After reflecting on the concept of ‘self-conscious capitalism’ (Davidson,2016, November 3), within the scope of course content, it became evident that further inquiry into the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism were necessary. Elaine Sternberg (2015) provided thought provoking discourse that defines capitalism in its purest form (laissez-faire capitalism), as “an economic system characterised by comprehensive private property, free-market pricing, and the absence of coercion” (p. 385), asserting that other, perverse forms of capitalism that engage in coercive practices, are not true representations of capitalist ideology. Is calling for a responsible, decolonized, sustainable form of capitalism really ‘absent of coercion’?
At this point it is prudent to define coercion as “the non-consensual initiation of physical force, fraud, or the threat thereof by a person or persons against other persons or their property” (Sternberg, 2015, p.386); would the colonial exploitation of Indigenous lands, resources, culture, and language be considered coercive? If so, the ‘absence of coercion’ would, logically, be the antithesis of colonial ideology — decolonization and reconciliation. Would Sternberg agree that ‘self-conscious capitalism’ presented as a viable form of capitalism ‘absent of coercion’?
Perhaps not yet! Sternberg (2015) continues her discussion on coercion, and suggests that regulation, taxation, and other forms of government control of private property constitute forms of coercion, “a society with a government may be allowed the unqualified label ‘capitalist’ if — but only if — the government is minimally coercive” (p.387). How coercive is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action (2015) perceived to be? If federally mandated action toward reconciliation in the corporate sector is deemed more than ‘minimally coercive’, then ‘self-conscious capitalism’ would prove to be coercive — what Sternberg (2015) would consider as a form of political capitalism, deserving of criticism in its own right.
References
Davidson, C.M. (2016, November 3). Re: Cindy – On Mayo: A queer argument for reconciliation? [Online discussion forum comment]. Retrieved from: https://onq.queensu.ca/d2l/le/69911/discussions/threads/1495166/ViewPostInContext?postId=4689173#post4689173
Sternberg, E. (2015). Defining capitalism. Economic Affairs, 35(3), 380-396.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action. Winnipeg, MB: Author.
Me again…
The ethical underpinnings of capitalism are fascinating. I remember how blown away I was to realize that Adam Smith’s work wasn’t so much about economics as moral philosophy. If this stuff really rocks your world, I suggest you continue to read in moral philosophy pertaining to capitalism. It can be tough slugging, and of course it is largely reading from “the canon,” but honestly, how can one speak back to what one doesn’t understand? In emerging area like Indigenous scholarship, I’m very much of the persuasion that a balance must be struck, carefully, between reclaiming lost history/culture, progressing in innovative ways, AND a working knowledge of the hegemonic norms that one is critiquing. One of the reasons I started delving into economic theory a bit was because I felt too many of my peers were railing against capitalism without really understanding it. And critique that isn’t grounded in a strong understanding of its object is gonna be weak. Figure?
Again you steer me in an interesting direction for inquiry! I am not familiar with Adam Smith’s works, however, I did find an interesting article in which Weinstein (2015) defends the position that Smith’s works are worthy of revisiting from the perspective of ‘educative critique’, a narrative on philosophy of education. Weinstein sold me on Smith with his discourse relating to narrative as valid inquiry methodology, as its subjective nature is often a source of criticism when used by Indigenous scholars to validate Indigenous pedagogy, methodology and ways of knowing. I will have to delve into Smith’s works to further ground my own understandings. The article, if interested is:
Weinstein, J.R. (2015). Adam Smith and the educative critique: A response to my commentators. Studies of Philosophies of Education, 34(1), 540-551. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-015-9478-z