SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Capitalism is in trouble – at least judging by recent polls.
A majority of American millennials reject the economic system, while 55% of women age 18 to 54 say they prefer socialism. More Democrats now have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. And globally, 56% of respondents to a new survey agree "capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world."
One problem interpreting numbers like these is that there are many definitions of capitalism and socialism. More to the point, people seem to be thinking of a specific form of capitalism that deems the sole purpose of companies is to increase stock prices and enrich investors. Known as shareholder capitalism, it's been the guiding light of American business for more than four decades. That's what the survey meant by "as it exists today."
As a scholar of socially responsible companies, however, I cannot help but notice a shift in corporate behavior in recent years. A new kind of capitalism seems to be emerging, one in which companies value communities, the environment and workers just as much as profits.
The latest evidence: Companies as diverse as alcohol maker AB InBev, airline JetBlue and money manager BlackRock have all in recent weeks made new commitments to pursue more sustainable business practices.
[...] A 2017 study showed that many companies with climate change goals actually scaled back their ambitions over time as the reality clashed with their lofty goals.
But businesses can't afford to ignore their customers' wishes. Nor can they ignore their workers in a tight labor market. And if they disregard socially responsible investors, they risk both losing out on important investments and facing shareholder resolutions that force change.
The shareholder value doctrine is not dead, but we are beginning to see major cracks in its armor. And as long as investors, customers and employees continue to push for more responsible behavior, you should expect to see those cracks grow.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday January 24 2020, @05:40PM (3 children)
You can make the case that under certain ethical frameworks, economic systems can be inherently moral or amoral.
tangent ahead
I find one of the biggest ironies of all time that
*The moral basis for capitalism can be argued to be deontological: "everyone has rights and as long as those rights are not infringed, people may do as they wish"
and
*The moral basis of communism can be argued to be utilitarian: "society must do what it can to provide a good living to everyone"
but
*The biggest critiques of capitalism are deontological: "It's amoral to have an exploitative relationship between wealthy owner and poor worker"
and
*The biggest critiques of communism are utilitarian: "20 million died in the holodomor"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @08:04PM (2 children)
I think you are mixing up immoral and amoral.
Immoral means morally wrong or objectionable. (Exploiting workers is immoral.)
Amoral means separate from morality. (If you look at exploitative business practices amorally, they are efficient.)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday January 24 2020, @08:11PM (1 child)
I suppose you're right.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 26 2020, @02:46PM
What other sort of relationship can there be in this case? The whole point of work is that your labor is being exploited by someone who needs it, and you're paid wages and benefits for that exploitation that pay for what you need and want. In other words, it's always purely wrong. But why aren't similar exploitative relationships of poor worker to whatever is running the show similarly amoral/immoral? What makes those exploitative relations better than Capitalism's exploitative relationships?