Critique of shareholder capitalism is not critique of capitalism
While business wants to avoid hard questions of shareholder capitalism, perhaps consider: do you want to keep being blamed for white monopoly capital?
My comment that shareholder capitalism worsens economic inequality has touched nerves, maybe unsurprisingly as interests are involved. First, let me emphasise that critique of shareholder capitalism is not critique of capitalism. As the USSR’s failure contrasted to Asian “hybrid-communist” success shows, capitalism is indispensable to grow an economy.
At base, shareholder capitalism is an ethical claim: Milton Friedman in the 1960s claimed corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders alone, and an implicit “invisible hand” would enhance society anyway. From the 1980s, as the Soviet model tottered, a US flushed with ideological triumph gave Friedman’s capitalism free rein. Since then, by interaction with stock markets, shareholder capitalism became an elaborate global structure whose alleged shortfalls are well-publicised: skyrocketing CEO salaries, bonuses in share options that encourage “short-termism”, stock buybacks etc. Any critique of these has to be cautious ...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.