“Categorizing Corruption in Capitalist system and evaluating prevention tactics”

For one of my blog posts I would like to comment on one of the ideas prompted by the last reading guide on Schweickart and Rosen. I would like to link what Schweickart says about technology and the hypermobility of capital to what Greenbaum says about technological developments increasing the mobility of capital. Sckweickart blames this hypermobility of capital on the fact that the majority of capital in a capitalist society belongs to private individuals. These individuals can choose to do what they want with this capital, investing it wherever they please or nowhere at all. Schweickart further states that advances in technology only enhance this hypermobility of capital. Therefore, Schweickart is addressing both sides of this situation of technology aiding the hypermobility of capital. On the one hand, technology is breaking tasks down into such simple assignments that it takes very little training to school an employee on the workings of the system. Therefore, this lack of value of the basic worker due to technology provides the privately owned capital an opportunity to easily cut all ties with their present situation to look for other attractive opportunities. Schweikart also approaches the idea of technologically aided hypermobility of capital in terms of technology making the transfer of money and investments incredibly easy to remote places of the world.
Greenbaum’s argument is very similar to Schweikart’s in the sense that he believes that “cutting the head from the hands” to lower the defenses of workers against managerial control strategies is a product of the advancement of technology. Greenbaum continues by saying, “To modern ears, Taylor’s principles of turning work into a series of cut-and-dried rationalized operations sound harsh and even unworkable. Yet the bulk of office tasks…follow procedures that take the form of Taylor’s recommendations. Indeed, today much of the work that has been outsourced on the basis of the work having first gone through the grinder of Taylor’s principles.”(p. 57)
Given the direct relation of technology and the hypermobility of capital, I think it is important to offer up possible solutions to this problem. I feel like the main problem that the whole world faces is the effect of the hypermobility of capital on third world countries. When I say this I mean the rapid improvement in third world countries that seems to abruptly stop once multinational corporations find places of cheaper labor. I think this can be improved by protectionism as Schweickart suggests. But also a third party organization could set standards for leaving the countries that the corporations are occupying such as a minimum amount of time of occupation. However, you can make the argument that this will only delay the inevitable rather than making the corporation plan for a long-term stay in a developing country. The problem could also be approached from the other side. A third party could set up temporary visas for a developing country’s entrepreneurs to come to a place like America to learn how to conduct the operations of a business. Therefore, if a company succeeds in a developing country, the chances of the company staying in its original country will be greater. Unfortunately, this route also requires a stable economic system and a government that is not only free from corruption but able to fund an investment like this which is highly unlikely in a developing country.