Interesting article on CiF today from Oliver James on the link between what he calls 'selfish capitalism' and rising levels of mental illness. I agree with some of his observations about the harm that comes from the rising inequity (something that took root under Mrs Thatcher but wasn't really checked at all under Blair) but there are some confusions and contradictions in James' piece worth pointing out.
I'm not sure how genuine his use of the term 'selfish capitalism', as distinct from plain old ordinary capitalism, is. He presumably doesn't want his analysis to be dismissed as some sort of pseudo-Marxist proxy piece and the implication is that there is a benign and neutral capitalism at whose door none of these ills can be laid. Being on the soft right I'd agree with that but I don't think the use of that small prefix is enough here. You can legitimately take issue with that nasty strain of capitalism we've over the last 20-odd years (basically Thatcherism) and I'd probably agree with James on the ills that Thatcher is responsible for. But if you're going to risk sullying the name of an entire political philosophy then surely you can't dismiss the advances of the previous 80 years when capitalism of one form or another was also prevalent? As one commenter on CiF illustrates (with apologies to Monty Python):
Quite. James then undermines his own case a little by apparently discounting the possibility that any of the rise is attributable to rising detection rates for mental illness which have improved dramatically over the last 30-40 years - not to mention less social stigma attached to the issue (all of which incidentally have taken place while all these nasty capitalists have been running the show). Whatsmore he even points out that the link isn't explicit anyway:
Finally, James goes on to wish for the emergence of a "passionate, charismatic" leader who advocates his preferred brand of more altruistic and compassionate capitalism. This raises an interesting question - 'is such a person more likely to emerge from the political movement traditionally associated with capitalism or the one which explicitly rejected it for most of it's life'? My answer would be yes which suggests that as soon as David Cameron can appropriate the other attribute James is looking for - being female - then he'll have James' vote.
I'm not sure how genuine his use of the term 'selfish capitalism', as distinct from plain old ordinary capitalism, is. He presumably doesn't want his analysis to be dismissed as some sort of pseudo-Marxist proxy piece and the implication is that there is a benign and neutral capitalism at whose door none of these ills can be laid. Being on the soft right I'd agree with that but I don't think the use of that small prefix is enough here. You can legitimately take issue with that nasty strain of capitalism we've over the last 20-odd years (basically Thatcherism) and I'd probably agree with James on the ills that Thatcher is responsible for. But if you're going to risk sullying the name of an entire political philosophy then surely you can't dismiss the advances of the previous 80 years when capitalism of one form or another was also prevalent? As one commenter on CiF illustrates (with apologies to Monty Python):
"I tell you, what has capitalism ever done for the likes of me eh??!??!?
Damn you capitalism. Just over a relatively short century ago I would have enjoyed the fact that most other scumbags my age (30+) would probably be dead by now (on average would have struggled to have reached the nice age of 5). And if they were lucky enough to pass the age of thirty, they would have been all rotten-toothed and illiterate, easy to spot and discriminate from proper people like. And if they weren't controlled with some deadly ailment that neither Dr nor hospital would or could treat - then back breaking toil and low calorie food or a nice bit of warfare would sort them out on a daily basis."
Quite. James then undermines his own case a little by apparently discounting the possibility that any of the rise is attributable to rising detection rates for mental illness which have improved dramatically over the last 30-40 years - not to mention less social stigma attached to the issue (all of which incidentally have taken place while all these nasty capitalists have been running the show). Whatsmore he even points out that the link isn't explicit anyway:
"In itself, this economic inequality does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was nowhere near as widespread in, for instance, the US or Britain of that time."That last piece of speculation is critical - it's equally possible than when you adjust for the impact of detection and changes in social attitudes that mental illness was just as prevalent, perhaps more so. If that were the case then the premise for his article begins to crumble.
Finally, James goes on to wish for the emergence of a "passionate, charismatic" leader who advocates his preferred brand of more altruistic and compassionate capitalism. This raises an interesting question - 'is such a person more likely to emerge from the political movement traditionally associated with capitalism or the one which explicitly rejected it for most of it's life'? My answer would be yes which suggests that as soon as David Cameron can appropriate the other attribute James is looking for - being female - then he'll have James' vote.
Labels: Politics
2 Comments:
Socialism is just as selfish as it consists of offering sections of society other peoples money if they vote you into power .The ratio between the tax payer and the electorate is an interesting statistical one which correlates closely to the result over the 20th century.
So this selfish capitalism mularky we can immediately dismiss ,. In fact there is no room for pity or charity when the state removes all your money to distribute it as it thinks fit and sure enough under extreme systems people, do become verminous we are seeing the fallout in Russia activities now at home and abroad .
However there is a point that the consciousness of failure and powerlessness are significant in mental illness of certain sorts but this does not have a direct relationship to financial inequity. Feudal man for example was not troubled by such modern unquiet spirits and nor between the wars was mental illness the sort of growing problem it is now . Not at least the same sort.
The answer is not an organised state theft perpetrated on the middling it is a sense of achievement outside money , community fulfilment and so on. That at least would help the brain. I suspect that alternative values and acceptance are not what the writer has in mind but this is not a subject directly related to capitalism except that freedom from the state allows people to develop the sustaining structures they used to have before the behemoth swallowed family , community and values outside itself
Incidentally C Britain 2008 shows stats in which the class divide is indeed narrowing across a broad middling range . It is only the top and bottom falling a part. This shows that the real workers have achieved nothing for their efforts under Blair and Brown.
Nonsense as usual NM, but voluminous nonsense.
"Socialism...consists of offering sections of society other peoples money if they vote you into power"
I'm not a socialist but that's the most ludicrous and reductive definition of socialism I've ever heard...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home