Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We are nearing the final stage of our Capitalist Reformation

We are nearing the final stage of our Capitalist Reformation

That final stage of the Capitalist Reformation concerns the process of building community amongst individuals with some major differences about social policy ideas, writes Anderson.

Gearstd/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Capitalism underwent a major change in the first two-thirds of the 20th century.

A broadly laissez-faire economy housed in a representative democracy that failed to provide basic political and economic rights for anyone but economically well-off white males was gradually transformed into a mixed economy housed in a representative democracy that made great strides toward providing basic political and economic rights for all citizens — including white male workers, women, African-Americans and other ethnic minorities.

Although far from a truly egalitarian society with respect to both political and economic rights, America by 1920 and then 1940 and then 1967 had undergone a massive transformation. The Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society had spoken.

In many ways, this process of transformation has been parallel to the Protestant Reformation. Over the course of more than 100 years, Martin Luther in what is now Germany, John Calvin in Switzerland, John Knox in Scotland and other reformers created an alternative version of Christianity to Roman Catholicism. This process generated a Counter-Reformation, especially in Spain and Italy, and ultimately led to the Thirty Years War.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


It became possible to be both a Christian but not a Catholic, a believer in Christ as the savior for humanity but one who protested — thus the name Protestantism — many practices of the Catholic Church.

Most notable among them: the corruption associated with charging people money or goods (indulgences) to seek forgiveness for their sins and either escape hell altogether after death or settle for a specific number of years to be spent in purgatory prior to being sent to heaven. He also individualized Christianity by promoting the concept of each individual praying directly to God rather than through a priest and the church hierarchy that went with it.

Contemporary, advanced information age capitalism has outlived totalitarian communism in the 20th century. It beat back the more extreme forms of democratic socialism, although it has moved in the direction of social democracy in the Nordic countries and at times in the United Kingdom, France and Germany as well as in Canada and Australia.

Even so, in the 1990s capitalism in the United States moved toward the center via Clinton centrism. This was a movement away from Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society capitalism. Bill Clinton’s centrism became the new heart of capitalism in the United States, and it ran side by side with the shift the Labor Party made under Tony Blair away from socialism and toward a British version of Third Way politics.

The final stage of our Capitalist Reformation is before us, only it is hard to see. The outlines concern a decisive move toward the center, but less on economic matters than moral and cultural. It will differ from Clinton centrism, which was animated by fiscally conservative economic policies. In 1996, President Clinton declared, "the era of big government is over."

Moreover, it will differ from the earlier parts of the capitalist reform movement which also were animated by economic policies and regulations, ranging from the creation of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Security and Exchange Commission to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Social Security Administration, the National Labor Relations Act and the War on Poverty.

The threat to our basic political and civil rights is real, but it is not at the core of the final stage of the Capitalist Reformation. That final stage, which has been interrupted by the disintegration of our basic electoral rights, concerns the process of building community amongst individuals with some major differences in how they conceptualize racial, gender and sexual relations.

At the extremes, are citizens, like politicians in Washington, who are polarized — resentful, angry, and uneasy with those whose lifestyles they oppose. But the 40 percent of Americans who identify as independents along with moderate Republicans and Democrats form the “unrepresented majority” of the country, whose beliefs and values are nuanced and not clear-cut.

The final stage of the Capitalist Reformation will repel those agents trying to undermine our democratic electoral system and then build those bridges between rival camps that will ultimately make our communities less fragmented and torn. It will also need to treat gross inequalities in income and wealth in the United States. But completing the reformation of the capitalist system will concern moral and cultural issues more than economic.

The moral and cultural issues — work/family balance, immigration, race, gender and sexual identity issues — these matters are still unresolved and we must find ways to resolve them. This will require more creativity and imagination, all in the context of wrestling with a pandemic crisis.

Modern industrial capitalism arose, according to Max Weber's famous argument in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” when both “ideational” and “material factors” united to burst it forward. The beliefs and values that animated the Protestant Ethic, especially asceticism, hard work and self-reliance, powered the rise of industrial capitalism. The fight to create a new center in advanced information age capitalism in the years ahead is as much about moral and cultural values as economic. It is the fight ahead of us in the next 30 years, one that is currently being overshadowed by the fight over voting rights but one we will hopefully be able to fight.

Read More

Young adults shopping for clothes

Members of Gen Z consume at an unsustainable rate: clothes, makeup, technology and every other imaginable product.

RyanJLane/Getty Images

Mass consumerism and the hypocrisy of Gen Z

Pruthi is a professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University, where she is a co-founder and director ofHonorsX, and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project. Kharbanda is a senior at Presentation High School in San Jose, Calif.

California lawmakers recently approved two bills banning grocery and convenience stores statewide from offering customers reusable plastic bags. These bills are the next step in combating plastic waste, but what about the waste from mass consumerism that has come to pervade our lives?

Through the past decades, we have been trained to shop, purchase and consume products to solve our problems. While mending old clothing or refurbishing used goods have become things of the past, new products that are ubiquitously promoted are cramming our stores, screens, mailboxes and nearly every aspect of our lives.

Growing up in the digital age, Gen Z is the prime target for this consumerist culture. Their lives are catered toward finding flaws with what they currently own and buying the next best thing. In the process, our world lays waste, proving the disastrous effects of those spending habits.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag and business imagery
Sean Gladwell/Getty Images

How your company can follow the model for political spending

Freed is president and co-founder, Hanna is research director, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

With corporate political disclosure and accountability accepted as the norm, the next step for responsible companies is to put in place a framework for approaching, governing and assessing their election-related spending. The framework would establish policies for when or whether to spend and a process for evaluating the benefits and risks associated with a decision to use corporate resources to advance a political cause or candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Superhero businessman revealing American flag
BrianAJackson/Getty Images

Are U.S. companies living up to their commitments to democracy?

Fordham is a PhD student in political science at the University of Washington. Brumbach is an associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“[A]s a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote.”

These were the words of AT&T CEO John Stankey, responding to a Georgia law that limited absentee voting. A similar bill proposed in Texas prompted Dell CEO Michael Dell to issue the following statement: “Free, fair, equitable access to voting is the foundation of American democracy. Those rights — especially for women, communities of color — have been hard-earned. Governments should ensure citizens have their voices heard. HB6 does the opposite, and we are opposed to it.”

The pattern is clear: U.S. business leaders are increasingly vocal in support of democratic institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less