Anybody who finds it important to act authentically in his chosen area of life must want to see clearly from all possible aspects, from a vantage point that is above his chosen domain.
Obviously many people choose to be active in the business world; active to such a degree that they dedicate their life to business and to goals that are defined in the context of business, to goals that often gain their legitimacy exclusively from business. In fact, some even gain their gender identity from business conditions, for example by feeling more of a man when being in a higher position and making more money and less of a man in the opposite case.
Considering this, it should be curious that most people don’t challenge business and its fundamentals on any level.
Many complain about working conditions, like the chairs not being ergonomic, or that the company doesn’t have a bring your own gadget policy, or that they don’t allow sports cars in their car policy, or the number of vacation days they allow is too low and similar; obviously such complains don’t qualify for anything.
There is another level where the critique is “social” in nature; the most obvious examples are the so called inclusion issues that aim at increasing the % of gender, racial or other minorities in management roles. Such critiques come both from inside and from outside of business.
Then there are critiques that are directed towards the irresponsible ways business acts, including the ever popular corporate social responsibility issue. These initiatives, at least seemingly, were launched by activists outside of the business domain. Employees acknowledge such critiques and handle the question pragmatically: they manage them as profitably as possible or with as little loss as possible. They have an arsenal of tools to do so.
Now we’d like to have a closer look at the political aspect of business, which is rarely raised as an issue; most people simply assume that business is an apolitical domain. Nothing is farther from the truth.
Those who have thought about the political nature of business at least to some degree, tend to associate to conservatism, probably because they still remember the role trade unions played representing the workers against(!) the business owners. Clear cut situation: trade unions are left wing, owners must be right wing in their political orientation.
This view completely disregards the deeper lying weltanschauung that connects the two: materialism. The difference between capitalism and communism, both of which manifest fully materialistic tendencies, is simply the distribution of wealth and the efficiency of production and services and even these differences are only quantitative in nature. Also, in both systems those in the bottom of the social hierarchy have less than those at the top, and having is the central orientation; and in both cases those at the top are very successful defending their positions from the majority. But there is more.
From the Traditional point of view no ideology that is based on materialism may be considered right wing. From this perspective materialism, an ism that lacks principles, may only produce irrationality in a sub-rational sense: ideals, movements, sentiments, practices, a code of conduct, style; anything it produces is irrational.
Examples of such sub-rational (sub-) ideologies: evolutionism, progressivism, quantitative values (more is better, unlimited growth, equality, the majority rules, etc.), democratism, individualism.
Movements that emerged from materialism (from either side of the pseudo-poles of politics) all aim at eliminating qualitative differences between everything; not only between genders, which one would think is difficult to outdo, but even between people and machines; in this respect see the sub – human fantasies about sex and marriage between robots and humans for example. Ray Kurzweil, an engineering director at google who noticed and published the idea on his website didn’t miss a beat raising the question: are you robophobic?
Sub-rational style elements materialism has produced include reducing human interactions to transactions, standardizing interaction between the sexes and even between generations; we must consider the whole modern life style sub-rational including eating, drinking, sleeping, dancing, entertainment, work, sports, family life, the whole range of self-realization efforts: absolutely everything.
Business from this point of view represents extreme left wing tendencies. It never opposes these, just like today nothing opposes such tendencies, as it has become impossible to do so in real-politics. Business however now controls politics and itself actively drives extreme sub-rational ideologies, thus taking a clearly libertarian, left-wing position – again, not forgetting that in real-politics there is no polarization, voters always elect various aspects of the same platform. A recent example of business aggressively trying to pressure politics to comply with libertarian views are the North Carolina bathroom war.
Consistent representatives of the real right simply don’t identify with the function of business in general, not to mention particular areas like careers, various forms of investment themes and similar. They identify with other domains, including governance and religion where their impact is also limited thus what’s left for them is to provide educational and perhaps advisory, with the exception of some attempts at forming paramilitary groups for defending ideals above the domain of economics.
However, since at least as advisers and teachers they do manage to exert some influence surprisingly even in the political domain mostly to people with kshatriya (warrior, governor) predispositions, wouldn’t it make sense to launch initiatives in the domain of economics perhaps by introducing style elements of the vaishya caste?
Although the chances are minimal, this may trigger positive changes especially if these groups influenced by Traditional teachings started to actively cooperate.