates of capitalism because that is the system under which these activities are taking place.
The concern of many, including those of us in the New Dialogue, is
that unrestrained by moral self awareness, this amoral
rationality could soon yield a society which exalts a feverish pursuit
of money and a culture of a "consumption goods" hedonism. It would
lead to grossly unjust differences in wealth and income and, as a
byproduct, breed a new feudal elite of autonomous Masters of the
Universe. The subjects of this new order, those humans of least
cash value, the poorest of the poor, will increasingly be treated
as outcasts: in America, either as prisoners of welfare ghettoes
which undermine all potential for self-development and become a
breeding ground for every social pathology, or as inmates
incarcerated in an ever expanding system of "correctional"
institutions; in developing countries, as denizens of teeming
shanty towns of cardboard houses, open sewers and roving gangs of
starving homeless youths. It is this frightening prospect
and the speed with which it is becoming a reality that motivates
our effort to begin a dialogue on the moral crisis.
How are the those of us who are advocates of
capitalism to respond? The increasing concentration of
wealth and other aspects of the new economic order are indications
that it may not even be a true form of capitalism. If
capitalism's founding theorists were correct, because of the ideas
which form the core of economic liberalism, if it were true capitalism
it would be self correcting with its internal moral
compass. It may be
an as yet unnamed form of economic arrangement that we are confronting.
Perhaps a better description might be "cash
flow feudalism", for the new form of global economic arrangement is
exhibiting some of the same forms of concentrations of power and economic
servitude that characterized the feudal form of political economy. Under
such a view, the barons of
this new feudal order would be the persons of significant wealth and the
knights those who serve them, corporate executives and those in the
financial world, who control not manors but cash
flow sources. Pursuing a goal of maximizing cash flow and short
term benefit, they dictate the terms under which all of
humanity lives, accidentally or unknowingly overlooking such moral
considerations as human dignity, conditions of freedom, duties of
community and respect for the natural world. Many of these barons
and knights, ironically, may not yet be aware of the new found
power that they hold and thus may not have come to terms with the moral
responsibilities that are attached to it. The hope of the New
Dialogue is that as the barons of "cash flow feudalism" begin to
recognize that certain moral boundaries are necessary to maintain
stable economic and social institutions, they will help navigate
the global economic system to a more human and moral form of capitalism.
- Moving Toward Solutions
- Having
outlined our view that the crisis is due largely
to the displacement of moral rationality by a morally unaccountable cash
flow rationality in conducting economic affairs, we must begin to
look for solutions to the problems. The conclusion of the New
Dialogue participants is that if a human and moral form of
capitalism is to prevail (and that is our hope) we must not allow
the current economic paradigm, and the amoral rationality by which
it operates, to roam the globe in the name of capitalism, claiming
the rightful spoils of the Cold War. Rather, in order to legitimate
its victory over Communism, we who support capitalism must
undertake a careful evaluation of the human activities that the
current economic structure is encouraging or giving rise to,
examine its moral roots, and help begin a reform in the direction
of a peacetime form of market capitalism.
- The
participants of the New Dialogue have started the dialogue process
by focusing attention on the set of problems emerging in the new
economic order. We intend to continue by looking very closely at
the details of current circumstances and
asking the question, "Is the current economic system sustainable in terms of its impact on society
and the natural world?" In answering this question we are
looking at what it is doing to persons, to
human communities and societies around the globe, and to
the natural world in order to provide the economic benefits it produces.
Moreover, since the new economic order involves not only economic
institutions but the political institutions which give them
support, the collective activities to be evaluated involve both the
private and public sector.
- Although the lack of a common
moral ground for challenging the effects of this "cash flow
feudalist rationality"
constitutes what many today see and experience as a crisis in
society, it must be recognized that the crisis is decisively moral
and spiritual in nature and personal, not just social, and must be
resolved first at those deeper personal levels.
-
Given that the moral crisis was triggered by economic
exigency, an evaluation of daily economic activities must be
undertaken at the individual level by each of us as market
participants.
Each person must be ready to ask in economic or business situations
whether some personal self restraint is necessary in the economic
sphere in order to achieve a more moral community and
global society.
Are we, each of us, willing to do
what we can to bring about a human and moral form of capitalism as
the legacy that our society will live under and export to other
parts of the world?
- The goal of the New Dialogue is to
initiate a dialogue around these and related questions, and address
them with reference to the ideas we have set forth, all
with the hope of fostering the sort of moral society and economy
that we all seek.
|
IATH WWW Server 
Center's Home 
New Dialogue Main Page