Help
Sign In
conscious capitalism
October 2008 
Still questioning 'Conscious Capitalism'
Skeye
Read these remarks from Mr. Mackey in his comment responses to this blog post:
(you can read the whole post and/or scroll all the way down to the comments, the discussion there feels to be very 'enlightening')
"My argument for "Conscious Capitalism" is that capitalism can be improved. Quite honestly there is no viable alternative to capitalism that doesn't involve some type of totalitarian government with massive losses of both human freedom and prosperity. The question isn't whether we'll have capitalism in the world or not, because we will. The question is whether we can evolve it or not to a higher level of consciousness. I think we can and I'm working to do exactly that."
For a very good response to this comment and more see:
Nick Theodosis' post at January 28, 2007 07:02 PM
Mr. Mackey gives an interesting insight into his perspective in these comments.
Here are a few more pertinant words:
(I am not identified with the person's comments ideas that Mr. Mackey is responding to, but do see possible merit in exploring them further than somewhat dramatically rebuting them, as it appears Mr. Mackey has done.)
"As I've followed this thread about Conscious Capitalism/Conscious consumption, I am prompted to write. While I give support to you that if we're going to have a consumer economy, a conscious capitalistic system certainly is preferable to the current capitalistic model, or that of any of the other 'consumer economies' that get bandied about, ”communism, socialism, fascism, etc. All of these economies are consumption economies, really the only difference between any of them is the distribution methods: capitalism distributes on a supposed 'free-market', communism is a centralized government etc."
I'm quite surprised and disturbed, Ann, to read that you believe that capitalism is very similar to communism, socialism, fascism, etc. because they are all consumption economies. These other economic systems are radically different from capitalism. Capitalism is the only economic system which puts the needs and desires of the customer at the heart and soul of it. The customer is King & Queen in capitalism and producers compete to best satisfy their desires. Socialism, communism, and fascism all locate the decision making power in the hands of governmental bureaucrats. The bureaucrats decide what will be produced, how much will be produced, and how much it will cost. If they don't think something is needed or is very important then it won't be produced. Want a computer? Too bad. Want an iPod--not necessary. Need a heart transplant--get in line and we'll see if we think you are important enough to get one. The 20th century is a long nightmare on the failed attempts of these alternative economic systems to work. They failed miserably and reduced individual freedom and individual rights everywhere they existed. The communistic utopias of the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia resulted in the murder of over 100 million of their own citizens. Think about that before you lump capitalism--the economic system which has created so much human progress-- in with these other economic systems which have created so much human misery.
~~~~~~~~~~
"Yes, we are all well steeped in the consumer economy, so much so that it seems as if it is the only way to be. In the early 1900's, the idea of 'insatiable desire' was implanted in our culture through the intense rise of advertising, because insatiable desire was considered a cure all for an ever rising/falling economic system that depended on consumers continuing to consume. When they were erratic in consuming, depressions/recession ensued, at least in the money flow. I can't blame our forefathers because from their perspective this looked like the best choice. Consuming led to money flow which led to more consuming and if we could keep this going on a fairly constant flow, depressions, recessions and economic chaos would be a thing of the past. And consume we did and as we consumed the money flowed. Over the last 100 years we have perfected a consumer economy, efficiently setting up a supply/demand (insatiable desire + money = demand, please note, 'demand' does not necessarily mean 'need'."Sorry but I don't agree with your cynical view of the stupidity of people who you believe are so easily manipulated by advertising to buy things that they don't really want. Who is going to define what people really need, Ann? Will it be you? Will you decide what everyone needs? Will some group of government bureaucrats decide in your economic system like they do in socialism and communism? Or will individuals make these choices themselves? Will people be free to make their own choices or will you or some other dictator decide what is best?
(this kind of response has a feel of projecting and defining what Ann is supposedly saying, a rather reactive/defensive/aggressive response that possibly attempts to make Ann look 'bad' and 'wrong'...not real questioning and openly listening, more 'shame and blame' than anything else)
~~~~~~~~~~"To that, I then ask the question: ”what if instead of a consumer economy, we instead created a whole life economy? It would serve a primary need of life, relationships, species diversity, health, etc. instead of the current primary need of money. Yes, there would still be businesses and productsâ, but only so much as is necessary for real life. What I'm suggesting is that we move into a new paradigm. The following is the best encapsulation of the old to the new paradigm that I am suggesting. It comes from Barbara Brandts' book, Whole Life Economics."
Ann--who is in charge of the "Whole Life Economy?" Who decides what gets produced and what doesn't get produced? Will individuals have the freedom to decide for themselves what they want and will entrepreneurs be free to innovate and create to meet their needs? If not entrepreneurs and individual consumers--who?
To read all of Mr. Mackey's responses go to:John Mackey at March 13, 2007 07:55 PM
Now read this article:
(excerpt:)
"Whole Foods' documents outlining plans for the transaction, dubbed "Operation Goldmine," call for about 30 Wild Oats stores to be closed, according to a government court filing. The company expects revenue at nearby Whole Foods stores to nearly double, government attorneys said.
Whole Foods also plans to sell 35 Wild Oats stores in California and Texas that operate under the Henry's and Sun Harvest names."
And from this article: merger with Whole Foods"The District Court's ruling affirms our belief that a merger between Whole Foods and Wild Oats is a winning scenario for all stakeholders," said John Mackey, Chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Whole Foods Market. "We believe the synergies gained from this combination will create long term value for customers, vendors, and shareholders as well as exciting opportunities for team members."
And...
"We are very pleased with the court's ruling and always had confidence that, once presented with the facts, the judge would rule in favor of this merger," said Gregory Mays, Chairman and CEO of Wild Oats Markets. "We continue to believe this merger is in the best interest of our stakeholders, as it will mean significant career opportunities for our store associates, capital investment in our stores to enhance the shopping experience for our customers, and value-creation for our shareholders. We look forward to closing the transaction."
Hm...was the local community consulted in this 'merger'? Were they asked if they would prefer this or not? What of the many workers that are going to be unemployed? Were their needs considered or questioned? And what of the communities that will be losing a 'competative alternative' or perhaps be more limited to their access of a 'natural foods store' and more healthier choices?
Seems to me Whole Foods/Wild Oats and their respective 'owners' have made this decision for them...all in the name of 'our stakeholders' and 'progress', but what about that 'competative market'? Is it only good until one can 'outgrow' the other? Until one can become 'top dog'?
This is 'conscious capitalism'? Sounds like the same old story to me. And any time someone starts accusing others of being 'dictatorial', is a time to take a good look at the accuser. I'm not defining WF or Mr. Mackey as anything, only questioning what they say they are and what they are showing.
There is so much to consider in this and I do not assume that all that is involved has been reported, but once again, there is enough questionable actions to call for a deeper questioning of the claiming of 'honest and conscious intentions' and possibly supporting otherwise.
Of which I feel business voodoo aptly offered some perspective on Brian's blog post:
John Mackey's an Investor in Zaadz!
And a very interesting conversation ensued, many days apart, but the recent legal developments of WF and Mr. Mackey have not yet been responded to that business voodoo posted about.
So, if you've got some perspective to shed some light, please do, I would really love to hear it.
Peace....
Access: Public
Hey Skeye.
Thank you for this.
My answer? I don't know.
I don't know.
I can hypothesize and speculate and rationalize all I want, and I can dream and preach and rant about how things should be… whether some system of socialism would save us, or radical anarchy, or a more compassionate democracy. When it comes down to it, though, all these are abstractions. When it comes down to it, the only change I can really make is in my life, in the moment right in front of me.
Right I live in a capitalistic society. I make money. I spend money. I buy things. I sell my own labor. I participate in an economy that connects me to literally billions of people. (I participate in a biosphere that does the same, but that's another story.) I can talk until I'm blue in the face about how I want “the system” to change, or I can be more aware of my actions and the way they affect this vast and intricate network (that, frankly, is beyond my comprehension anyway). I can be more aware of my intentions. I can pay attention to my needs and wants and whether I'm being authentic in my relationships with those other beings who partake in that system.
That, to me, is conscious capitalism. No more, and no less. If, as a result, conscious capitalism transforms or evolves into some other sort of conscious system, so be it. Right now, though, this is the world we live in, and this is what is real. And it's this I want to work with.
Thanks Siona,
“My answer? I don't know.”
This reply doesn't sound like an “I don't know” to me though. ;^)
And I'm not really looking for an 'answer' so much as further exploration of what has been shared, if an answer of some kind comes…okay, but there is too much involved to arrive at an answer just 'like that'.
Hm…
“I can hypothesize and speculate and rationalize all I want, and I can dream and preach and rant about how things should be… whether some system of socialism would save us, or radical anarchy, or a more compassionate democracy. When it comes down to it, though, all these are abstractions. When it comes down to it, the only change I can really make is in my life, in the moment right in front of me.”
I agree mostly, but please show me where I am doing any of what you have stated in the first sentence, rather than openly questioning. You see 'my life' is not separate from all Life and the reflection of what is here in 'this life' is what is shared. If there is a resistance or a feeling of unnecessity to hearing it, reflecting on it, questioning deeper in some way, then so be it…but if it helps to support questioning beliefs and patterns of behavior that appear to exist for someone, that are supposedly impeding consciousness, then I am grateful.
“Right I live in a capitalistic society. I make money. I spend money. I buy things. I sell my own labor. I participate in an economy that connects me to literally billions of people. (I participate in a biosphere that does the same, but that's another story.)”
Actually it's not, it's all the same story…ever interconnected, that's the point. We can't have self-satisfying and comfortable back patting talk about supposed 'good deeds and intentions' and then ignore the other aspects of our humanness that show up reflecting a bigger picture to consider. We ignore our arrogance and 'darkness' at the cost of 'consciousness'.
Is this consumeristic model of life really what connects us all? Is globalization just inevitable…or is it a thought pattern of control that is chosen to identify with, out of a number of possible reasons: fears, insecurities, desires, etc.
Because when the consumeristic model is really inquired into, a lot can be revealed. And especially when the 'consumer' is taken a really good look at as well.
The fact that you, what seems to be, give primary importance and identify with this model of life feels to be unfortunate, unnecessary and a somewhat narrow and limiting view of life. What about the world society? Do you truly believe that all are ascribing and living by this model? Essentially are you saying, “It's the best 'game' in town, so let's work with it.”?
And if this is so, then what about those that see how this game is effecting us all and are choosing not to play anymore or never really started, yet are being told “this is what is, now get with it”? Actively working to change the need for attachments to theoretical manmade systems to tell them how to live, and/or already listening to the inherent wisdom of life present.
“I can talk until I'm blue in the face about how I want “the system” to change, or I can be more aware of my actions and the way they affect this vast and intricate network (that, frankly, is beyond my comprehension anyway).”
Hm, really? If that's true, then what's the use? Well, actually, I would say that only this belief/thought limits your comprehension…and that you think less of yourself unnecessarily. :)
And what if it's not an 'either/or'? What if communication won't necessarily look this way or end up like this? How does holding onto a projection what 'may be' help? If you don't really know, then where is the willingness to see?
And by saying “the system” are you stating that there is not an organized effort to control the world's resources and populace? That there is not a system of identified patterns of behavior that is exerting it's energy to safeguard it's own interests and agendas?
“I can be more aware of my intentions. I can pay attention to my needs and wants and whether I'm being authentic in my relationships with those other beings who partake in that system.”
And this is being lived and supported here in this communication.
“That, to me, is conscious capitalism.”
If this is so, then what do you feel of what has been presented here? Because as far as I can see(of which I am willing to see more) someone and a business entity, that are supposedly models for Conscious Capitalism, are not adhering to your definition of what CC is…and what they do has the potential to affect the world 'we' live in more exponentially.
“Right now, though, this is the world we live in, and this is what is real. And it's this I want to work with.”
Sounds a little limiting, but at least you are telling the truth of where your willingness is and isn't. This is 'the world we live in' and what is 'real'? It may be what you perceive as 'reality', but to make an absolute statement “This is what is” as if to say this is the only reality or most predominant way of how things “are” so deal with it, instead of how they appear to be happening and further questioning that appearance.
Well, this is my way of 'dealing with it', by, as you say, “…be(ing) more aware of my actions and the way they affect this vast and intricate network.”. And this includes sharing perspective on what is revealed in this awareness of actions, 'mine and others' that are all 'self' interacting in Life.
I invite you to join in the fun… :)
Oh, all good, Skeye. Thank you. And I'm in wholehearted alignment with what you're saying, so much so that I apologize if I didn't communicate more clearly.
You wrote “essentially you're saying this is the best 'game' in town…” I'm not sure I said this. I'd agree in the sense that, as you put it, this is Life, and I'm here to engage with that process in whatever form it might take, but not necessarily in the sense that this is the only or the best game to play. I hope that's clear. ;)
Also, I certainly don't identify primarily with a consumer model! My point with that paragraph on money was merely meant to take responsibility for the role I play here. It's not a role I necessarily play—I could drop out, no? You could too. That choice is still available to us, no? But I've chosen not to, just as you, for now, have chosen the same.
So what's that all about? ;)
“And by saying 'the system' are you stating that there is not an organized effort to control the world's resources and populace? That there is not a system of identified patterns of behavior that is exerting its energy to safeguard its own interests and agendas?”
This is complicated. I feel as though you're anthropomorphizing a process. Sure, there's an organized effort involved, and sure, this self-organizing process has a vested interest in self-preservation, just as any other entity. But I feel that “its own interests and agendas” are OUR interests and agendas… which is why, as I wrote, I feel so committed to recognizing and acknowledging and owning my role in this.
(An side: I apologize for the “world we live in” statement. I should personalize that more; it's the world *I* live in, at least in part. :) I want to own my role in this and to see myself in the disappointments and dark underbelly of process that's revealed in the article you posted, and not to blame it on something external. I want to recognize my choice in the matter. You know. Being conscious.
I also, though, in doing this, want to acknowledge the hope involved in being such a “part of the problem.” Someone once put a spin on that old chestnut and wrote, “If you aren't part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution.” I like that.
And goodness. I hope I've already joined… :)
Skeye,
This is a wonderfully interesting and important blog. May I chime in? I'll take your silence as a YES. :-)
One thing about the whole question of 'the right structure” …
Ego (or egotism, selfishness) can and will ruin ANY structure. That is a known fact. And no matter which structure we consider, it is really quite easy to see HOW it does that, has done that, and will TEND to keep doing that. Indeed, how it has done that is already proven relative to every structure that's been tried.
People get very tweaked with they focus on how ego has ruined THIS or THAT particular structure. Then they say, “SEE? That structure is absolutely doomed! So we have to try THIS structure, instead. —Or we have to modify this structure, in this partcular way, and then things will work.”
It's like, have you ever seen two egotistical people trying to live harmoniously together? Often, they spend TONS of time negotiating, and re-negotiating, trying to create peace among themselves. But, it never seems to quite work. So pretty soon, they come to blows again, and then re-negotiate again. Over and over. Never works. And neither does avoidance, when they finally get down to that! Obviously, then, the Truth is, in these cases, there's WAY too much ego, and not half enough real love – and THAT is the core problem. Yes? No structural change can solve THAT. The change needed is a change of heart – deeply.
So IMHO, the truth is, and we all ought to realize this by now, ego (or egotism) IS the problem, not structure. And indeed, egotism, once invovled, has not only the ability, but also the CERTAIN tendency—to create havoc within ANY possible structure, however utopian it may seem.
What do we do, then? Well, obviously, we have no REAL hope except insofar as we can look at the problem of EGOTISM, and get that handled. In other words, the human race has to march to a higher drummer, no matter which formation it happens to march in. Ottherwise, tragedy simply cannot be avoided, because NO structure can save the day so long as egotism rules.
The really silly thing is, one pro-captilism argument is this: “How wonderful that everyone gets what they want. How wonderful that its all about people personal desires.” This sounds like a recipe for absolute DISASTER. It's ALL about egotism, gratification, etc. They are actually CROWING about a whole system dedicated to giving egos what they want. WOW! That sounds like the horrible good old USA, full of unchecked egos, wanting this and that – NOW!
I see that as disaster, not Utopia. Try using that approach in raising any child, and you quickly discover how absolutely spoiled and tragic that child will become. USA is going down the tubes very fast, very scarey, because of that approach. Such is capatilism.
Is there a better way? YES, absolutely. I don't think the opposite extreme – hair shirt, and extreme denial – is it. That, too, is insane. The thing is this: the right way, whatever it may be, is NOT a way based on structure. It is a way based on love, and on the intelligent and compassionate transcedence of the negative tendencies of selfishness.
Structure-wise, there IS good news. The spirit/heart is it. And, the spirit has an absolutely certain tendency to bring out TRULY great things from almost any structure, and from any person, for that matter. Even from God. Yes!
That's my two cents. Hope it isn't off topic.
Love, am