The New York Times Sunday business section carries a workplace advice column written by Roxanne Gay. Today's column includes this passage:
Marketing is one of those fields that is tightly bound with capitalism. I'm not sure there is an ethical, emotionally satisfying way forward that doesn't involve a big career change. In a capitalist world, we are constantly making ethical compromises while trying to maintain our integrity. Only you can decide what you're willing to compromise and for how long.
There's no mention by the Times that alternatives to capitalism, such as communism and socialism, are themselves unethical, in that they involve using the power of the state to seize property from owners who may have legitimately earned it and redistribute the property to others who did not earn it. The idea that capitalism is in tension with integrity is asserted by the Times columnist without any evidence, and without grappling with the counterarguments that capitalism actually enforces integrity by rewarding ethical operators with repeat business, emphasizing voluntary exchanges of value and long-term relationships rather than government force. The columnist also avoids considering what this means for the New York Times, which relies on marketing to sell subscriptions and is funded in part by advertisements, themselves marketing products and services. Maybe the Times columnist feels guilty for participating in all this and is inflicting the feelings on the readers?
