I am neither in favor of, nor opposed to capitalism.

 

 

I don't see myself as in favor of capitalism, or opposed to capitalism.  I have a very realistic view of capitalism. I aspire to have a scientific understanding of capitalism.  

Many people today seem to have metaphysical or supernatural beliefs about capitalism, about which I am increasingly skeptical. 

My realistic perspective on capitalism leads me to 3 major observations about it:

1. Capitalism has powered the development of institutions that have made human life the most prosperous, healthy, safe, and free it has ever been.

2. Nonetheless, of course, any reasonable person must admit that capitalism has issues.  Nothing is perfect, and capitalism is no exception.  It is not omnipotent, or omnibenevolent.  (And despite what Austrian economists may say about "calculation," capitalism is not omniscient, either.)  It has its problems, like everything else.  And it has its unintended consequences.  Among them are, most obviously, extreme economic inequality.  Now, I don't think everyone should be or even could be equal.  But the level of disparity between the tiny few who own almost everything and everyone else is so mind-bogglingly huge that I don't think anyone - including the super-rich themselves - can really conceive of it.  It's like trying to think of every part of the Great Wall of China at once.  I'm not sure the human brain could do it.  And of course another obvious and terrifying unintended consequence of capitalism is the environmental devastation.

3. The third, and most important observation is that capitalism will not last forever.  Nothing lasts forever - especially when it comes to human institutions.  All are mortal.  To suppose that capitalism will last forever is as silly as supposing that you yourself will never die.  And what is causing the end of capitalism?  No action of any government, or any political party, or movement, but only capitalism itself could bring about its end.  Capitalism is ending, whether we like it or not, and so we'd better start planning for the collapse.  The question is not if capitalism will end, but when, and how.  Further questions include what will come after capitalism and how we should prepare for it.  The answers to these questions are, in my opinion, not absolutely predetermined.  Things could play out a variety of different ways, and it depends to a great degree, upon our actions now.

Do I think we should accelerate the end of capitalism?  Not at all.  The upshot of all of this is that I think we should try to maintain capitalism for as long as possible, and make the transition as gradual and gentle as we can, for a gradual phasing out seems better in a thousand ways than a sudden calamity.  We should be starting now to build institutions strong enough to withstand this transition.  But I fear that however hard we try, we will not be maintain it for very long or make the transition all that gentle.  The longer we wait, this looming catastrophe becomes more and more probable, and more and more devastating.

In any case, the attitude to adopt is neither delusional liberal passivity nor romanticizing utopian violence, but rather clear-eyed realism and pragmatic planning in preparation for capitalism's inevitable collapse.  Do not ascribe metaphysical, supernatural powers to capitalism - as some right wingers do in a positive sense and some leftists do in a negative sense.  (The Austrian school of economics, among others, puts capitalism in the place of God.  They are convinced that capitalism makes people virtuous.)

So, no, I am neither in favor nor opposed to capitalism.  As I have remarked before, my attitude towards capitalism is one of benevolent irreverence. 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... ) ...
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

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