Quest of the Spirit: From Suffering to Acceptance

117. Freedom versus Corporate Greed: Galbraith's New Industrial State!

        In John Kenneth Galbraith's The New Industrial State (New American Library 1967), the author expresses a moral concern regarding the invasive influence of technology wielded by huge corporations.This landmark work published fifty years ago echoes a sentiment still applicable today. With the increased use of technology and the rising number of corporate mergers, the issue of business ethics remains paramount. Instead of relying upon the traditional market economy, companies then and now create and control a market demand that solely promotes their vested interests; however, they continue to exploit the public; exclude the needs of the poor, elderly, and handicapped; destroy our world's ecosystems;   and insult man's aesthetic sensibility. Galbraith suggests that government and technology exercise their ethical responsibility toward all members of society, and furthermore assume an active role in preserving the cultural diversity of our own nation, as well as others. The power and influence associated with technological achievement must not overshadow man's moral obligation to care for all of  the people, not just those technologically employable. Neglecting the individual is a flagrant violation of human rights. Galbraith expresses his abhorrence for this travesty when he says, "The individual has far more standing in our culture than the group. An individual has a presumption of accomplishment; a committee has a presumption of inaction.We act sympathetically to the individual who seeks to safeguard his personality from engulfment by the mass. We call for proof, at least in principle, before curbing his aggression against society. Individuals have souls; corporations are notably soulless.The entrepreneur--individualistic, restless, with vision, guile, and courage--has been the economists' only hero.  The great business organization arouses no similar admiration" (71). The new industrial complex must continue to respect the rights of the individual, even if he serves as a part of a collective unit. This is the proof that Galbraith demands. "I argue only for a complex two-way flow of influence," one which will spur public response (324). Galbraith calls for an equal flow of influence in all areas, not just those targeted by the demands of the techno-structure.The goal of government and industry should also concern the moral needs of its constituents, not the vested interests selected by the industrial complex. Companies define these  public needs, persuade the consumer of their necessity,and then sell them to them. After completing the cycle, the corporations then rationalize the practice by explaining how they enabled the consumer to buy whatever product he desires. The corporate world makes no distinction between wants and needs(405), but deceives the buyer into believing that he is exercising his free will in making these choices (327). Galbraith calls this deception "public bamboozlement" (302). On this point, Galbraith says, t is true that the consumer may still imagine that his actions respond to his own view of his satisfactions. But this is superficial and proximate, the result of illusions created in connection with the management of his wants" (224).This manipulation of the market is immoral and should be subjected to close scrutiny by guidelines of ethical conduct.  The corporate must also provide the citizen an avenue for the free exchange of ideas, even if his motives differ from those of government and industry. The issue of ethics arises in terms of federal and corporate goals as well. Companies adapting their objectives to the needs of the federal government cross traditional economic boundaries, although they unquestionably produce military and scientific safeguards for capitalism in modern society. Tragically, it is these same industrial giants who ignore educational opportunities in art and philosophy that could create a generation impervious to the social and political needs of others. Many would charge that this consequence is already occurring in twenty-first century.  There should be ethical limits regarding the use of technology. Einstein expressed a similar concern over the use of nuclear weapons. President Eisenhower voices a similar sentiment in his fear that the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry " could pose a threat to the United States. According the Eisenhower, Americans should "guard against [this] acquisition of unwarranted influenced, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex" because if unchecked, it held "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power"(338). Arms sales would be, more than likely, subject to expediency rather than morals. Like the protagonist in Shaw's Major Barbara, the producer would possess no scruples over sales to enemy nations. The profit motive alone predominates. In essence, the union of the State and private sector initiate steps that clearly counter the principles and practices of free enterprise.     

             Galbraith discusses the paradox of economic prosperity during wartime and focuses upon the psychology underlying this deceptive practice.   Maintaining the arms race during the Cold War produced record numbers of casualties in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, all in the name of national security. A similar process is occurring today in the Middle East, half a century later.  Galbraith also points out that U. S. involvement in these cases also produces a false impression of prosperity and growth because the additional spending for wartime activities for any nation, whether overtly or clandestine,   contributes to the rise in the GNP, a feature frequently cited as a landmark of a politician's successful career. Thus, losing, or even prolonging,  a military conflict can be made to appear as a positive outcome  because of its subsequent higher production and lower unemployment (334-335). Galbraith basically advocates  a shift "from spending on weapons competition to more general scientific and engineering competition."    Our environment is just as important as the rise in GNP. Spending for national defense, research and development, and military-related areas associated with transportation and education readily gain corporate support; but public services for healthcare, parks, and recreation, the removal of rubbish, the provision of agreeable public structures, and assistance to the impoverished are "not of particular importance to the industrial system" (353). In view of recent legislation, the same principle holds true even today. Education in artistic sensibility, Galbraith suggests, requires more than a pragmatic approach to existence, and the industrial system cannot clearly measure its efficacy on an emotional or imaginative level, as it would in germs of productivity and expenditure. Technological growth requires organization on all phases, but art requires spontaneity. In Galbraith's words, "That one must pause to affirm that beauty is worth the sacrifice of some increase in the GNP shows how effectively our beliefs have been accommodated to the needs of the industrial system"(357). Timeless architectural wonders such as the Taj Mahal, the Acropolis, and the Cathedral of Notre Dame evoke a sense of awe clearly absent in the architecture of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.  Sadly, the desire for affluence and economic growth supersede aesthetic appreciation. The price of environmental beauty ironically , we are told, is too great.                                                                  

                                                    Works Cited for The New Industrial State

Galbraith, John Kenneth. The New Industrial State. New York: New American Library, 1967.