These cookies are essential to enable the services to provide the requested feature, such as remembering you have logged in.
Confirm My Selections
Advocates of free markets must engage in the public debate about them..
What is the promise of capitalism?
That may seem like a strange question, and when I ask it of my MBAs, I suspect they regard it as an exercise in the pedagogical pastime Guess What Teacher Is Thinking. Still I ask it, for I hope it prompts my students to think about the kinds of problems capitalism is equipped to solve as well as those that are beyond its compass.
This is hardly a matter of idle speculation, especially for those who have good reason to believe that they will someday enjoy a disproportionate amount of the system’s spoils. Those fortunate individuals sometimes need to be reminded that free markets, however mighty, will not mend their marriage, relieve their cold, or stop their brother-in-law from bragging about his golf game. Indeed, there are plenty of things capitalism can’t do, and reflecting on them is a good way of distinguishing what it can do—and what it should.
Naturally, what capitalism can and should do are not one and the same. The first is a technical matter best left to economists; the second is more of an ideological affair, the province of moral and political philosophy. The distinction is an important one, but it tends to fade whenever one believes that free markets will solve most any problem: moral, social, and political as well as economic. If capitalism can do anything, so the thinking goes, then it should do everything.
Now, with the kind of intellectual prodding the question above intends, almost no one honestly believes that capitalism can, or should, do everything. Yet up until recently, it passed for conventional wisdom, in the United States and throughout most of the developed world, that capitalism could do most things, that the obvious solution to nearly any pressing problem of social organization was freer trade, fewer regulations, and far less government intervention.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is now plain that this was a central lesson many people took from the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism in the early 1990s. Rather than simply disqualify one extreme formulation, the failure of the Soviet system cast doubt on the very idea of a mixed economy, particularly in the US. The challenge was not to figure out the right balance of power between the invisible hand of the marketplace and the visible hand of government, but to enfeeble, if not eliminate altogether, the latter, not only to liberate capitalism but to deprive civil servants of what was assumed to be an ineluctable impulse and sinister raison d’être: central planning.
So commenced an unprecedented era of liberalization and global capitalist expansion. Sure, there were holdouts, but they were either deemed irrelevant and hopelessly backward (Cuba, North Korea) or, in the case of China, obstinate in the face of what they knew to be the inevitable.
That sense of “the inevitable” was never more than an ideological conviction that the power of free markets, supported by restrained exercises in liberal democracy, would prove so compelling that no problem might arise—either beyond capitalism or as a consequence of its development—that would seriously threaten the system’s preeminence. Such a possibility famously compelled the political scientist Francis Fukuyama to proclaim “the end of history,” a phrase that served as the title for his 1992 book. It elaborated on a thesis Fukuyama had auditioned three years earlier in the pages of Foreign Affairs . “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history,” he wrote in that essay, “but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
This great divergence in worldviews—between a group bewildered that we haven’t gotten things back on track and another that is too busy figuring out the road ahead to litigate whether the track was ever so reliable in the first place—increasingly colors our civic discourse.
For Fukuyama, the failure of fascism in World War II, together with the death rattle of Soviet-style communism, left liberal democratic norms the triumphant alternative “underwritten by the abundance of a modern free market economy.” Or, as he put the matter somewhat more pithily, “We might summarize the content of the universal homogeneous state as liberal democracy in the political sphere combined with easy access to VCRs and stereos in the economic.”
For those nations that arrived at this ideological end state, the most urgent matters of the day would forever appear irretrievably mundane. As he described it:
The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.
To contemporary observers, it may seem baffling that anyone ever took the end-of-history thesis seriously. Then again, we have a fair amount of history that was unavailable to Fukuyama when he wrote his book, 30 years of experience that have seen, among other destabilizing events, the inception of an apparently endless war on terror, the 2008–09 global financial crisis, and the striking resurgence of nationalist sentiment in the most developed countries on earth.
Still, worldviews can be a stubborn thing, forming as they do during the warm impressionability of late adolescence and early adulthood. The consequence, in this case, is a striking divergence between those who came of age in the irenic afterglow Fukuyama memorialized and those who only know the menacing turbulence of the past 18 years. The latter group, which includes more or less anyone under 35, better accepts the challenges of a radically uncertain future because nothing they have experienced in their own lives has given them reason to believe things would ever be any other way. This puts them at odds with the elite members of the two generations preceding them. They assumed that the world had basically solved all of its major problems such that we could get on with the business of living. For these individuals, the past two decades seem like a bracing departure from the future promised them rather than a return to the routine of disruption that has always characterized human life.
This great divergence in worldviews—between a group bewildered that we haven’t gotten things back on track and another that is too busy figuring out the road ahead to litigate whether the track was ever so reliable in the first place—increasingly colors our civic discourse, which of late has shown itself favorable to substantial interventions to “correct” the tendencies of capitalism. Naturally, such interventions are especially vexing to those who adhere to a maximalist view of capitalism’s promise, for the more problems capitalism is assumed to address, the more any intervention can only be assumed to be counterproductive.
Fairly or not, Adam Smith is often regarded as the intellectual godfather of the maximalist view of capitalism’s promise (which, in turn, commends a minimalist approach to politics). As Smith said in The Wealth of Nations of what he famously called “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty”:
Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom of knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of society.
It is important to note that, for Smith, the superpower of this system is merely the ability to efficiently price and, thereby, allocate goods and labor. There were plenty of other concerns beyond its ken that the sovereign or some other political authority would need to address, such as the funding of public education, the amelioration of oppression, and the maintenance of public institutions—all responsibilities Smith details.
Still, even beyond its practical application, the reallocation of such an essential part of community life (economic affairs) from the deliberate orchestration of central authorities to the inadvertent ministry of every marketplace participant has had two lasting consequences, one technical, the other broadly psychological. As a technical matter, that markets proved so powerful in economic affairs suggested that their efficacy might extend to other realms that didn’t seem essentially commercial in nature, further relieving government officials of the trouble of attending to them. Psychologically speaking, the more that managing a community didn’t require self-conscious endeavors but, instead, the pursuit of blinkered self-interest, the more the ability to intelligently engage in debates about civic life deteriorated. Indeed, if, as the ironic logic of the invisible hand holds with respect to self-interested pursuits, the common good goes on behind our backs, coming about not because of our express intentions but despite them, there was simply no need to spend much time thinking about the obligations of citizenship. On the contrary, they would be best discharged by diligently attending to the needs of bank account and belly.
By a means slightly different from Fukuyama’s vision, such assumptions about how exactly a nation functions put individuals beyond ideology. Indeed, the questions that have kept philosophers and politicians alike debating late into the night for ages have all been neatly resolved by an invisible hand. Liberté, égalité, fraternité may stand aside in favor of “economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.”
And yet, if the promise of capitalism proves more limited, the debilitating consequences of a postideological disposition for one’s critical faculties comes into full view. Like any muscle that has not been flexed, the capacity to assess the necessities of civic life atrophies, and one becomes a citizen in name only. She cannot debate the meaning of that role with any subtlety or historical perspective.
Such limitations are especially perilous for business professionals. Not only are such individuals far more susceptible to a blind faith in the invisible hand, but so much of the angst of the present moment revolves around doubts about capitalism and the questions they raise:
These are just some of the questions business professionals will face in the years to come, to say nothing of those noncommercial questions of custom and culture that Fukuyama mistakenly concluded had been resolved for the developed world once and for all.
Taken together, such matters should be of special concern to members of the business elite for three reasons. First, and most straightforwardly, public-policy decisions that affect how exactly our economic system works will directly shape the scope, practice, and viability of all business endeavors. Secondly, simply by virtue of their chosen vocation, business professionals, and especially graduates of superior MBA programs, are the face of capitalism, and they will not only be looked to for well-developed opinions on these issues; their actions and behavior will serve to advise others on the faith warranted in capitalism.
How collapse and recession have shaken young people’s faith in capitalism.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, unless the pendulum of practicable economics swings in the direction of a different system entirely, considerable disparities of wealth, an essential condition of capitalist advancement, will remain, and those who will continue to occupy the favorable end of this bell curve will be business professionals. They will be rich in a time when the instrumental role of riches will be suspect and the respectability of great wealth doubtful. They will not be able to justify to others, and perhaps even to juries of conscience, that material success is a moral justification unto itself, that simply by doing the best for themselves, they have already done the best they might do for others. Unlike for those who preceded them, this ideological assumption, so tempting and convenient, will no longer be available to them. Great wealth will not be its own justification. It will need to be vindicated by the power it confers.
Such an undertaking calls for a reengagement with debates over the responsibilities of citizenship, one that involves visiting anew questions of liberty, justice, equality, wealth, power, and tradition. It also requires a willingness to use power, in both the private and public spheres, less as a club to clear the way for commercial activity than as an implement of some higher aim, undertaken in a spirit of great responsibility and obligation.
Such an approach is hardly foreign to the business community. Indeed, such aspirations were a common language for the commercial elect in the decades after World War II, and they still fill the charters of public companies, professional associations, and major business schools alike. If, today, they seem the stuff of boilerplate, a few scattered phrases that are little more than an empty nod to etiquette, that’s more a reflection of our own civic disengagement than the dead letter of misbegotten ambition.
John Paul Rollert is adjunct assistant professor of behavioral science at Chicago Booth.
For consumers, inflation has an upside.
People are much more aware of how inflation erodes their savings than how it also lowers the real value of debt.
Two panels of economic experts consider the disparate career impact of bearing and rearing children.
Economists consider how the technology will affect job prospects, higher education, and inequality.
Your Privacy We want to demonstrate our commitment to your privacy. Please review Chicago Booth's privacy notice , which provides information explaining how and why we collect particular information when you visit our website.
Capitalism as a system for economic organization and resource allocation is suffering a worldwide crisis of confidence, with growing inequality, financial crises, and a structural unemployment that affects youth disproportionally. Since the Cold War western capitalism has been treated as the only acceptable form of economic system, andthe public or political realm has itself come to be dominated by the money of special-interest groups. This has in turn led to mass protest movements across the developed and developing worlds, and a weakening of the political center in favor of more extreme political currents. Fissures have been widening between the investor class enjoying growing returns on capital and the wage-earning class suffering declining returns from their labor. And increased financialization of the economy means the traditional economic theories based on production in a classical sense are increasingly irrelevant to the modern economy. Above all a sense of unfairness and decades of growing inequality risk the stability and sustainability of the system and its acceptance, and an erosion in societal trust and the very institutions needed to sustain the system.
Sign in with a library card.
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionââŹâ˘s website and Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionââŹâ˘s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ââŹËSign in through society siteââŹâ˘ in the sign in pane within a journal:
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Click the account icon in the top right to:
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.
Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
October 2022 | 18 |
November 2022 | 17 |
December 2022 | 6 |
January 2023 | 15 |
February 2023 | 29 |
March 2023 | 13 |
April 2023 | 6 |
May 2023 | 18 |
June 2023 | 4 |
July 2023 | 7 |
August 2023 | 7 |
September 2023 | 15 |
October 2023 | 22 |
November 2023 | 36 |
December 2023 | 25 |
January 2024 | 20 |
February 2024 | 20 |
March 2024 | 31 |
April 2024 | 37 |
May 2024 | 24 |
June 2024 | 9 |
July 2024 | 10 |
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
By max weber, the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism essay questions.
Why is it so unexpected that Protestants would be more economically successful than Catholics, in Weberâs time?
Weber points out that this trend does not seem to make sense based on historical or national explanations. He explains that, historically, Protestants have more accumulated wealth. However, how this began in the first place is difficult to explain, because one would expect that stricter religion would mean less participation in economic pursuits. Instead, Weber will go on to show that, actually, stronger piety is correlated with stronger economic performance, as well.
How does Benjamin Franklinâs treatise differ from an encouragement of hedonism?
Weber explains that Franklinâs text does not actually encourage hedonism, although it does support the accumulation of wealth as an end in itself. Because Franklin views this accumulation of wealth as a duty, however, he does not intend it to encourage people to pursue only their pleasure. Rather, he transforms the idea of making money into something that is not necessarily pleasurable, but simply a necessity. Thus, his philosophy is not a hedonistic one.
Why is Luther not a direct inventor of the capitalist spirit?
Luther contributed to the early development of the capitalist spirit by encouraging the idea of labor as a duty. However, he also believed that this duty was passed on by God, and not something that was chosen by men or done for their own sake. In his model, people should follow their calling according to the station of life into which they were born. This does not allow for social mobility, and thus is not an exact reflection of the capitalist spirit as Weber defines it.
According to Weber, what is a primary difference between the Catholic and Protestant attitude toward sin and salvation?
Weber points out that Catholics tend to treat sin as something to be atoned for by the individual after the fact. For Catholics, repenting by doing good deeds that are supposed to make up for their past bad deeds is a central part of their approach to the relationship with God. Weber explains that Catholics tend to believe that by completing enough positive actions to outweigh their bad ones, they can be forgiven and go to heaven. Protestants, on the other handâespecially Calvinistsâare more continuous in their striving to do good. They do not complete good deeds in order to make up for bad ones and be forgiven by an outside source, but rather constantly check in with themselves to make sure they are contributing positively to the world around them. In this way, they are more individualist in their approach to sin and salvation.
Why does Weber consider different religious denominations when trying to determine the origins of the spirit of capitalism?
At the end of the third section of the first part of the text, Weber explains to readers that he will be moving into a more specific analysis of different religious denominations in order to explore the development of the spirit of capitalism. Thus far in the text, he has spoken mainly in general terms about the Reformation and its impact on developing a more individualist approach to religion that emphasizes the importance of a âcalling.â However, he believes that the Reformation is not actually a direct link to the spirit of capitalismâit may have contributed in part to this spirit, but cannot fully explain it. Thus, he moves into a more specific discussion of different religious denominations in order to determine the ways in which these religious beliefs contributed, to some degree, to the capitalist spirit. It is important to note that he intends only to draw loose connections between these beliefs and this spirit.
What does Weber believe Calvinists contributed to the capitalist spirit, thanks to their emphasis on predestination?
Weber believes that Calvinism played a large part in introducing a more negative form of individualism. Calvinists believe that oneâs salvation is determined beforehand by God, and cannot be affected by oneâs deeds on earth. Weber claims that this kind of attitude led Calvinists to develop a certain sense of loneliness, since no one can help them with their eternal salvationânot even their Church. This loneliness in turn is connected to a certain kind of individualism unique to Calvinists. More specifically, they tend to be mistrustful of others and focused only on their own good deeds, since they believe that no one else can help them but themselves.
How does Weber present the differences across Protestant denominations to his readers?
Weber begins his section on these different denominations by clarifying that they are actually quite similar. Although they may have developed differing ideas about salvation and the exact relationship between men and God, Weber claims they all share common roots and often intermingled their ideas. This means that, although they can and should be considered individually, it is also important to keep in mind that they all ultimately fall under the umbrella of âProtestantism.â
How does Weber believe the relationship between Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism developed?
Weber is careful to specify that he does not believe Protestants ever consciously considered their connection to capitalism. In fact, he states that most Protestants would likely reject the concept of capitalism in the first place. Luther, for example, would not support the idea of making a profit because he believed only in working to do good for society and to get by in life. However, Weber believes that Protestants incidentally and indirectly contributed to the spirit of capitalism through certain tenants of their religious beliefs.
What is Weberâs criticism of Methodism and Pietism?
For both Methodism and Pietism, Weber warns against too much reliance on emotions and not enough consistency in application. Pietists emphasize the possibility of experiencing the bliss of a connection with God even in this life on earth, and Methodists emphasize that one can demonstrate salvation simply by strongly believing that one has been chosen for salvation. Thus, both Methodists and Pietists focus more on the importance of thinking, believing, and feeling in their religion than do Calvinists, for whom only actions are important. Weber tends to support this Calvinist approach because it is more consistent and easier to follow than one based in feelings, which are changeable.
What warning does Weber provide as he concludes his text?
Weber warns readers against assuming that he intends his text to replace a materialist interpretation of history with a spiritual one. He does not want to argue that the spiritual explanation is the only valid contribution to tracing the development of capitalism and modern society. Instead, he only wants to argue that it should have more of a place in theory than it did at his time. He defends the validity of the spiritual explanation and encourages further analysis in order to trace more ways in which it shaped our modern society.
The Question and Answer section for The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism study guide contains a biography of Max Weber, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber.
Use this player and a teacher will talk you through this page..., to understand priestleyâs political views, it is important to understand two of the major âwingsâ of the political spectrum: capitalism (right wing) and socialism (left wing.), understanding the difference between the two means understanding the difference between the inspector (socialist / left wing) and mr birling (capitalist / right wing.), society should work together to support each other, we should take responsibility for those less fortunate than us, wealth should be shared so that everyone has opportunities, people often earn more money because they were born into privilege and this stops some great people from being able to achieve, people who are successful are not always deserving, cooperation will help society advance, society should only reward those who have done well, we should take responsibility for ourselves (and our families), wealth should be kept by the people who've earned it, because wealth is earned, privilege is deserved. society shouldn't stop people from being privileged - in fact we should encourage it, people who are less successful are less deserving, competition between people will help society advance, what are capitalism and socialism, capitalism: capitalis ts argue that businesses should be free to comp ete, the rich should be free to keep what they've earned and the government should just stay out of it. power should be held by the rich - after all, they've earned the money and proven themselves to be the most worthy people in society. to some extent, capitalists argue that capitalism is the best form of democracy , except that you donât vote, you buy., however, within capitalism in its pure form there would be no free education, no minimum wage, no social health care, no welfare state â youâre on your own. a proper capitalist would argue that the b enefits system just makes people lazy , while the fear of failure drives people to succeed. if you take away the fear of poverty, what reason have people go to succeed, capitalists believe that the government should just protect society from revolution and enforce the most basic laws. in some ways capit alism is a form of social darwinism â where the strongest should be encouraged to survive, while the weakest should be trimmed to ensure they do not drag society backward., socialism: socialists argue that essential indus try and public serves should be communally owned and managed to ensure that the products and benefits are shared equally amongst society., socialists argue that competition doesnât work because people have advantages that come with their position at birth. rich kids will more often go on to succeed more easily, not because they're more able but be cause they had better opportunities ; poor children will be less successful , not because they're less able but because they had fewer advantages . socialists argue that capitalism is inherently unfair and this unfairness inevitably makes society unstable. many would also argue that the great achievements of human history were no born from competition, but cooperation; we didn't build society out of people fighting, we built it by teaching people not to fight., under socialism individuals can own their own goods (social ism is not communism) but electricity companies, social networks, train companies, schools, hospitals, prisons, etc⌠should all be owned and managed by the state, for the people â not for profit. also, thin gs like the minimum wage, free education and free healthcare allow people to become productive members of society, they don't drag society backwards., how do they appear in the play, capitalism: george birling perfectly summarises the capitalist ideology, and he has a number of quotes throughout the opening pages that support this. fundamentally, he believes that people who are poorer are worse off because theyâre irresponsible, incapable, less developed, or less deserving of better conditions. he believes that people should earn their way to the top, in the same way he did - and if he can do it, anyone ca n ., also, t hough he never says it, i could imagine him arguing that you donât see a lion giving an injured gazelle a head start life is tough and the fittest should be allowed to rise to the top without being sh ackled by socialism society is fair, it just doesnât seem way to the unskilled, alcoholic layabouts who canât get themselves a decent job he believes that he pays them enough to feed them, and from there: theyâre on their own, socialism: the inspector is a kind of socialist pin-up; a hero of the left wing. he uses his position to educate the characters in the play and make some of them â the young (who even he admits are more prone to socialism than the older generation) â believe in his socialist agenda., he believes that we are all here together, and that, regardless of your beliefs about why poor people are poor, he argues that they deserve help. he would argue that a young single mother, even one who got herself pregnant irresponsibly, needs our support because without it her child will grow up to become just as irresponsible as she was., he believes that we need to see society as a mass of people who work together: â and i tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish .â, key quotes & references, â but the way some of these cranks talk and write now, youâd think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up, together like bees in a hive â community and all that nonsense .â â mr birling (act 1) heâs calling socialists cranks - a kind of patronising term for mad people - and denounces the very ideas of socialism, by saying that the entire system is weak, annoying and subhuman (insect like, like bees.) capitalists also attack socialism as they say it degrades human individuality, suggesting that socialists require us all to live like one enormous machine with no individual rights. mr birlingâs comparison to bees supports this - heâs saying that if we were to live collectively, as the inspector wants, weâd be no better than a hive of insects., â but take my word for it, you youngsters â and iâve learnt in the good hard school of experience â that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own â and â â â mr birling (act 1) this again shows how he thinks he knows it all, as he thinks of himself as an elder teaching the younger generation which will succeed his, evident by his use of the term âyoungstersâ, and portrays his arrogance and capitalist views, and heâs cut off right after by the sharp ring of the doorbell. this is inspector goole, who, like the doorbell, cuts off the assertions of birling like a sharp ring, implying that it may somehow cause pain â to the edwardian hubris, and is used by priestly to show that mr birling is disreputable, as it abruptly cuts him off., âa man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own â andâŚâ we hear the sharp ring of a front doorbell mr birling perfectly summarises his capitalist sentiment when he tells gerald and eric that âa man has to mind his own business .â here, he is instilling in gerald a set of masculine values that are, basically, just about being selfish. by adding the phrase âhis ownâ he attempts to make it seem less selfish by bringing a family into it, but, fundamentally: heâs telling his son and soon to be son-in-law to look after themselves. it is at this point when the stage directions announce the arrival of the inspector with a â sharp ring of a front doorbellâ â the sharpness bringing about the man who will now correct mr birlingâs attitudes. itâs also worth noting that the inspector is described as imposing and powerful and that these are things that masculinity would have traditionally valued so itâs fair to say that the inspector, despite his care and compassion, is no less âtraditionally masculineâ than mr birling, âwell, itâs my duty to keep labour costs downâ â mr birling (act 1) he makes it seem as if he has a moral obligation to be rich, and stay upper class, as if capitalism, or his purist view on it, is what keeps society together. this is a common view of capitalists, and right wing people in general: that they have a responsibility to work for their own ends; that it is their duty to compete for the best, as it is through competition that society advances. socialists think progress is achieved through cooperation, capitalists believe that progress is achieved through competition., âlook, inspector â iâd give thousands â yes, thousands-â â mr birling (act 3) still as capitalist as he was before, as he thinks money can cover for a dead girl. he, like scrooge, only sees things in terms of their material worth. also, depending on how this line is delivered it could be seen as a bribe to the inspector, the inspector, (massively) âpublic men, mr birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges.â â inspector goole (act 2) inspector goole is saying that âpublic menâ, such as mr birling, who has societal responsibilities, have great responsibilities, due to their great power. this attitude could also be applied to celebrities today â they earn a lot of money and have a place in the public eye, but doesnât that mean they also have a responsibility to behave in a socially responsible way, âdonât stammer and yammer at me again .â â inspector goole (act 2) this is demonstrative of the fact that the inspector is unconventional for the edwardian era, as he doesnât care about class differences. he's using direct, imperative language to mr birling, but also colloquialisms like "yammer" which emphasise how much the inspector insists on remaining his own man., âyou see, we have to share something. if thereâs nothing else, weâll have to share our guiltâ â inspector goole (act 2) the inspector is highlighting how the birlings share nothing, but if they should share something, it should be their guilt over their actions, otherwise they wouldnât be able to cope with it. heâs saying that the responsibility is not hers alone., inspectorâs closing speech: this is the key moment for the ins pector and socialism in general âbut just remember this. one eva smith has gone â but there are millions and millions and millions of eva smiths and john smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. we don't live alone. we are members of one body. we are responsible for each other. and i tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they well be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. good night.â, the inspectorâs final speech opens with a long, complex sentence that reminds us of all the âeva smiths and john smithsâ there are in the world, and which emphasises the extent to which the themes of the play are not specifically about this situation. also, the warning travels across time â from 1912 to 1945 â and it is increasingly true again today after a decade of austerity has left the use of food banks and zero-hours-contracts rising. the use of emotive language âhopes and fears ⌠suffering ⌠chance of happinessâ all twig at the audienceâs heart strings while the use of polysyndeton â the repetition of âandâ in the phrase âthink and say and doâ â allows the actor to emphasise the key point: that our thoughts and actions and words all help to create the world we share., priestley follows this with three simple sentences, which summarise his lesson. the use of the simple imperatives breaks up his main point and makes his lesson clear and concise â âwe do not live alone⌠we are members of one bodyâ â so that with the right delivery it seems too obvious to argue with. it also allows an actor to break between each point which would allow them to add gravitas to the performance â perhaps even looking out across the auditorium to remind the audience of their involvement in this sham., the inspector goes on to make a prediction about what will happen if âmen will not learn that lesson.â (here, we have to assume that he is referring to âmankindâ and not just âmen,â though itâs worth noting the irony of the fact that the character in the play who learns the lesson most successfully is actually a woman.) but, he claims that if the lesson is not learnt then we will learn it in âfire and blood and anguish.â this is a reference to the decades of war that would be fought in the years between when the play was set and when the first performance occurred. in this respect, priestley is using quite a cheeky strategy: heâs making the inspector prophetic â almost divine â in 1912, but only because priestley knew what went on to happen. itâs also interesting, however, that priestley is suggesting that disaster is inevitable if humans donât change the way we behave. in this respect he is similar to karl marx, the founder of communism and a key socialist thinker, who argued that it the poor would inevitably rise up against the rich if equality wasnât pursued. both thinkers, marx and priestley, claim that change must happen or disaster will inevitably strike. for the audience the dramatic irony of the inspectorâs prophecy would have been very powerful, while his use second use of polysyndeton makes the list seem longer and emphasises the extra item: âanguish.â, after this, almost as a joke, the inspector leaves with a courteous âgood night,â which could be seen as the edwardian equivalent of a mic drop., how are socialism and capitalism presented today, capitalism: the western world today is primarily run with a capitalist agenda. big businesses exert more power than they have ever done before. today, the richest 26 people have more money than the poorest 3.5 billion â half the worldâs population., in 2019, t he combined wealth of the ten richest people in the world is greater than the entire worth of countries like saudi arabia, switzerland or turkey . and s ince the lockdown began, the richest of them (jeff bezos) has seen his wo rth almost double. at the moment it would seem that the richest individuals are more powerful than many governments, which is why we are, primarily, a capitalist society. in america socialism is seen as a toxic philosophy, and many people use the word as an insult., capitalism has many benefits, however: although it is unfair, capitalism is allowing humans to develop new technologies at an astonishing rate. some would argue that because humanity is facing catastrophic ecological disaster we need to concentrate wealth into small areas to allow those people to develop the technologies needed to escape., for example, elon musk (age: 45; wealth: $ 87bn ; primary source of wealth: paypal) is currently investing a lot of his money developing electric cars, which will help reduce carbon emissions and could slow global warming. he is also developing spacex which is looking to start mining asteroids to extract natural resources that may allow us to live more successfully on earth, or to develop colonies on other planets should earth become uninhabitable. capitalists would argue that musk is doing a better job at managing a large fortune than many governments., socialism: the western world today is primarily capitalist. at the moment, the rich are getting richer at a frightening rate. at the same time, ecological disaster looms. socialists would argue that, regardless of our wealth, we all contribute to global warming and deforestation; we are consuming the planet at a terrifying rate and this even more true for the richest parts of the world., some socialists may argue that it doesnât really matter how many electric cars we have, or how successful our genetically modified crops are; it doesnât matter how much we reduce, reuse or recycle; the bitter truth is that our planet cannot cope with 7 bn people. and the only proven way of managing population growth is to equalise wealth and opportunity. poorer families tend to have more child ren, and so it makes sense that we equalise wealth and opportunity to bring population down., in short, a socialist would argue that capitalism â which has consumption at its core â has gone far enough; we canât carry on consuming in the way we are doing. the rich are rich enough, and wealth doesnât fairly reflect contributions to society â some of the richest people on earth are oil barons, who contribute to the global warming which threatens all our lives., socialists argue that the time has now come when we need to work together to support one another and work towards a better future. if we donât do this, then we a re all â rich and poor alike â doomed..
This is strictly for those interested in the themes beyond the play..., below are two videos from the oxford university debating society, in which john redwood (a tory politician) attacks socialism, while jeremy corbyn supports it. though the two speeches are full of waffle, it is interesting to see just how much the two sides struggle to find any common ground. it's as though a lot of the debate these days has ceased to be intelligent, insightful or about actual ideology and has become a sparring match where only one side or the other can be right., throughout his speech, corbyn is far more sincere and angry - i think he sounds a bit like the inspector - while redwood jokes around about socialist ideals, ridiculing them in a way that really does make him sound a little like birling is it fair to say that birling & redwood have the luxury of treating social issues as though they're jokes because they're privileged; while the inspector & corbyn's sincere anger - which can come across as being a little pompous - comes from an understanding of the suffering of the poor, a few notes:, - john redwood calls it socialism vs freedom, as he sees socialism as a thing that oppresses us while, he says, capitalism offers anyone the chance to achieve, - he talks about how capitalism has been responsible for creating the huge range of products and opportunities that we enjoy in the west, - he talks about socialism as being like a traffic light, that just stops everyone, regardless of whether people are waiting; while capitalism (or freedom as he calls it) is like a roundabout that allows people to go when they're ready, - corbyn's big change comes at 1:28, after he's responded to redwood, and then he really goes for the heartstrings, - there is a common attack against socialism which is based on the idea that it doesn't work - in its purest form (which is communism) it hasn't worked in russia, venezuela, china and a number of other countries - but it is worth saying that this was almost always communism and not socialism. and it's always worth remembering that socialism is a spectrum, which means that there are all kinds of levels of it. in extremis it might not work, in moderation it certainly does: free education is the perfect example. really, the question isn't socialism or capitalism, it's how much of either capitalism or socialism is the right amount, it's also worth reading some of the comments underneath each video if you really want to understand the depth of anger that exists between capitalists and socialists in today's world..
Subject: English
Age range: 14-16
Resource type: Assessment and revision
Last updated
8 August 2023
Description: Explore the portrayal of capitalism in J.B. Priestleyâs âAn Inspector Callsâ and its profound insights into the playâs critique of social structures. This resource provides an in-depth examination of capitalismâs implications within the play.
Intended Users:
Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?
Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.
It's good to leave some feedback.
Something went wrong, please try again later.
This resource hasn't been reviewed yet
To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it
Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.
There is a widespread perception that capitalism is a system designed to encourage greed, envy, selfishness, and other moral failings to flourish. Popular writing on capitalism, notably Ayn Randâs âThe Fountainheadâ and âAtlas Shrugged,â recognizes the importance of addressing the moral case for capitalism. No economic system, no matter how efficient and productive, can flourish if it is widely regarded as the root of all evil. Given that the science of economics is value free and does not address questions of morality, this misconception about capitalism often festers and propagates with little demur.
The assumption of many capitalists is that the demonstrable benefits of capitalism ought to speak for themselves â people will enjoy the material comforts that only capitalism can produce, and that will suffice to make the case for capitalism. Add to that the fact that socialism is invariably accompanied by tyranny, deprivation, and ultimately death, and it is reasonable to suppose that there is no need for debates about morality â the facts will speak for themselves.
While the facts to a large extent speak for themselves, socialists who cling to their ideological interpretations with a cult-like devotion have now achieved dominance in most schools and institutions of higher learning. They offer an interpretation of history that seems superficially attractive â the rich are rich because the poor are poor, wealth comes from theft and exploitation, those who oppose wealth redistribution are motivated by hate, socialism only fails because the wrong people are put in charge, and the like.
These arguments are central to the âdecolonize the curriculumâ movement that has swept universities in the last few years. Underpinning this ideology is a commitment to egalitarianism, and the belief that inequality of income, wealth, or circumstance is wrong. The notion that inequality is presumptively evil, and that capitalism is therefore immoral because it produces inequality, persists. As Michael Tanner argues in his critique of Thomas Pikettyâs âCapitalismâ:
âPiketty takes the evilness of inequality as a given, ignoring the broader question of whether the same conditions that lead to growing wealth at the top of the pyramid also improve material well-being for those at the bottom.â
One of the challenges in making the moral case for capitalism is that the inequality debates have spawned their own use of terminology, in which liberal means egalitarian and capitalism means exploitation. Thus, the first step in defending capitalism is definitional. For example, in South Africa the term âcapitalismâ was historically seen as indelibly linked to imperialism, conquest, and racial segregation. Walter Williamsâ book âSouth Africaâs War Against Capitalismâ addresses this issue, aiming to clarify the importance of freedom of association and contractual freedom to capitalism. Williams was concerned that apartheid was seen as âa tool of capitalist enrichmentâ:
âThe dominant black opinion in South Africa is that apartheid is an outgrowth of capitalism. Businesspeople are often seen as evil forces seeking racially discriminatory laws as a means to higher profits through the economic exploitation of non-Europeans. Therefore, in the eyes of many black Africans and their benefactors in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, a large part of the solution is seen as being â inter alia â in the promotion of socialist goals, such as state ownership and income redistribution, as a means to bring about a more just society.â
This explains why many Africans consider communism an attractive ideology â they regard communism as âantiracistâ and are enthusiastically encouraged in this belief by Western communists.
The need to address these misconceptions by offering a moral defense of capitalism shows the importance of Murray Rothbardâs âThe Ethics of Liberty.â Understanding the ethics of liberty is important in defending liberty and private property, and beyond that it is also important as the foundation of a moral defense of capitalism.
In our book, âRedressing Historical Injustice,â David Gordon and I ground our moral defense of capitalism on the ethical standards set out by Rothbard. We argue that capitalism, in itself, is neither moral nor immoral. It is a system of free market exchange based on private property, and in our view âit is no more reasonable to seek a moral standard within the processes of free market exchange than it would be to seek a moral standard in hills or forests or other natural features.â We argue that âinstead, the tenets of capitalism ought to be evaluated according to an independent moral standard, namely the ethics of liberty.â
We therefore defend the morality of capitalism by highlighting the importance of capitalism for liberty, and in turn emphasizing the importance of liberty for justice and peace. We argue that whether people have the same amount of wealth or different amounts of wealth is neither moral nor immoral. The moral debate concerns neither equality nor inequality, but peopleâs natural right to live in peace and liberty. Liberty is the foundation of morality and justice.
We defend capitalism not because we think systems of free exchange are inherently moral, but because we understand free exchange as an attribute of self-ownership and property rights. In a wider context different foundations for morality and justice may be held by different people, based on moral philosophy or religion, for example, but such foundations would not be objective or universal. Self-ownership and property rights are the only moral foundation of justice in an objective and universal sense.
Those who see capitalism as immoral essentially depict free exchange, freedom of association and contractual freedom as âevilâ because liberty cannot guarantee wealth equality â liberty is indeed bound to produce unequal wealth distribution. However, as Amartya Sen points out, it is odd to see free exchange or economic liberty as âimmoralâ: âTo be generically against markets would be almost as odd as being generically against conversations between people.â It is clear that a moral defense of freedom of expression and freedom of association, or âconversations between people,â does not depend on whether the experience or outcomes of such interactions is equal. A moral defense of capitalism is therefore premised on our inherent and inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.
Published August 01, 2024
Billy Sichel
Assistant Vice President of Undergraduate Admissions
Itâs August 1st and that means the application at NYU has officially opened. This year, we’ve made some pretty big changes to NYU’s Common Application to simplify the process for our applicants, and to help us learn a little more about you!
When you start NYUâs member questions on the Common App, youâll see 6 sections that youâll need to complete. We give you a little bit of a head start by checking off the âWritingâ section. This section is optional â but also new and exciting! More on that later.
In the âGeneralâ section, youâll be asked a few questions about how you want us to handle your application â Early Decision I, Early Decision II, or Regular Decision? â and which campus you want to apply to. As you (hopefully!) already know, NYU has three degree-granting campuses: in New York, Abu Dhabi, and Shanghai. Our Common App will let you apply to any combination of our campuses.
Once you make your campus selections, an additional set of questions will show up that are specific to your campus(es) of interest. Nothing too tricky here! Youâll be able to tell us about your academic area of interest for each campus, and a few other quick-and-easy questions about program eligibility, housing preferences, etc. so that weâre ready for you if you are ultimately admitted.
Once you have those sections squared away, youâll move on to the Academics section. This section will walk you through the information weâll need you to submit outside of the Common App itself. Nothing to do here, except confirm that youâre clear on the next steps and additional requirements.
Now, the moment youâve been waiting for: The optional, pre-checked-off Writing section. Last year, we made the decision to update our supplemental question. However, what we heard from our applicants was that people really wanted to tell us more! But the thing isâŚwe already know why NYU is a great place to spend your 4 years, so we thought: if you want to tell us more about your passion for NYU, letâs make the question about you .
The new writing question says:
“In a world where disconnection seems to often prevail, we are looking for students who embody the qualities of bridge buildersâstudents who can connect people, groups, and ideas to span divides, foster understanding, and promote collaboration within a dynamic, interconnected, and vibrant global academic community. We are eager to understand how your experiences have prepared you to build the bridges of the future. Please consider one or more of the following questions  in your essay :
What personal experiences or challenges have shaped you as a bridge builder?
How have you been a bridge builder in your school, community, or personal life?
What specific actions have you taken to build bridges between diverse groups, ideas, or cultures?
How do you envision being a bridge builder during your time at our university and beyond?”
So, if it feels right for you to tell us a little more about yourself in the application, we want to know where you will turn to for inspiration, and what experiences have shaped you and resonate with you. Four years at NYU will propel you into a future you might not even be able to imagine yet, but take a minute (if you want â it really is optional!) to tell us about the ideas that have gotten you to this point, and those that might shape you into the person youâre about to become.
These are just a few of the changes we have made this year, so make sure to carefully read each question carefully before you answer them. If you ever have any questions for us about our questions, we are always here to help . We wish you the best of luck this application season, and canât wait to learn more about you!
More from Billy:
Thereâs no wrong way to approach the Common Application, but hereâs two different strategies you might want to choose from when you apply to NYU.
Everything you need and everything you need to know about the transfer process.
There are many benefits to getting an early start on your Common Application to NYU.
JD Vance and his allies represent a mind-set that dates back to the McCarthy era and the dawn of the Cold War.
Credit... Photo illustration by Matt Chase
Supported by
By Clay Risen
Over the last few years, a loose coalition of conservative thinkers, journalists, publications and think tanks have emerged under the banner of the New Right. With Senator JD Vance, Donald Trumpâs running mate, as its flag-bearer, this still-disparate group has been hailed as the intellectual heft behind the MAGA movement, and even as the future of American conservatism. Its very name declares a radical break with the Republican past â âvery nascent, very bleeding edge,â is how Vivek Ramaswamy, a former presidential candidate, described it . But how new is the New Right?
It is risky to ascribe coherence to a grouping like this, especially when its ranks range from the relatively buttoned-up Vance and his Senate colleague Josh Hawley to a ragtag assortment of self-described neo-monarchists, techno-libertarians and right-wing Marxists.
Still, there are some unifying features. At the heart of the New Right is a belief that most of what ails America can be blamed on a liberal elite that has burrowed into the federal government, the news media, Hollywood, big business and higher education â what Vance calls âthe regime,â and Curtis Yarvin, one of his New Right influences, calls âthe Cathedral.â
The New Rightâs position goes beyond rhetorical populism about out-of-touch bureaucrats: To them, liberalism is actively hurting the country, funneling fortunes from hard-working Americans into Washington and Wall Street and then casting any criticism as racist or fascist.
In contrast, the New Right posits a nationalistic nostalgia for a small-town America of decentralized government â a â front porch republic, â in the words of another Vance influence, Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame â in which âgoodâ jobs are available to all and faith is the cornerstone of society.
âIf conservatives care about healthy towns and schools and churches, as they always say they do, they should support the kind of work and wages that nourish those institutions and make them possible,â Hawley wrote earlier this year in Compact , a leading New Right outlet.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into  your Times account, or subscribe  for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
Advertisement
Try AI-powered search
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
F or a man who supposedly won an election, Venezuelaâs president, NicolĂĄs Maduro , looks worried. The gaudy tracksuit he sported during much of the campaign has been swapped for a solemn business suit. He seems irritable and exhausted in the repeated television rants in which he rails against âfascistâ enemies. Days after a rigged election, it remains unclear whether he can remain in power.
Mr Maduroâs problem is that he has been busted. Everyone, from the army to his erstwhile left-wing Latin American allies, now knows just how unpopular he is. An overwhelming majority of Venezuelans voted against him on July 28th. Even though he barred the most popular opposition leader, MarĂa Corina Machado, from running, he still lost by a landslide. A little-known former diplomat, Edmundo GonzĂĄlez , stood in for Ms Machado. The two are working closely together.
Whether Mr Maduro concedes defeat depends on three interconnected factors. The first is domestic unrest. The second concerns attempts by Brazil, Colombia and Mexico to jointly mediate a solution between the opposition and the regime. ( The Economist spoke to several diplomats with knowledge of the negotiations, who asked to remain anonymous.) The willingness of the regime to take part in talks hinges on a third factor: the loyalty of the armed forces.
Start with the demonstrators. The opposition has sought to prove that the election was stolen by collecting actas , the individual receipts that every voting machine prints out. Despite concerted efforts to stop them, volunteers smuggled actas out, in some cases by stuffing them into their underpants. All told, the opposition collected four-fifths of the print-outs and put them online. They show that Mr GonzĂĄlez received over 7m votes to Mr Maduroâs paltry 3m (see map).
When Mr Maduro was declared the winner by the electoral council, which he controls, protests erupted. At least 24 people were killed. Mr Maduro boasts that over 2,200 have been arrested. He says he cannot produce tally sheets because the electoral computer system was subjected to a âcriminal cyber coup dâĂŠtatâ involving Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly Twitter. The regime is betting that the protesters will not stand the repression for long.
So far, the opposition remains astonishingly brave. Under threat of arrest, Ms Machado has gone into hiding. Yet at a rally in the capital on August 3rd a figure cloaked in a white hood clambered up onto a truck, suddenly unveiling herself. âVenezuela will be free soon!â proclaimed Ms Machado to a crowd of tens of thousands. After the speech she melted into the traffic on the back of a motorbike.
Outside powers, meanwhile, are trying to maintain pressure. In the months leading up to the election the United States eased sanctions on Venezuela, in effect giving the vote its endorsement. Its overt role is now limited. It has recognised Mr GonzĂĄlez as the winner, though it has not gone as far as to acknowledge him as president-elect. It could fully reinstate sanctions again, but these have been ineffective in eliciting regime change in Venezuela.
An alternative source of pressure could come from the governments of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. The left-wing leaders of all three countries have had cosy ties with Mr Maduro. The hope is that this gives them more sway. They are pushing a two-pronged strategy: getting the regime to publish detailed voting results and setting up direct discussions between the opposition and Mr Maduro. The presidents of the three countries have called for âimpartial verificationâ of the results, though what counts as impartial is unclear.
Their task is fiendishly difficult, not least because the strategy has holes and the trio is less united than it seems. For one thing, no deadline has been set for the regime to produce evidence on voting counts. Delay works in the regimeâs favour as it waits for the oppositionâs momentum to flag. In theory the next president will be inaugurated on January 10th.
There is also little progress on talks. âMarĂa Corina has told us clearly: âWhy am I going to negotiate electoral results when the Venezuelan people have already decided?ââ says a foreign official involved in the negotiations. The regime is also not keen. One idea is for Ms Machado to be excluded from discussions on the basis that Mr GonzĂĄlez is more palatable to the government. Yet that is âclose to a last-ditch effortâ, admits another observer.
Even if a meeting between the rival camps is arranged, the objectives remain unclear. One source claims that the United States has said that if Mr Maduro steps down âwe will give him whatever he wantsâ, including a promise not to demand his extradition. Nonetheless, the source concedes, Mr Maduro is unlikely to resign unless he is pushed. Others suggest that the parties may have to try power-sharing for a while and then hold new elections. The opposition would rightly balk at this.
It is not even clear whether Brazilâs and Mexicoâs leaders believe that Mr Maduro lost. President Luiz InĂĄcio Lula da Silva of Brazil, known as Lula, has expressed confidence in the ability of Venezuelaâs courts, which are stacked with regime cronies, to verify the results and described the election as ânormalâ. Mexicoâs government seems even more reluctant to condemn the fraud. Fractures among outside powers contrast with Mr Maduroâs government, which is âvery united at the momentâ, according to the official in the talks.
The two countriesâ indulgence of Mr Maduro may reflect domestic pressures. The Landless Workersâ Movement in Brazil, part of Lulaâs base, was quick to congratulate Mr Maduro and denounce the opposition as âfascistâ. A wing of Morena, Mexicoâs ruling party, wants to congratulate Mr Maduro, too. A former Mexican diplomat says that their countryâs ambassador in Caracas is a Maduro sympathiser. He is âa very leftist activistâ, they add.
Domestic pressures also weigh on Colombiaâs president, Gustavo Petro. Colombia already hosts 2.9m of the nearly 8m Venezuelan migrants who have fled tyranny and collapse; Mr Petro is negotiating peace with guerrilla groups that receive safe haven in Venezuela. If the regime hangs on, it could scupper talks and prompt more migration. Yet prolonged instability could do the same. One Colombian official says the government will not break diplomatic relations with its neighbour, even if Mr Maduro stays.
Amid all the manoeuvring, a crucial question is how the armyâs calculations will change. So far, its leadership has fiercely defended Mr Maduro. On August 5th Mr GonzĂĄlez and Ms Machado published a letter asking the army rank and file to âstand by the peopleâ and promised that an opposition government would offer âguarantees to those who complete their constitutional dutiesâ. In response, Venezuelaâs attorney-general opened a criminal investigation into both of them. Since the election the regime has promoted soldiers wounded in the protests and released a social-media campaign that depicts the Venezuelan National Guard under the slogan: âTo doubt is treason.â
For now, army defections are unlikely. The two foreign powers that have most influence over Venezuelaâs armed forces are Russia, which provides it with weapons, and Cuba, which helps run its intelligence. Both are staunch regime allies. The bloated military leadership profits from Mr Maduroâs crony capitalism. He has repeatedly warned the army that it has much to lose if it abandons him. Venezuelaâs future turns on whether the soldiers believe him. â
Sign up to El BoletĂn , our subscriber-only newsletter on Latin America, to understand the forces shaping a fascinating and complex region.
This article appeared in the The Americas section of the print edition under the headline âThe mad, bad Maduro regime clings onâ
Colombia prepares for a vanilla boom.
Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents
Purveyors of scented products and posh ice-creams take note
Yet the brazenness of NicolĂĄs Maduroâs theft crosses a line
Blame illegal miners, ranchers, loggers, traffickers and an unsympathetic Congress
The United States nets a very big fish
Few believe him
For three small dollarised economies it has exposed a lack of competitiveness
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Looking for the best Capitalism topic for your essay or research? đĄ StudyCorgi has plenty of fresh and unique titles available for free. đ Check out this page!
Looking for capitalism essay topics? đ¤ Find here all you might need to write an essay on capitalism! đ¸ Research questions, prompts, & ideas, together with capitalism essay examples.
Editor's Note: This essay is the second in a two-part series authored by Tom on the topic of capitalism and socialism. The first essay, on defining capitalism and socialism, is available here.
Our topics base contains the most diverse topics of Capitalism to write about in essays. Choose perfect titles and start to write your paper.
Capitalism, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately held and production, prices, and incomes are determined by markets. Learn more about the history and development of capitalism in this article.
Essay 1. Please answer ONE of the following essay questions. In doing so, please offer detailed discussion based on close analysis of the readings for the class. The essay should be 5 pages double-spaced. Choose any three of the following theorists and compare their viewpoints on capitalism. How did each understand the nature of capitalism and ...
Theory of Capitalism. Capitalism is a system of largely private ownership that is open to new ideas, new firms and new ownersâin short, to new capital. Capitalism's rationale to proponents and critics alike has long been recognized to be its dynamism, that is, its innovations and, more subtly, its selectiveness in the innovations it tries out.
Explore insightful questions and answers on capitalism at eNotes. Enhance your understanding today!
Essays about the new history of capitalism are plentiful, but most ask similar questions of the field. This post launches a series where I try to ask some new questions.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of profit. Essays on capitalism could explore its principles, historical evolution, its impact on global economies, and its role in technological and societal advancements. Critiques of capitalism and its inequalities, as well as its ...
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market ...
High-quality essay on the topic of "Capitalism" for students in schools and colleges.
View our collection of capitalism essays. Find inspiration for topics, titles, outlines, & craft impactful capitalism papers. Read our capitalism papers today!
Capitalism in essence, is a system of economic value in which private ownership is the source of production (Such as factories, and farming). Goods are produced and in return, income and profit are gained. The generally accepted characteristics of what Capitalism is, such as private property rights, specialization of jobs, profits, division of ...
The distinction is an important one, but it tends to fade whenever one believes that free markets will solve most any problem: moral, social, and political as well as economic. If capitalism can do anything, so the thinking goes, then it should do everything. Now, with the kind of intellectual prodding the question above intends, almost no one ...
Capitalism as a system for economic organization and resource allocation is suffering a worldwide crisis of confidence, with growing inequality, financial crises, and a structural unemployment that affects youth disproportionally.
All of the essays - both the short interventions and the longer articles - push capitalism studies to engage with questions that preoccupy scholars of vulnerability.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism study guide contains a biography of Max Weber, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.
Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.
The Wealth of a Nation: Institutional Foundations of English Capitalism, by Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Princeton University Press, 304 pages, $39.95 A galaxy of brilliant scholars have tried to account ...
To understand Priestley's political views, it is important to understand two of the major "wings" of the political spectrum: Capitalism (right wing) and Socialism (left wing.) Understanding the difference between the two means understanding the difference between the Inspector (socialist / left wing) and Mr Birling (capitalist / right wing.)
Introduction to Capitalism in the Play: Overview of how the play addresses capitalism through the Birling family and the Inspector's contrasting morals. Detailed Analysis of Key Ideas: Examining the Birlings as symbols of capitalism, Arthur Birling's views, the Inspector's stance on social responsibility, and more. Grade 9 Model Essay: In-depth exploration of capitalism's depiction ...
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "you'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase originating in a 2016 video by the World Economic Forum (WEF), summarising an essay written by Danish politician Ida Auken. The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property.
One of the challenges in making the moral case for capitalism is that the inequality debates have spawned their own use of terminology, in which liberal means egalitarian and capitalism means exploitation. Thus, the first step in defending capitalism is definitional.
This essay aims to uncover capitalism's influence over student affairs labor in higher education, by which is meant the labor of non-faculty, student-facing professionals on collegiate campuses globally.
Planning to apply to NYU during the 2024-2025 academic year? Here's what you need to know about recent changes to NYU's Common Application.
This essay is part of What to Eat on a Burning Planet, a series exploring bold ideas to secure our food supply. Read more about this project in a note from Eliza Barclay, Opinion's climate ...
JD Vance and his allies represent a mind-set that dates back to the McCarthy era and the dawn of the Cold War.
The bloated military leadership profits from Mr Maduro's crony capitalism. He has repeatedly warned the army that it has much to lose if it abandons him. Venezuela's future turns on whether ...