- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
-
Not sure I have the background to respond to you other than in very simplistic terms. Yes Capitalism by its nature, in theory, affords people the freedom of gathering for themselves at the expense of others. No other political systems gives one as much freedom to do good and do bad. There is no perfect economic system be it capitalism, socialism, or communism. The theory of capitalism , at least as I understand it, is that private ownership allows the development of ideas, the fuel for growth, and without growth, by its nature capitalism will die. So there must be innovation which can be accomplished better with freedom to make both gains and losses at one’s own expense. The problem arises when it becomes totally free without governance because human nature kicks in and the more I get the more I want; the the more I got the more I need prevent others from getting what I got. (I love that sentence precisely because of its grammar)And that leaves others behind-further and further behind. Private ownership simply cannot be unfettered otherwise we reduce ourselves to selfish robots. And I think we’ve been headed that way too long. We seem to care less and less about those less fortunate. Perhaps someday this direction will reverse itself simply because we want it to. Maybe it won’t. I don’t know.
The thing is, as you know, capitalism is an economic system/theory, not a political system/theory. It can be matched with various political systems, but it isn’t one on its own. The best match, I think we’d all agree, is democracy, but I’d argue that the autocratic, anti-democratic nature of capitalism itself cancels out most of the benefits of that match, which is why I advocate for economic democracy as well as political.
Currently reading a really good book by Jonathan Israel, The Revolution of the Mind. He’s arguably the foremost historian of the Enlightenment, and his book focuses primarily on the split between the Radical and Moderate wings. Almost finished with the section that talks about laissez faire economic theorists, supported, with few exceptions, by the Moderates, and rejected, with even fewer exceptions, by the Radicals. That focus is primarily in the late 1700s, and even then, there was recognition of the illogic of just letting “providence” or “the markets” decide.
My take is that this would only have a snowball’s chance of working if we started off in a world of equality, already. But we obviously don’t. So any system that allows “freedom” of this kind just multiplies and expands the privileges and advantages already in place, which can’t help but widen the gaps.
Diderot, Baron D’Holbach, Hevetius and Thomas Paine are some of the major figures in the Radical camp, arguing for true democracy, an end to all privilege, rank, churchly powers, etc. etc. . . . with Hobbes, Hume, Voltaire and others in the Moderate camp, trying to hang on to some of those privileges.
Worth a read, W.
Anyway, IMO, capitalism is just incompatible with the kind of society you’re talking about. We’re bombarded 24/7 with messages of me me me, instant personal gratification, and endless scaremongering about how ghastly it would apparently be if we actually shared the planet with each other.
Again, I find the entire capitalist mindset to be a form of mass delusion and amnesia. It’s also killing the planet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
