Author: CRT Admin

Back on December 12, our Caux Round Table fellows met for their quarterly meeting over Zoom to share reflections and concerns as 2023 entered the history books.  A summary of their comments is here:

The question was asked: what happened to cosmopolitanism?  Why has particularity replaced universality?  The collective over the individual?  The volk over the human?

(For the U.S., this raises the question: is there an American volk?  Hillary Clinton denigrated about half the American people as being “deplorable.”  Was that her way of saying they did not belong to the American volk?  When the southern border of the country is open, does that illustrate that Americans have no sense of being a “volk”?)

When systems close in on themselves, lose ties to the cosmopolitan, they trigger an increase in entropy.  Entropic forces then whirl and spin and so chaos results.  Such a system stagnates, internalizes and polarizes emotions and psychic energies, losing, bit by bit, any sense of a common good, of continuity from the past into the future.

Now Americans (and many others) have no clear vision of their future.  They don’t know what to do.  They are passengers, not drivers.  They are frightened, having lost hope.  Tomorrow will be as today is and today is as yesterday was.  One senses trauma, but uncertainty over how to process distress and dis-alignment, which deepens the traumatic mode of being.

Simple answers provide comfort.  Blaming others deflects responsibility.

Resilience is needed more than ever.  Relationships need creating and tending.  Risks need to be foreseen and mitigated.  Solidarity from the bottom up, not engineering from the top down, is needed.  An engineered system is a closed one, like a steam engine.  A solidarity system evolves and invokes mutuality and reciprocity.

Whose narrative is correct?  What paradigms make the most sense and provide the best guidance?  Which are superstitions?

The fights are on to have the unchallenged word.  Globally, the fights are not really over land, but over morality, identity.

We must rebuild, taking nothing for granted and rethinking assumptions, starting with an understanding of who we are as humans – of what is our nature.

In the middle ground, there is hope, as the Buddha advised.

The current travails of Harvard University around the institutionalization of “wokeness” through rigorous diversity, equity and inclusion management metrics and with the decision of its president, Claudine Gay, to resign, reminded me of a commentary I wrote nearly three years ago (April 9, 2021, to be exact) addressing the then new question of whether moral capitalism should embrace “wokeness.”

I said “no” on the grounds that wokeness is the psycho-social expression of a Nietzschean will to power on the part of its advocates.  As such, it is destructive of the moral sense in each of us and so has no claim for inclusion in any moral capitalism.

You can read my argument against the morality of “woke” here.

(The recent trend to question the benefits and fairness of “wokeness”/DEI would seem to socially validate my argument.  A friend, William Colby, once told me after serving as director of the CIA, that if your hypothesis turns out to have predictive accuracy, stick with it.)

Back in 2021, I was sharply criticized by one senior business executive for being “racist” in my views.

I wrote back that he most likely did not know that my wife is Vietnamese.

I presumed he would be alert enough to then realize that I had lived for decades on a border between races, fully part of neither.  Too Vietnamese in thinking to be fully American white and too American white in thinking to be fully Vietnamese.

He did not respond.

I did not share with him a family story about my maternal grandmother.  Through her husband, our family descends from a signer of the Declaration of Independence and from a framer of our Constitution.  My direct ancestor, Winthrop Young, in 1776, took the association oath in New Hampshire to oppose with arms the operations of His Majesty’s armies in the North American colonies.

When learning of my engagement, grandmother said, “I can’t understand what has gotten into Stephen.  Two thousand years of WASP blood down the drain!”

However, after my marriage, she was most delightfully gracious to her new granddaughter-in-law.

So, the realities of racism in America have been part of “my truth” for decades.

If the racism implicit in wokeness and explicit in DEI discriminations is wrong and harmful, what narrative or frame of mind, then, would be a right fit for moral capitalism?

Post-racism.

If we live in a post-modern culture, then a post-racism is possible.  Post-modernism applies critical thinking to delegitimate concepts, values, cognitive biases and ideologies.  Thus, post-modernist thinking – in the right hands – can delegitimate racism, leading to a culture that would be “post” racist.

Secondly, I suggest that the moral basis for a post-racist world is friendship.

I recommend your quickly reading Aristotle and Cicero on friendship.

The recent encyclical of Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti, adds a Christian dimension to friendship – “do unto others ….”  He takes as his ideal person the Good Samaritan, who comes to the aid of one not of his “race.”

Other readings that would open minds, expose biases and promote friendships are the Tao Te Jing and the Zhuang Zi from China.

I love the story from the Zhuang Zi that: “One night, Zhuang Zi went to sleep and dreamed that he was a butterfly.  He dreamt that he was flying around from flower to flower and while he was dreaming, he felt free, blown about by the breeze hither and thither.  He was quite sure that he was a butterfly.  But when he awoke, he realized that he had just been dreaming and that he was really Chuang Tzu dreaming he was a butterfly.

But then, Chuang Tzu asked himself the following question: was I Chuang Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly or am I now really a butterfly dreaming that I am Chuang Tzu?”

Apply that to who you are – is it really you who are dreaming that you are of the race that you think you are when it might be someone of another race dreaming that they are you?  Who are you really and who are they really?

The teachings of the Buddha on overcoming illusions would guide us to a post-racist way of living.  And perhaps the advice of Marcus Aurelius and other Stoics would also tend to confirm that it is possible for you and for me to put our minds in the right way.

Almost a year ago, I threw three coins six times and from those “heads” and “tails” derived a Yi Jing hexagram predicting what was likely to happen in 2023.

Here is a retrospective report on my predictions:

Then, in general, I predicted for 2023 that “this is not going to be a year of rest and success for narcissists and nihilists.”

Most dramatically perhaps, the October 7 aggression by Hamas against Israel did not work out well for the Palestinian residents of Gaza.

One year of Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukrainians – not close family, but more distant cousins of the Russians – did not go well.  There was retreat and static defense of a border.

The year did not go well for the very self-centered Donald Trump and Joe Biden.  Trump was attacked by his enemies with criminal allegations in the courts.  Biden’s poll numbers dropped and dropped.  By the end of the lunar year – right now – polling shows that significant numbers of black, Hispanic and younger voters have turned against him.  The economy has not gone his way.  Inflation – Bidenflation? – reduced the real standard of living for the middle class and the poor, while making it easier for the rich to make money off the higher interest rates paid on their investment portfolios.

Last February, I proposed that: “President Biden would be well advised to stop illegal immigration across the U.S. border with Mexico, as such an inflow of strangers will not contribute to reassuring ordered liberty in the American “dwelling.”  Similarly, the hexagram indicates that advantages will come in general from reducing criminality in American cities to restore the confidence of Americans in feeling “at home.””  Biden did neither and his support among the people for those failures declined and declined.

The nihilism which is critical race theory took a big hit in the last month of lunar year 2023 – January 2024 – when Claudine Gay, president of Harvard University and career-focused on the promotion of racism as the lens Americans should use in arranging their domestic relationships, resigned after her consistent use of plagiarism to boost herself up the academic pecking order was exposed to the public.

Last February, I had predicted that: “In the U.S., it may bring the peaking and then the initial decline of “wokeness” in business, education and government.  Critical race theory will continue to lose its hold over the public’s mind.  Diversity, equity and inclusion programs for differential treatment of individuals will encounter growing resistance. … Americans will become more demanding that individual merit, intellectual rigor and blindness to skin color determine success in educational institutions.  Those who teach should be teachers, not babysitters.  Those who study should be students, not coddled wards of the state.”

And for Putin, I commented that: “The year will not be auspicious for Vladimir Putin as long as his “dwelling” is in disorder and fails to provide warm radiance across the community of Russians.  The hexagram indicates that reaching peace in Ukraine and providing a good “home” for its people will be well rewarded with achievement.”

I also predicted that: “In general, it will not be a year of success for hard-fisted, dictatorial rulers who ignore the moral needs and dignity of those they rule.”  An outsider won the presidency of Argentina and the army dictatorship of Myanmar grew weaker.

As for China, I said that: “2023 may be more auspicious for Xi Jinping if he focuses on the economy, the well-being of the Chinese and gives individuals more autonomy to be dutiful to one another.”  He did not and China’s economy stagnated, with warning signs of more trouble ahead appearing towards the end of the year.  Just now, stories are in the papers about younger Chinese going on a disrespectful and counterproductive “work-slowdown” to show their disenchantment with Xi Jinping Thought.  Chinese women are resisting regime calls to get pregnant and have babies.  Later in the year, Xi purged senior generals, his foreign minister and others.  None of this is a sign of “domestic tranquility.”

Lunar year 2024 begins at midnight on February 10.  Then, I will consult the Yi Jing as to what might lie ahead for us all during the next 12 months and report my predictions and observations to you.

Claudine Gay has resigned as president of Harvard University, my alma mater.

This resignation and the reasons for it carry implications for civilized living in our times.

What are the moral and ethical qualifications for greatness in college and university education?

I would say that for decades, the examples of Harvard and Oxford were models for our world community.  Everywhere, colleges and universities were funded and enhanced to measure up to Harvard and Oxford standards.

If Harvard falls victim to narrowmindedness and prejudice, then something unexpected and untoward has happened to all of us.

These past few days, when thinking of the president of Harvard succumbing to the temptations of plagiarism in her academic writings, I wondered where in the Caux Round Table articulation of ethical principles we might find a standard to apply to Harvard in these circumstances.

First, I considered the stakeholder theory driving the Caux Round Table Principles for Business.  Harvard University is a business.  It has capital assets.  It produces products to sell.  It has customers.  It markets its services and reputation.  It hires employees and seeks investments (donations).

But what guidance does stakeholder theory provide for the governing body of Harvard University, the members of the Harvard Corporation?

Who are the owners of the business that is Harvard University?  Only the members of the corporation?

Who are its customers – students or their parents?  Who has a stake in its products?  What are its products, by the way?  Just degrees for those who pay tuition?  Who should care about the impact of its graduates on the economy, culture, politics and economy of wherever they might live and work?  Why not society at large as a customer or a consumer of what Harvard puts out to the public?

But who supplies Harvard’s business enterprise with its necessary inputs?  Who is its supplier stakeholder?  Society.  Harvard needs students to work on them and so shape them as a refined product.  What does Harvard owe society, its supplier, in the work it does in shaping its graduates?

In this business model, suppliers of students – mostly parents – pay the company to take in what it needs to succeed in the market.  The price paid by parents varies from student to student depending on scholarships provided by Harvard.

What are the externalities – positive and negative – of what Harvard produces?  What about its influence on the production of symbolic goods, such as thoughts and values?

Does civilization have a stake in what Harvard does or does not accomplish?

I would argue that Harvard has many stakeholders and must be responsible for affirmatively and constructively responding to their interests and aspirations, a tough balancing act to be sure.

Harvard’s stakeholder responsibilities demand seeking equilibrium among values and interests, not giving in to satisfy narrow rent-seeking by any one or two particular stakeholder constituencies.

In the Caux Round Table Principles for Government, we propose that those who hold power in service to society – such as universities – hold a public office and so shoulder public trust responsibilities.  This demands putting to one side personal prerogatives and intolerances in order to open-mindedly serve those who will benefit from a fair and just exercise of power.  The burden of disclosing self-seeking rests with the self-seeker holding such an office.

Further, our principles for government demand full and robust discourse as the process supporting decision-making.  Censorship and cancel culture have no place in discourse, which seeks to expose the truth without giving in to fear or seeking favor from the high, the mighty and the rich.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that “If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

In Harvard’s case, these norms of meeting trust responsibilities and seeking truth should have long since supplanted racist prejudices and discriminations in admissions, curricula and teaching and in promotion of employees like Claudine Gay.

In a similar vein, our ethical principles for civil society institutions (CSI) hold that:

Fundamental Principle

Integrity

The actions of a CSI – whether small or large, local or global – will be consistent with its core service aspirations.  Its leadership and staff will not use their positions for personal advantage of any kind, including inappropriate, personal financial gain.  Fidelity to their trust and due care in the execution of their mission are the hallmarks of responsible CSIs.

Derived Principles

Public Benefit

A CSI will recognize that it and all its actions and endeavors reflect the interests and values of the people who fund, organize, operate or in any way support the organization, as well as the social, cultural, political, economic and environmental interests that such people seek to serve.  A CSI serves privately selected, but publicly acknowledged goals and objectives of common benefit and idealistic inspiration.  A CSI should promote a wider cause than its own continuity by seeking to achieve that which has wide social, cultural, community, environmental or historic benefit or otherwise contributes to social or natural capital.  In doing so, it must be aware of how its actions affect the peoples, communities and natural resources it seeks to promote or preserve, as well as the quality of life for society as a whole.

To sustain its status as providing quasi-public benefits, a CSI will always be open for dialogue and good faith engagement with objectivity, research and a diversity of moral and ethical points of view.

Care

A CSI will recognize that its policies and activities are a legitimate subject of public comment and analysis.  It is, therefore, willing to engage in reasoned discourse regarding its mission and objectives, values, principles, governance, actions and means used to achieve its objectives. When engaging in advocacy, a CSI will always, in good faith, present accurate facts and truthful information.  When planning its actions or executing its policies, a CSI will demonstrate enlightened care and concern for those whose interests will be affected by its contemplated actions.  In case a CSI inflicts damage upon a government, international organization, corporation or other party, it will be accountable for its actions.

On a personal note, I am both saddened by the failure of Harvard in recent years to allow its corporate culture and practices to deteriorate as they have and relieved that a crisis has occurred to bring this decline in institutional virtue to public attention.

When I was an undergraduate, the college, to me, was open, inclusive, intellectually vibrant, with your mind so often being challenged and growing every day by those you would meet willy-nilly.  My class had members from many ethnic and national backgrounds, each of whom we credibly assumed was personally up to the challenge of working hard to gain knowledge.

We never worried about saying only what others expected us to say about politics, culture, entertainment or the social need to self-censor.  If we spoke or acted without grace, compassion or intelligence, we could be challenged, but would very rarely be demeaned or ostracized.  We learned through discourse and the ups and downs of friendships.

Now, Harvard gives undergraduates an average grade of 3.8.  Back then, getting a 2 was satisfactory and the norm for many of my classmates while getting a 4 (A) – really, really, hard to do.  It’s a different place now, not one that I respect; all for show, no grit.

To be frank, I have been skeptical of the ESG movement and ESG investment funds.  I saw ESG metrics to measure company performance to be vague, vapid and superficial.  I could not find specifics on what was “social” and how to measure “governance.”

For example, would “social” include a balance sheet asset for the “social capital” provided by the company’s culture and employees or for “human capital” the value-adding capacity of its employees?  Or would “social” include a company’s contribution to the remediation of income inequality in a given community or country?  Or the size of its charitable contributions to educational institutions or churches?

It was notable to me that the ESG movement did not seek to learn from the Net Impact’s approach being developed in The Netherlands by ABN AMRO and others.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that in the U.S., the fund management community is quietly closing ESG funds or changing their names.

During the last quarter, more sustainability funds either were liquidated or removed ESG criteria from their investment decisions than were added to the sustainability category of funds.

Investors put money into sustainability funds starting in 2019. Such investments collapsed in 2022.  So far this year investors have withdrawn $14 billion from sustainability funds.

Once again, in open markets, demand trumps supply.  The driver of business success, of capitalism, is consumption – what people want to pay for.  Goods and services that no one wants to buy will not, in fairly short order, be produced.

Goods and services that fulfill wishing and hoping are for charity or government subsidies.

Wishing, good intentions, pious hopes and idealism don’t create wealth, as Adam Smith so concisely noted.  Reality can and does.

The returns on sustainability funds were unimpressive, especially as interest rates rose.  And the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted rules to restrict mere virtue signaling (or greenwashing) in the use of fund names.

According to ChatGPT, moral capitalism is alive and well!

As colleagues have been consulting ChatGPT and sending me its thoughts, I wondered if moral capitalism might have standing in its universe of words.  I asked ChatGPT “What is moral capitalism?” and was pleasantly surprised at the almost immediate response, which is here:

“Moral capitalism” refers to an approach to economic and business activities that seeks to integrate ethical considerations and moral values into the capitalist system.  Capitalism, as an economic system, is primarily characterized by private ownership of the means of production, market-driven competition and the pursuit of profit.

Moral capitalism emphasizes the importance of aligning economic activities with ethical principles and social responsibility.  Proponents argue that businesses should not only be concerned with maximizing profits, but also with promoting social and environmental well-being. This approach encourages businesses to consider the broader impact of their operations on society, workers, customers and the environment.

Key elements of moral capitalism may include:

1. Social Responsibility: Moral capitalism promotes the idea that businesses have a responsibility to contribute positively to society.  This may involve actions such as philanthropy, community engagement and ethical labor practices.

2. Ethical Business Practices: Companies operating within a moral capitalist framework are expected to adhere to high ethical standards.  This includes honesty in advertising, fair treatment of employees and transparency in financial dealings.

3. Environmental Sustainability: Consideration for environmental impact is a significant aspect of moral capitalism.  Businesses are encouraged to adopt environmentally sustainable practices to minimize their ecological footprint.

4. Stakeholder Value: Instead of solely focusing on shareholder value, moral capitalism emphasizes the importance of considering the interests of various stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers and the local community.

5. Fair Trade: Moral capitalism may advocate for fair trade practices, ensuring that workers receive fair wages and work in safe conditions, especially in industries with a history of labor exploitation.

While the concept of moral capitalism has gained attention and support from various quarters, there are debates about the extent to which it is achievable within the existing capitalist framework.  Critics argue that the pursuit of profit may inherently conflict with certain moral goals and systemic changes may be necessary to fully integrate moral considerations into the economic system.

I was reading a learned presentation of rabbinical Jewish thought on the Noahide laws, seven righteous principles which are implicit in Yahweh’s covenant with Noah that applies to all humanity.  The author made reference to a famous 1918 essay of German sociologist Max Weber on “Politics as a Vocation.”

Weber wrote at the beginning of the Weimar Republic, which came into power after Germany’s defeat in World War I and the collapse of the German Empire.  Weber was not optimistic about Germany’s future:

“Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph.”

Sounds like our times.

I was then triggered to think about what is needed to activate moral capitalism, day by day, firm by firm, decision by decision.  Could it be some charisma, rising up within us each, so that we bring forth leadership in our time?

In criticism of “politicians” that applies in the U.S. today to both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Weber insisted that:

“… daily and hourly, the politician inwardly has to overcome a quite trivial and all-to-human enemy: a quite vulgar vanity, the deadly enemy of all matter-of-fact devotion to a cause and of all distance, in this case, of distance towards one’s self.”

Weber concludes with a demand for responsibility in the face of crisis and despair:

“Certainly, all historical experience confirms the truth that – man would not have attained the possible unless, time and again, he had reached out for the impossible.  But to do that, a man must be a leader and not only a leader, but a hero, as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders, nor heroes, must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart, which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes.  This is necessary right now or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today.  Only [those have] the calling for politics who [are] sure that [they] shall not crumble when the world from [their] point of view is too stupid or too base for that they want to offer.”

The charisma necessary for such leadership and such heroism is found in the ethics of responsibility, when one concludes that, “Here I stand.  I can do no other.”