17 ms·

Capitalism Cancels the Passions

33 points by ojarow 6y ago

nickff 6y ago
I would phrase it a little differently: capitalism cancels vanity. Up until the 16th-18th centuries (in Europe), the best way to get rich was to use force to loot/steal from others. Capitalism was the result of a set of institutions which allowed for more widespread trade, and profit from innovation.[1] These institutions took money from the rich who used their wealth for vanity projects (the passions this author desires), and gave it to the innovative problem solvers and inventors. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7863046-the-most-powerful-idea-in-the-world https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7863046-the-most-powerfu...
- p1necone 6y ago
  I don't think the article is actually advocating a return to feudal monarchy.
  - minimuffins 6y ago
    Hacker News Capitalism Defense Force is really circling the wagons and downvoting totally reasonable comments on this post.
    - fogetti 6y ago
      Now the submission is even flagged. This reminds me of fascism TBH
- OpossumMinister 6y ago
  That's not phrasing it differently, that's changing the whole meaning of the article and it's title.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Yes, I intended it as a modest proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
anm89 6y ago
I'm definitely envious of all of the time the people who were dying of starvation on forced labor farms under Mao or Stalin had to pursue their passions.
- nickff 6y ago
  The author is envious of the landed gentry, able to profit (through the use of force), and pursue a series of vanity projects (or passions).
  - minimuffins 6y ago
    Some smart writers have spilled a lot of ink over the years about the use of force in capitalist productive relations. Pre-modern high art is "vanity projects." Is that your real take?
- lefrenchy 6y ago
  Ah yes because any alternative to the current capitalist model, which erodes leisure and meaningful passions for many people, is by default a maoist or stalinist regime. Totally not a strawman, good one!
ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s extremely hard to square the basic premise of this article: capitalism was created so that passions wouldn’t result in autocratic regimes, with the apparent retreat of liberal democracy across the western world. It’s also hard to square this hypothesis with the re-entrenchment of authoritarianism in countries recently exposed to capitalism, such as China & Russia.
- nickff 6y ago
  China being a particularly interesting example, as Mao did not permit many passions (aside from Communism).
- voidhorse 6y ago
  Edit: note that this point is unfair to the original comment it’s responding to, which was repeating the argument of the article—the point should stand against the article, not the parent. Eh be careful of talking about capitalism in terms of it being “created” it perpetuates one of the old lies of capitalism: that it is an inherently rational system (in your formulation, a designed one). Capitalism grew organically out of evolving practices around markets and trade and redoubled and reinvigorated itself through works of economic theorists like Smith, who argued it was “rational” because of certain of its properties. However it is important we get away from this notion of capitalism being somehow a “rational” thing since it has bred profound economic irrationality through the inequitable distribution of resources, leading to irrationality in other spheres as everything is reduced to abstract exchanges (see climate change) Edit: This criticism also applies to the OP article, which also falls under the spell of representing capitalism as some sort of intentioned system.
  - dahauns 6y ago
    Ah, ah, but this is rational irrationality we're talking about. I wish I'd made that up.
  - lend000 6y ago
    I think your point that most pro "capitalism" folks will take issue with is that while there has never been a system in which all resources are perfectly allocated, it is believed that the information in prices set by a free market can do a much better job of allocating resources in the long run than any other known system, (including communism, socialism, or an autocracy). So sure, free markets are emergent properties of human activity, and therefore are influenced by human traits such as greed and fear, resulting in bubbles and crashes in the stock market. But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward.
jpster 6y ago
According to this article, some people believed that self-interest = capitalism and capitalism = safety. Very interesting.
john_moscow 6y ago
I think the article brings attention to a very important aspect of Capitalism, but I cannot agree with the author's conclusions. Capitalism doesn't cancel passions. On the contrary, it directs them into a constructive direction. And other people willing to pay money is a very strong indicator that your passion is net positive. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about making craft beer. Or artisan bread. Or niche software. This is how most modern companies were founded. This is how the Western society was built. You break the feedback loop and people start being passionate about tribal feelings. How to take from someone else, rather than create your own. How to make the alleged oppressor's life worse, rather than your customers' lives better. I think, if we wanted to preserve a civilized society where happiness prevails over suffering, we should find a way to restore the old school pre-corporation Capitalism, rather than focusing on destroying it completely.
9214 6y ago
The title instantly reminded me of "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" authored by Deleuze & Guattari. A very interesting text on micropolitics of desire.
relevantquotes 6y ago
"I can't resist making a point about "capitalism" and "socialism." Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not. Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I've become convinced that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety. "Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third.[12] But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings. "Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term. "Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business. "And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism" — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same. "And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure."
karlakush 6y ago
The author seems to have his own special definition for the words passion and interest yet he never explains what the difference is nor gives examples what constitutes each. When the author talks about "destructive passions" I assume he's talking about things like drinking, fighting, gambling, and cheating on your spouse, but I don't know how he thinks capitalism curbs any of those vices nor how he thinks those vices lead to fascism. The idea that capitalism was "devised" to rob us of our free time so that we can't partake in destructive actions is one that needs a lot more evidence to back it up. Overall, it's puzzling that this was posted here. It's a terrible essay.
coldtea 6y ago
>“The passions were wild and dangerous, whereas looking after one’s material interests was innocent or, as one would say today, innocuous.” Oh, the irony...
fogetti 6y ago
Why is this flagged???? I argued with many people on this site that people here are indocteinated... But really? People can't even stand reading something which is well argued and contradicts their belief?
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  And I'm not even sure it strongly contradicts the (largely) Libertarian beliefs here on HN. For example, it appeals to economics over morality: "Forget Morality, Contemporary Capitalism Is Bad Economics"
ojarow 6y ago
As the author of linked article, I'll add 3 things to this mix: 1) For those criticizing the article for claiming capitalism is the result of intentional design, that it was "devised" rather than emerged organically from historically contingent forces, they're absolutely right. It was just sloppy writing on my part to suggest capitalism is anything other than an emergent phenomenon from a complex stew of factors. That's not my claim, just my sloppy representation of Albert Hirschman's thesis (who doesn't claim that either). 2) But that capitalism was seen as a system that would nullify our passions by diverting attention to our interests, is not my claim, but Hirschman's. If you want to critique that, I highly recommend Hirschman's "The Passions and the Interests." 3) Why was this submission flagged? Is there such thing as the Hacker News Capitalism Defense Force, and might they actually have flagged this for its critical undertones, or did I violate some other rule?
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  I guess I'm having trouble separating "passions" from "interests" but it seems that there are earlier definitions of these words with somewhat different meanings than they way they're commonly used in the modern context. Interesting article. We do need to explore what comes after neo-liberalism as we're going to need something to replace it soon. You refer to an article on mutualism - it sounds like it has some similarity to distributism.

33 points by ojarow 6y ago

I would phrase it a little differently: capitalism cancels vanity. Up until the 16th-18th centuries (in Europe), the best way to get rich was to use force to loot/steal from others. Capitalism was the result of a set of institutions which allowed for more widespread trade, and profit from innovation.[1] These institutions took money from the rich who used their wealth for vanity projects (the passions this author desires), and gave it to the innovative problem solvers and inventors. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7863046-the-most-powerful-idea-in-the-world https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7863046-the-most-powerfu...

p1necone 6y ago
I don't think the article is actually advocating a return to feudal monarchy.
- minimuffins 6y ago
  Hacker News Capitalism Defense Force is really circling the wagons and downvoting totally reasonable comments on this post.
  - fogetti 6y ago
    Now the submission is even flagged. This reminds me of fascism TBH
OpossumMinister 6y ago
That's not phrasing it differently, that's changing the whole meaning of the article and it's title.
- nickff 6y ago
  Yes, I intended it as a modest proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

anm89 6y ago

I'm definitely envious of all of the time the people who were dying of starvation on forced labor farms under Mao or Stalin had to pursue their passions.

nickff 6y ago
The author is envious of the landed gentry, able to profit (through the use of force), and pursue a series of vanity projects (or passions).
- minimuffins 6y ago
  Some smart writers have spilled a lot of ink over the years about the use of force in capitalist productive relations. Pre-modern high art is "vanity projects." Is that your real take?
lefrenchy 6y ago
Ah yes because any alternative to the current capitalist model, which erodes leisure and meaningful passions for many people, is by default a maoist or stalinist regime. Totally not a strawman, good one!

ashtonkem 6y ago

It’s extremely hard to square the basic premise of this article: capitalism was created so that passions wouldn’t result in autocratic regimes, with the apparent retreat of liberal democracy across the western world. It’s also hard to square this hypothesis with the re-entrenchment of authoritarianism in countries recently exposed to capitalism, such as China & Russia.

nickff 6y ago
China being a particularly interesting example, as Mao did not permit many passions (aside from Communism).
voidhorse 6y ago
Edit: note that this point is unfair to the original comment it’s responding to, which was repeating the argument of the article—the point should stand against the article, not the parent. Eh be careful of talking about capitalism in terms of it being “created” it perpetuates one of the old lies of capitalism: that it is an inherently rational system (in your formulation, a designed one). Capitalism grew organically out of evolving practices around markets and trade and redoubled and reinvigorated itself through works of economic theorists like Smith, who argued it was “rational” because of certain of its properties. However it is important we get away from this notion of capitalism being somehow a “rational” thing since it has bred profound economic irrationality through the inequitable distribution of resources, leading to irrationality in other spheres as everything is reduced to abstract exchanges (see climate change) Edit: This criticism also applies to the OP article, which also falls under the spell of representing capitalism as some sort of intentioned system.
- dahauns 6y ago
  Ah, ah, but this is rational irrationality we're talking about. I wish I'd made that up.
- lend000 6y ago
  I think your point that most pro "capitalism" folks will take issue with is that while there has never been a system in which all resources are perfectly allocated, it is believed that the information in prices set by a free market can do a much better job of allocating resources in the long run than any other known system, (including communism, socialism, or an autocracy). So sure, free markets are emergent properties of human activity, and therefore are influenced by human traits such as greed and fear, resulting in bubbles and crashes in the stock market. But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward.

jpster 6y ago

According to this article, some people believed that self-interest = capitalism and capitalism = safety. Very interesting.

john_moscow 6y ago

I think the article brings attention to a very important aspect of Capitalism, but I cannot agree with the author's conclusions. Capitalism doesn't cancel passions. On the contrary, it directs them into a constructive direction. And other people willing to pay money is a very strong indicator that your passion is net positive. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about making craft beer. Or artisan bread. Or niche software. This is how most modern companies were founded. This is how the Western society was built. You break the feedback loop and people start being passionate about tribal feelings. How to take from someone else, rather than create your own. How to make the alleged oppressor's life worse, rather than your customers' lives better. I think, if we wanted to preserve a civilized society where happiness prevails over suffering, we should find a way to restore the old school pre-corporation Capitalism, rather than focusing on destroying it completely.

9214 6y ago

The title instantly reminded me of "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" authored by Deleuze & Guattari. A very interesting text on micropolitics of desire.

relevantquotes 6y ago

"I can't resist making a point about "capitalism" and "socialism." Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not. Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I've become convinced that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety. "Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third.[12] But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings. "Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term. "Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business. "And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism" — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same. "And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure."

karlakush 6y ago

The author seems to have his own special definition for the words passion and interest yet he never explains what the difference is nor gives examples what constitutes each. When the author talks about "destructive passions" I assume he's talking about things like drinking, fighting, gambling, and cheating on your spouse, but I don't know how he thinks capitalism curbs any of those vices nor how he thinks those vices lead to fascism. The idea that capitalism was "devised" to rob us of our free time so that we can't partake in destructive actions is one that needs a lot more evidence to back it up. Overall, it's puzzling that this was posted here. It's a terrible essay.

coldtea 6y ago

>“The passions were wild and dangerous, whereas looking after one’s material interests was innocent or, as one would say today, innocuous.” Oh, the irony...

fogetti 6y ago

Why is this flagged???? I argued with many people on this site that people here are indocteinated... But really? People can't even stand reading something which is well argued and contradicts their belief?

UncleOxidant 6y ago
And I'm not even sure it strongly contradicts the (largely) Libertarian beliefs here on HN. For example, it appeals to economics over morality: "Forget Morality, Contemporary Capitalism Is Bad Economics"

ojarow 6y ago

As the author of linked article, I'll add 3 things to this mix: 1) For those criticizing the article for claiming capitalism is the result of intentional design, that it was "devised" rather than emerged organically from historically contingent forces, they're absolutely right. It was just sloppy writing on my part to suggest capitalism is anything other than an emergent phenomenon from a complex stew of factors. That's not my claim, just my sloppy representation of Albert Hirschman's thesis (who doesn't claim that either). 2) But that capitalism was seen as a system that would nullify our passions by diverting attention to our interests, is not my claim, but Hirschman's. If you want to critique that, I highly recommend Hirschman's "The Passions and the Interests." 3) Why was this submission flagged? Is there such thing as the Hacker News Capitalism Defense Force, and might they actually have flagged this for its critical undertones, or did I violate some other rule?

UncleOxidant 6y ago
I guess I'm having trouble separating "passions" from "interests" but it seems that there are earlier definitions of these words with somewhat different meanings than they way they're commonly used in the modern context. Interesting article. We do need to explore what comes after neo-liberalism as we're going to need something to replace it soon. You refer to an article on mutualism - it sounds like it has some similarity to distributism.