If we want an exact definition of capitalism, how are we to proceed? Not, Sternberg says, by relying solely on examples. (Mises, The Anti-capitalistic Mentality, p. It is not the fault of capitalism that the common man does not appreciate uncommon books. But it could not imbue them with the discernment of Maecenas or Can Grande della Scala.
Capitalism could render the masses so prosperous that they buy books and magazines. But when Stendhal died in 1842, he was obscure and misunderstood.
GORD DEFINITION FULL
Are they keener than their predecessors were about a hundred years ago? Today, for instance, all critics are full of praise for Stendhal. Perhaps they should rather inculpate their own inability to sift the chaff from the wheat. Many critics take pleasure in blaming capitalism for what they call the decay of literature. For example, critics scorn capitalism because many people purchase artistic trash and pornography, but such preferences obviously aren’t intrinsic to the capitalist system. In like fashion, some people condemn capitalism because they disagree with the preferences of consumers. Probably the most notorious instance of this involves the practice of “crony capitalism,” in which corrupt businesspeople earn monopoly gains by alliance with the state and its agents, which is treated as an instance of “capitalism” and confused with the genuine article.
GORD DEFINITION FREE
380)īecause of the failure to set forward a clear definition of capitalism, critics often blame the free market for practices and policies in fact alien to it. Similarly, an explicit, operational definition of capitalism is needed to differentiate capitalism properly understood from all other things, especially those with which it is often confused. To function effectively with either sort of bird alone-to attack, defend or even to identify members of the group properly-a clear and separate notion of each type is required. They are like defenders of eagles who characterise them simply as “large birds”: by including vultures, that general description leaves eagles open to charges of scavenging. Without a clear definition, advocates of capitalism are handicapped.
Sternberg explains the aim of her article in this way: In an article two weeks ago, I quoted some of her criticisms of that abomination called “stakeholder theory,” and in this week’s article, I’d like to discuss some of her arguments in the article just cited. In her excellent Economic Affairs article “ Defining Capitalism,” she shows in convincing fashion that providing an exact definition of pure laissez-faire capitalism is of great help in responding to many common objections to the free market. Elaine Sternberg illustrates by her example that this view is wrong. Aren’t philosophers “in wandering mazes lost”? Away with such nonsense, say some. Sometimes people wonder whether philosophy is of any use in understanding daily life.