Reading Response for: Work as Co-Creation: A Critique of a Remarkably Bad Idea by Stanley Hauerwas
Hauerwas brings up a legitimate criticism to the Pope's encyclical when he says that "concrete implications remain unclear or uncertain...it simply errs, or supports or condemns positions no one holds." In short, the Pope has lost touch with the real, everyday person's, world. I agree with Hauerwas. He in fact said many of the things I was thinking while reading the encyclical. John Paul II seems to "lack the courage to take a position on anything," and "works much like the preachers who write their sermons and then look for texts to support them."
Hauerwas warns that perhaps the Pope is trying to assign dignity to common work in order to keep the lower classes satisfied and soothe the consciences of the wealthy - "Perhaps then, the best definition of work is 'that from which the rich are exempt.' The rich thus must attribute meaning to work in an effort to morally legitimate their own parasitical status."
However, ultimately, we shouldn't have to find meaning or fulfillment based on some abstract "dignity of common work," but rather knowing simply that our work "helps sustain the lives of other people."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Pope and Socialism
Reading Response: Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor by Pope Leo XIII
Pope Leo, in 1891, felt that the rising popularity of Socialist theory wouldn't be beneficial to either the upper class or the lower class, for the simple fact that in both cases, the state claims the property legally (and somewhat morally) owned by individuals. He takes a very Locke-ian view when he says that "...every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
I think, though, that he has a very idyllic view of human nature. He states that if a man has enough money to live on, that he'll save the rest of it and be thrifty with what he has. "Nature itself would urge him to do this." If this is so, then why is our society so riddled with debts we can never pay off? It could be that only those who make less money than they can live on would be the only ones in debt, but we know this isn't true.
Perhaps if our society were like Pope Leo's ideal world, people would be more wise with their money and more considerate of their neighbors. But our world is not like he imagined, and it has many problems. Rather than having some people maing up solutions based on pipe dreams, we need real people living in this real world coming up with real solutions to the problems we face everyday.
Pope Leo, in 1891, felt that the rising popularity of Socialist theory wouldn't be beneficial to either the upper class or the lower class, for the simple fact that in both cases, the state claims the property legally (and somewhat morally) owned by individuals. He takes a very Locke-ian view when he says that "...every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
I think, though, that he has a very idyllic view of human nature. He states that if a man has enough money to live on, that he'll save the rest of it and be thrifty with what he has. "Nature itself would urge him to do this." If this is so, then why is our society so riddled with debts we can never pay off? It could be that only those who make less money than they can live on would be the only ones in debt, but we know this isn't true.
Perhaps if our society were like Pope Leo's ideal world, people would be more wise with their money and more considerate of their neighbors. But our world is not like he imagined, and it has many problems. Rather than having some people maing up solutions based on pipe dreams, we need real people living in this real world coming up with real solutions to the problems we face everyday.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Reading Response: Wal-Mart Effect (Chapters 7 and 9)
Upon reading this book, I know two things for sure; 1) that the executives of Wal-Mart, whether ethical or not, are brilliant business tycoons and 2) that Wal-Mart is not merely a place to buy groceries.
Wal-Mart not only keeps its promise to have "always low prices" by finding the lowest prices, but by actually lowering prices itself. Wal-Mart coerces its suppliers into lowering their prices, searches the globe for the lowest prices, strips all amenities from their corporation in order to lower prices, and never ever gives up in its mission for the lowest prices. With determination and prowess as they have, it's no surprise that Wal-Mart does, indeed, have the lowest prices around.
Because Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices, they have an automatic consumer following. People will shop where they can get the biggest "bang for their buck" and Wal-Mart knows it. Customers could refuse to shop at Wal-Mart if they wanted to, but many are drawn back again and again because of the Wal-Mart mantra - "Always low prices, always."
People, though they may complain about Wal-Mart's policies, still continually support the corporation with their dollars. As Fishman says, "Wal-Mart is not just a store, or a company, or a powerful institution. It is also a mirror. Wal-Mart is quintessentially American. It mirrors our own energy, our sense of destiny, our appetite for bigness and variety and innovation."
Upon reading this book, I know two things for sure; 1) that the executives of Wal-Mart, whether ethical or not, are brilliant business tycoons and 2) that Wal-Mart is not merely a place to buy groceries.
Wal-Mart not only keeps its promise to have "always low prices" by finding the lowest prices, but by actually lowering prices itself. Wal-Mart coerces its suppliers into lowering their prices, searches the globe for the lowest prices, strips all amenities from their corporation in order to lower prices, and never ever gives up in its mission for the lowest prices. With determination and prowess as they have, it's no surprise that Wal-Mart does, indeed, have the lowest prices around.
Because Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices, they have an automatic consumer following. People will shop where they can get the biggest "bang for their buck" and Wal-Mart knows it. Customers could refuse to shop at Wal-Mart if they wanted to, but many are drawn back again and again because of the Wal-Mart mantra - "Always low prices, always."
People, though they may complain about Wal-Mart's policies, still continually support the corporation with their dollars. As Fishman says, "Wal-Mart is not just a store, or a company, or a powerful institution. It is also a mirror. Wal-Mart is quintessentially American. It mirrors our own energy, our sense of destiny, our appetite for bigness and variety and innovation."
Monday, November 9, 2009
Might and Right
Reading Response: The Wal-Mart Effect (Chapters 1-4)
Wal-Mart is an extremely successful business - about this, no one can argue. The number of stores, the number of employees, and the amount of cash flow through their enterprise is truly mind-boggling. With massive size comes a very persuasive voice. Wal-Mart gets what Wal-Mart wants. Wal-Mart does what Wal-Mart wants.
It would be amazing if a company with Wal-Mart's clout used it for positive things, yet it seems like Wal-Mart has become an out of control monster, consuming everything in its path. I understand that a business' goal is to provide services and/or goods to its customers and not to act like a charity, yet when people make comments like "When you see the Wal-Mart smiley face, whistling and knocking down prices, somewhere there's a factory worker being kicked in the stomach" I have to wonder if Wal-Mart has gotten its priorities out of order.
Wal-Mart is an extremely successful business - about this, no one can argue. The number of stores, the number of employees, and the amount of cash flow through their enterprise is truly mind-boggling. With massive size comes a very persuasive voice. Wal-Mart gets what Wal-Mart wants. Wal-Mart does what Wal-Mart wants.
It would be amazing if a company with Wal-Mart's clout used it for positive things, yet it seems like Wal-Mart has become an out of control monster, consuming everything in its path. I understand that a business' goal is to provide services and/or goods to its customers and not to act like a charity, yet when people make comments like "When you see the Wal-Mart smiley face, whistling and knocking down prices, somewhere there's a factory worker being kicked in the stomach" I have to wonder if Wal-Mart has gotten its priorities out of order.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Fairness and Freedom
Reading Response: The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, by Michael Novak
Michael Novak makes a convincing argument for capitalism and raises some serious concerns about socialism. He writes, "As an idea, socialism has been forced by its own failures to retreat from the field of economics to the high ground of morality. " His basic argument is that, while socialism sounds good and moral, it just doesn't work. Capitalism, on the other hand, while not appearing as equal and humane, is actually more fair and just than socialism - plus, it actually works.
He is also concerned with socialism causing too much equality, in the sense that minorities would lose their voices because they would be lumped in with the majority, and that most of society's "amenities" would be lost if everyone was paid a middle-class wage. He argues that money is a good thing, and being wealthy is not evil, provided one does productive things with his or her money. He makes an interesting point when he says, " That riverside restaurant which we can afford to go to once in awhile, on special occasions, is in fact kept going by those who can afford to eat out there often and well: no rich, alas, no restaurant. " It is instances like these that the wealthy benefit the lower classes, not to mention all the foundations, hospitals, schools, museums, etc., that the wealthy help to fund.
He argues that, before immediately calling capitalism evil and socialism good, to look at all the facts. "...socialism is not an improvement upon democratic capitalism but a relapse into the tryannical unities from which the latter has emerged. A unitary, dominant, central state authority has been tried before. The enforcement of high moral ideals by coercion of law has been tried before."
I have always thought capitalism was a better economic way, but I was torn because of the morality arguments that socialism pushes. However, after reading Novak, I feel confident in saying that capitalism is good, and even fair. Not equal, but fair.
Michael Novak makes a convincing argument for capitalism and raises some serious concerns about socialism. He writes, "As an idea, socialism has been forced by its own failures to retreat from the field of economics to the high ground of morality. " His basic argument is that, while socialism sounds good and moral, it just doesn't work. Capitalism, on the other hand, while not appearing as equal and humane, is actually more fair and just than socialism - plus, it actually works.
He is also concerned with socialism causing too much equality, in the sense that minorities would lose their voices because they would be lumped in with the majority, and that most of society's "amenities" would be lost if everyone was paid a middle-class wage. He argues that money is a good thing, and being wealthy is not evil, provided one does productive things with his or her money. He makes an interesting point when he says, " That riverside restaurant which we can afford to go to once in awhile, on special occasions, is in fact kept going by those who can afford to eat out there often and well: no rich, alas, no restaurant. " It is instances like these that the wealthy benefit the lower classes, not to mention all the foundations, hospitals, schools, museums, etc., that the wealthy help to fund.
He argues that, before immediately calling capitalism evil and socialism good, to look at all the facts. "...socialism is not an improvement upon democratic capitalism but a relapse into the tryannical unities from which the latter has emerged. A unitary, dominant, central state authority has been tried before. The enforcement of high moral ideals by coercion of law has been tried before."
I have always thought capitalism was a better economic way, but I was torn because of the morality arguments that socialism pushes. However, after reading Novak, I feel confident in saying that capitalism is good, and even fair. Not equal, but fair.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Subservience and Authority
Reading Response: "What's Labor Got to Do with It? Capitalism and the Counterproject" - David Schweickart
Capitalism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. The only thing that could work is Schweickart's "counterproject" - a "best of both worlds" scenario is an "all embracing project for human emancipation."
Something that intrigues me about this piece is the section in which Schweickart describes the Economic Democracy. He starts out by saying that the authoritarian structure of most workplaces should be replaced with something more democratic, what he calls "worker self-management." Workers are responsible for all that happens in the workplace. However, once the firm increased in size, he said it would be necessary for the workers to appoint managers and executives. Then he says that although the workers control the workplace, they do not own the means of production.
Perhaps I am misreading this statement, but it seems as though Schweickart is writing in circles; Workers throw off authorities in order to govern themselves, but then appoint authorities over themselves. Although workers control the workplace and are responsible for everything that happens in it, they do not "own" it. Their workplace does not belong to them.
These statements make it seem like trying to combine the best parts of socialism and capitalism isn't really possible. Though each system has its flaws, it may be better for society to pick one and go with it, rather than making a series of qualifications that don't even seem like they support each other.
Actually, after today's video and discussion, I am reconsidering where I stand on this issue.
Capitalism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. The only thing that could work is Schweickart's "counterproject" - a "best of both worlds" scenario is an "all embracing project for human emancipation."
Something that intrigues me about this piece is the section in which Schweickart describes the Economic Democracy. He starts out by saying that the authoritarian structure of most workplaces should be replaced with something more democratic, what he calls "worker self-management." Workers are responsible for all that happens in the workplace. However, once the firm increased in size, he said it would be necessary for the workers to appoint managers and executives. Then he says that although the workers control the workplace, they do not own the means of production.
Perhaps I am misreading this statement, but it seems as though Schweickart is writing in circles; Workers throw off authorities in order to govern themselves, but then appoint authorities over themselves. Although workers control the workplace and are responsible for everything that happens in it, they do not "own" it. Their workplace does not belong to them.
These statements make it seem like trying to combine the best parts of socialism and capitalism isn't really possible. Though each system has its flaws, it may be better for society to pick one and go with it, rather than making a series of qualifications that don't even seem like they support each other.
Actually, after today's video and discussion, I am reconsidering where I stand on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
