Thursday 12 November 2009

... able face of capitalism...

Now, let’s be honest. What do we really think of capitalism?
Perhaps that is an unfair question, because it sounds as though the response should be either ‘love it’ or hate it’. And of course it is not that simple.

The thing is: can you view capitalism as a single entity that you support or oppose, that you take or leave? Is it a philosophy? Is it a faith? Is it a system, a way of life? (Is it a bird, is it a plane?) Or is it simply a catch-all phrase that covers a multitude of sins, of activities, of practices? This is a relevant question in an age like ours, in an age that has tested to the limits our ‘faith’ in ‘the system’.

We believe in enterprise. We know that the flow of capital facilitates the efficient functioning of our society. We believe that competition is good, in that it by and large ensures low prices. So in that respect at least, we could call ourselves capitalists.

But the other side of believing in capitalism, or any system at all for that matter, is having faith in those who claim to be its stewards, its custodians. And that is where the problem lies right now. We’ve bugger-all trust in said custodians.

2008 and 2009 were the years in which our trust in business and businessmen reached an all time low. It wasn’t just the reckless bankers and the shady mortgage brokers. It was insurance companies (ruthlessly avoiding payouts) energy companies (high prices), telecoms (slow broadband, poor customer relations), national rail (poor service, overpriced), television companies (faking phone polls and competitions.)

And those other supposed custodians – the ministers of state – were nowhere to be seen. Or at least they only ever appeared to act when scandals were highlighted in the media, and they realized that they better move or else lose the support of the beloved voter. But even then their response was somewhat muted. There were a lot of bold initiatives. But the lobbyists soon went into overdrive and made ministers aware that if they generated too much regulation, they would turn Britain into an economic wilderness. And anyway, how could these ministers really act ingenuously when they had their own dodgy dealings (expenses) to handle?

So, people are indeed trying to get on with their lives, through thick and thin, amid whatever the recession might throw at them. They have little choice but to continue relying upon the system that is still just managing to keep them fed and clothed and housed. But when one is asked whether the custodians - after all that has passed, after all that has been said and done - have done enough to restore people’s faith in that very system that they are supposed to safeguard, one can but reply, in the most humble, restrained and modest terms possible: “Have they fuck?”
By guest blogger Lord Trencherman of Furmity

25 comments:

  1. Are you allowed to use swear words in a blog?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do I use swear words?
    The f*** I do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good to see that your humble statesmen still have the wherewithal to use pejorative terminology when the need arises.
    And for the record, you are right, the custodians are wade in the balance etc...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Capitalism is like fire: a powerful and useful source of energy, potentially of great benefit but which will, left unchecked and provided with adequate fuel, consume without regard to consequence.
    It has no conscience,recognises no morality and respects no boundaries. Left unchecked it will feed with ever-increasing voracity until it's fuel supply dwindles to the point it can no longer sustain itself.
    It is by nature exploitative, relying on a supply of relatively cheap labour. It is that supply of cheap labour that will ultimately run out as under-developed nations look to gain economic equivalence with the the West.
    Capitalism is, in short, Slavery in a pretty dress.

    ReplyDelete
  5. VivienneWestisBest12 November 2009 at 16:39

    Not always such a pretty dress, love.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chateau Margaux Leadbetter12 November 2009 at 16:45

    But is capitalism an 'it' or is it actually all about people?
    Where's the fire?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd just like to know what happened to the surplus value, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I learnt to love capitalism a long time ago. it's the only language I speak.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the surplus value went up in smoke, Ned.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I fear that Lord Trencherman has been taking those research pharmaceuticals again. He's not normally one to swear.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The good Lord is known to swear when his Doctor refuses to give him a repeat prescription.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If all else fails, might I humbly offer a bucketload of Tramadol, spiced with a soupcon of Diazepam, My Lord? I find it helps!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some people inhaled that smoke, I reckon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You may scoff. In fact I have no need for prescriptions. I am quite happy with my opium pod tea

    ReplyDelete
  15. We'll have no talk of drugs here, thank you very much. All you addicts are driving me to drink.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There's a man who looks like he fancies a drop or two.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I did not inhale, and I most definitely did NOT have sexual relations with VeganSue!

    ReplyDelete
  18. You appear to want the best of both worlds...the reason your broadband is slow and the customer service is terrible is because you'll buy broadband from the next person who'll sell you it a pound cheaper. Its a race to bottom, and it puts people who would rather offer a more expensive but better service, out of business. There are a few though (and no, this is not an advert), but people like Zen internet have been consistently expensive, and offered a good service. You get what you pay for. Paying beans for ISP and expecting NOT to get an Indian call centre is a bit daft.

    I use ISPs in my post because I have experience in the industry, but I'm sure you'll find the same is true of nearly all industries.

    ReplyDelete
  19. One must realise that one never discusses oneself in these posts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How dare you bring my name into this.
    It's not funny to cast me as a male sex object, even if you disagree with my views.
    That's always been the way of men. Belittle those that they disagree with in the only way they know how: sexually!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paying beans... ISP... fair enough
    However if someone advertises 8meg, is it that unreasonable to expect 8meg?
    Beans or no beans.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Paying beans... ISP... fair enough
    However if someone advertises 8meg, is it that unreasonable to expect 8meg?
    Beans or no beans."

    It is bollocks yes, but they do say "up" to 8mbit, so they have a get out clause.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The 'get out' clause is all anyone seems to rely on nowadays.
    And that is sad!

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is Marketing, and if you read what Bill Hicks thought of people in Marketing, I think you'll agree with him :)

    ReplyDelete