Megacapitalism: an Alternate Theory of the State

 

What is the purpose of the state?  What is the purpose of government?

Philosophers and political scientists have attempted to answer these questions in various ways.  Some say that its purpose is safety, or the securing of individual rights.  Still others say that government exists to represent and enact the consent and desires of the governed.  Or that its purpose is the common good of the people, which itself may be variously defined: as the "greatest good for the greatest number," as Utilitarians say, or at least the least suffering, and so on.  Some understand government in the framework of a social contract, for the mutual benefit of the governed.  The Aristotelian tradition provides a quite different answer: that humans are an organic part of their (city-)state, which exists to promote virtue and excellence.  The Constitution of the United States provides a list of potential purposes of government: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

But let us consider a different conception of the purpose and goal of government: that is, that the purpose of the state is to create and maintain a large - preferably, the largest - capitalist investment firm.  I call this the ideology of megacapitalism.

I am not saying that I endorse this view.  In fact, let me be clear: I do not.  But it is worth being taken seriously. 

In a megacapitalist system, it is not necessary that the government has an absolute monopoly - that is to say, it is not necessary that a megacapitalist state is the only capitalist enterprise.  There may be other corporations, including other investment firms.  But of these, the government will strive to be the largest.

In any capitalist system, there are bound to be larger and smaller firms.  Almost by definition, there will be a firm that is the largest.  We can call this largest investment firm the state.  Or, more precisely, we can say that the largest investment firm and the state overlap - one may partially include the other, but they need not be identical.  Indeed, there may be a quite complex system of "public/private partnerships".

And just because the state strives to be the largest investment firm does not necessarily imply that it will always succeed.  There may be quite stiff competition from other corporations in some areas.

We can categorize megacapitalism in a more refined way: there could be various kinds of private megacapitalism - absolute monarchy might be one example.  There could also be democratic megacapitalism.  In democratic megacapitalism, the people have some ability of oversight over the largest investment firm, even if they cannot directly control the other firms in the market.

It's not hard to see why people would want some control over the largest investment firm. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Sam Harris is Wrong About Free Will

Image
  "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" What does it mean to have "solved" a philosophical problem?  This is, in itself, a philosophical problem.  I don't feel comfortable saying I've solved any philosophical problems, but what if I propose a notion of having "minimally solved" a problem - that is, not necessary coming up with the right answer, let alone an answer that will end the debate for everyone, but coming up with the general shape or framework (perhaps missing some important specifics) of an answer that satisfies me , at least to the point where the problem doesn't endlessly torture me and keep me up at night?  If, by "solved," we mean "minimally solved," then I think I have solved the problem that is usually called the debate between "free will" and "determinism".  Not that my answer is particularly original.  Actually, not I, but modern neuroscience solved this puzzle.  And all I mean is tha...
Read more

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Image
  CURTIS YARVIN IS A POSTMODERNIST  "They Hate Us For Our Freedom"   Since 2007, there has been a tiny, marginal movement on the internet, or several overlapping movements, started by a person named Curtis Yarvin, better known by his assumed name, "Mencius Moldbug."  (I'll use that name; it's less obscure.)  Spreading out from Silicon Valley, where it first became trendy, the movement(s) have been known by various names.  Moldbug originally called his political philosophy "formalism" - at that time, he was advocating for the government being run in the style of a corporation - especially a Silicon Valley startup - with a powerful CEO.  But that never caught on, and he abandoned it in favor of "neo-cameralism."  But this turned out not to capture anyone's imagination either, and so other names appeared: the Dark Enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and most famous of all, the "NeoReactionary movement" - NRx for short.  Are all thes...
Read more

The First Thing Marxists Must Learn

I've made the point many times that the problem with Marxism is that it isn't scientific enough. How can we make Marxism more scientific?  This is a huge project, and there are many directions to pursue in the process of attaining this extremely difficult goal.  But there is one aspect of the problem that absolutely must come first: The first thing that Marxists must learn, if they are going to get anywhere at all, is this: Marxists must learn to live with other Marxists. Emo Philips joke:  'Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”  He said, “But nobody loves me.”  I said, “God loves you.  Do you believe in God?”  He said, “Yes.”  I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”  He said, “A Christian.”  I said, “Me, too!  Protestant or Catholic?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me, too!  What denomination?”  He said, “Baptist.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern Baptist or Southern...
Read more