When discussing the problems of capitalism, all the various intellectuals who love big talk about big systems come into play. In reality, to show the problems of capitalism “at its best” is a letter I read today about the Republic, in which the writer links all the problems of capitalism, one by one, without forgetting any, and does it in one case practical.
The letter I refer to is this:
Now, this is an important document, because it rarely happens to see a systemic problem exposed in a way that is so clear, evident, together with the absurd culture that made the problems possible. And its ability to reform or improve.
Because the problem of capitalism as a system is not that it fails here and there: EVERY system is imperfect.
The problem with capitalism is that it IS INCAPABLE TO IMPROVE.
If in the case of communism we went from the disasters of the Soviet system to “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, which instead solved the most obvious problems, (I remind the forgetful “liberists” that Chinese socialism has pulled 700 million people out of hunger in 30 years: when you manage to solve the problem of 3 million unemployed Italians, let me know) on the contrary capitalism has the same problems as WHICH HE HAD TO BIRTH, and do not see on the horizon forms of capitalism capable of resolving or mitigating the problem. But not only that: they cannot come out because the capitalist does not even realize the existence of a problem!
Let’s look at the highlights.
The first problem of capitalism is that it is a juridical paradise. As it is built, it is absolutely possible to have 30% of a company, sit on the board, and behave as if it had nothing to do with the company. I note one thing: that even the other “70%” members can say the same thing.
In practice, the capitalist world builds a legal paradise, the equivalent of the tax haven for criminal matters: you are on the board, you make billions (I suppose because of the cynical and cheating destiny, not because you are running the company) and when the company you manage causes a disaster, look at those who ask you for explanations saying ” who? I? And what have I got to do with it? Just because I’m sitting on a pile of money with this company logo on it, are you suggesting that I’m handling it? ”
The fact that all Atlantia shareholders can say the same thing, then adding “but we are not in Italy, if anything, it was the Benettons who are Italians who propose Italian managers!”, Which should make us think.
If we did Terzo Reich SpA tomorrow, Hitler would have to be acquitted because in the end, he never managed the Holocaust. They were Heidrych and Himmler doing everything. His mistake, at most, was to appoint bad managers.
This part shows capitalism in the top of its perversion. In practice, someone was in charge of keeping things going. They have appointed people to whom they have given total confidence, guaranteeing Gilberto The Great, the famous Gilberto-Che-Lavora-Bene (whose heroic deeds did not reach anyone, but will be cynical and cheating), and therefore THEY ARE LESA PART.
I don’t want to comment on the fact that Benetton first says that “The Benetton Family has never managed anything”, and then it was his brother Gilberto who did things. Or for them “brother” and “family” have nothing to do with it, or we should better explain why “my BROTHER was thinking about it but it was not our family that managed”.
Now something like this has happened in the past. You should know that a guy who had learned nuclear reactors on nuclear submarines had been put in charge of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Consequently, he had no idea what he was doing, and the sequence of errors clearly shows him: in the sequence of orders given, there was ONE right.
Now, imagine that the Kremlin had said that “ok, we put him incapable in that place, but we trusted him blindly because we are very intelligent and very capable, and then we know how my Gilbertsky Nephew works”. Thus, communism is the first VICTIM of the Chernobyl reactor, and not the culprit.
Capitalism is a system in which a manager INCAPABLE TO DISTINGUISH A CIALTRONE FROM A SERIOUS PERSON appoints other scoundrel criminals to direct the work, but instead of being responsible for what happens in the chain of consequences, as happened with communism, not only REFUSES the responsibility but he starts to point the finger at the incompetent and criminal people he has put in to do the job.
I’m sorry, but the Politburo makes a great impression on us: if nothing else, it is known that the fault of the Chernobyl disaster is due to the malfunctions and the lacking meritocracy of the Soviet system. But in the case of capitalism, not only do they not declare themselves guilty, but they declare themselves “innocent perpetrators”. That is, Benetton says yes, it was their responsibility to appoint the right people, but they do not accept being seen as guilty. (Guarantees Gilberto, who brushes his teeth every day and cleans the toilet: everyone knows it).
This distinction between responsibility and guilt is one of the main perversions of capitalism, which is structured to ensure that those responsible for a massacre can also be innocent, because trusting blindly in a pile of criminal scoundrels does not seem to be a FAULT.
But come on, let’s put criminal, uncaring and incompetent managers in running highways. What could ever go wrong?
In practice, being at the root of the chain of events with management choices “at least questionable” does not seem to be a failure, on the contrary: they also play the part of the victims!
And let’s be clear: the rules of capitalism give them reason. It is not Benetton who is an irresponsible evil that navigates in the space between a clean conscience and a consciousness never used. It is the whole capitalist system that is structured to commit the worst evils and self-absolve.
Capitalism plays on the subtle misunderstanding that passes between having a clear conscience and having a consciousness never used, still new inside the box.
But not using conscience can be a way to keep it clean, not to be innocent. Not always who has a clear conscience is also innocent: those who have never used their conscience, for example, can exhibit an immaculate one. Even after committing the worst atrocities.
But let’s move on:
First of all it is not clear who this “who knows us” is, who is continually cited as a source of reliability. At least if you made a name, we could go and ask him “listen, but these Benettons are serious people?” But since it’s an anonymous, we’ll never know who to ask. We give a name to these anonymous continually cited “those who know us”: Franco and Antonio. The two of them know them (whatever it means): I know, the reasoning is water, but ex falso quodlibet sequitur.
In short, the Benettons are telling us that they have nothing to do with it and if you don’t believe us, ask Franco and Antonio. Impeccable, isn’t it?
Then he went on, the usual logical fallacy: “since the defendant did not kill anyone when he was ten, when he was thirteen and when he was twenty-one, he clearly did not kill anyone at thirty-eight”. And so since no disasters happen in other companies, it can’t be the Benetton’s fault if they happen there.
Here the question arises:
how is it that you have nothing to do with a shit when a massacre happens and a bridge collapses, while it is all thanks to you if a catastrophe does not happen at the Rome airport, nor with Autogrill?
Because here comes another perversion of the capitalist system: if things go well it’s all about the shareholders. Look at how well our family works. Especially Gilberto-Il-Saggio.
Then a disaster happens, so here the shareholders have nothing to do with fucking anything. “Who, us? But do you think someone like Gilberto has something to do with it? But did you hear Franco and Antonio? ”
Now we are in full “Silicon Valley”. Where the problems are called “challenges”, and the problem of the mafia is that the organization does not show itself up to modern criminal law.
Rephrase, Rephrase, Rephrase , and everything goes down. But what does it mean by “not the necessary control over all the sectors has been maintained such a complex system?”
Then: “keeping control” is another name for “administration” or “management”. And “managing complexity” is the reason why the management gets paid millions.
It is therefore not clear why the organization was not up to par, when due diligence and management were lacking, which must be guaranteed by the Board of Directors, not generically the “organization”: the same organization with managers who were in control and that they managed the complexity, it would have worked.
And then, what in the organization would have failed? If we look at what we know, the organization worked very well: the problems of the bridge were known, the technicians drew up the reports and sent the alarms. The organization showed itself to be up to par, and it worked very well: the state of danger of the bridge was known.
They were the managers who failed, not the organization. Here we are at another problem of capitalist culture: first it is said that the CDA has no faults because it had delegated to the wrong managers, then the managers are absolved by saying that the “organization” was to blame. We bet that in the end the blame will go to someone who had done the checks, had detected the problems and written the reports, but hadn’t he used the right red color in the Excel cells?
Benetton speaks of “technicians who falsify surveys”, and therefore we already know who will be blamed. And here is the point: apart from the fact that the choice of technicians is also a question of management’s professional competence, the problem is that the capitalist system is specifically designed to distribute faults downwards: in the end, the CDA he passed by by chance, the management was trusted because Gilberto says it, and if you don’t believe it, ask Franco and Antonio, and the problem is the organization, pardon: the “technicians”.
Incredible the pippone on savings: in practice, Benetton absolves itself by saying that the accusations are absurd of not having spent those tot millions of euros to do maintenance, saving them: you do not earn mica! The money saved ends up only in the pockets of the shareholders, but we know well that they were there by chance. In the end, the cost of the disaster is much greater, provided we omit that nothing will happen to the Benettons because they are, and those who know Gilberto know, are completely innocent, in fact they are victims and maybe even ask for damages !!!
The cost is much higher, on this I agree, but the capitalist system will do so to pay others. And that’s the problem.
And so, according to Benetton, who had the economic motive to cause the disaster? But it will be the technicians who, on their own and WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE FROM THE COMPANY (I’m sure) are paid by Satan himself to falsify the data.
Everything ends with the usual pippone, where it is shown that the capitalist just does not understand the problem. The point escapes him.
Here Benetton tries to let us know that he also knows how to use phrases. He hopes that justice takes its course, but forgets that many are wishing it, and (unfortunately) they wish it much stronger than him.
The appeal to the institutions then reaches the sum of the ridiculous: after having just unloaded the barrel, as if the Benettons were passers-by who happened to be in the CDA by chance, and pointed out the technicians as the only culprits , in the same letter says that “we do not look for capri scapegoats “.
Benetton says that institutions and newspapers should choose a better language, but honestly Benetton doesn’t seem like the right person to teach it. This letter has the only merit of passing Di Maio on the side of reason, something that not even Beppe Grillo had managed to do. A titanic undertaking. Is it Benetton who could use better language?
That the choice of the scapegoat is the simplest choice also agrees with me, but if every ” anderweitig unschuldig ” starts proclaiming itself “scapegoat”, things get even more than “dangerous”.
I repeat: the problem is not the Benettons. Even your drinking water is managed by an SpA, just like your money, and the food you eat. Everything that is important in your life today is managed by a system that:
- Believes the CDA deserving in full (and rewards it very well) when things go well. On the contrary, it absolves him immediately when things go wrong and dumps all the blame on the less paid.
- He developed a sectarian culture in which those who have a task do not have a responsibility, who is at the root of a chain of disastrous events is not guilty, the bad choices in terms of management are a venial sin even if they bring down a bridge, and does not even understand that there is a problem.
And it is the second point, the problem: capitalism has not only the problems we all see, but it has one above all.
He is now unable to IMPROVE.
That is, it is obsolete.
Because from that letter it really transpires: Benetton reveals a way of thinking, of doing things, of seeing oneself. The capitalist considers himself a person who makes money work for him, and as such is not guilty even of the people he pays, since even in the choice of the ruling class he is said to be not only innocent, but even the VICTIM of people … has chosen. And he underlines the fact that he trusted those people blindly as if he were an extenuating one, while if anything shows how BIG the error was and how incompetent those were who had to “administer”, given that even the ability to choose people right belongs to the professional competence of the CDA members.
Under these conditions, it is useless to expect capitalism to improve, to reform or to improve. They can’t change, because they consider themselves perfect and innocent like this. If anything, the fault is “of the technicians who take orders from the Demon (but not from the CDA: never!)”.
I personally agree with one thing: that it is right to avoid street trials.
That is why I would send those characters to Nuremberg.