4 ms·

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 apparen

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.
  - voidhorse 6y ago
    You’re doubtless right about that, and it’s the same defeatist principle that’s let capitalism survive as it long as it has (aside from the natural fact that it concentrates power in such away that those that wield it are incentivized in keeping the structure in place). Any empiricist can’t ignore the brash inequality of modern day late capitalism—thinking that, in spite of the many negative effects of this inequality, that it is simply “the best we can do” is in my mind a fallacy of affirming the present as the only possibility comparing it to failed regimes is also disingenuous in my opinion and a limited view of alternatives—we have novel ideas in play today, e.g UBi—the situation is not “capitalism or soviet era communism” as many capitalist apologists would have you believe.
    - lend000 6y ago
      I suspect if you proposed a superior alternative instead of just decrying capitalism (which to me seems no different than saying 'cancer sucks!' and then leaving it at that), you might get more traction.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Except they never offer much evidence to support this statement. "Capitalism exists therefore it is efficient". While one can point to the proposed historical alternatives, it's not an automatically conclusive argument that "not-capitalism" was the problem in say, Soviet Russia as opposed to the fact that the government was defacto a brutal authoritarian dictatorship (i.e. not democratic) that was also incredibly corrupt (I mean, corruption is essentially pure capitalism in action - monopolize a resource and charge what the market will bear for access). It's a very specific American thinktank led strain of thought that declares America's success is "capitalism" and not robust and responsive democratic institutions which aggressively try and prevent corruption.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’m responding to the article, which called capitalism: > A system devised to nullify human passions by keeping us focused, instead, on our interests. That is the article’s argument, not mine. I am not sure why you are responding as if that is a position I personally hold and am willing to defend. If you think I represented the article’s point poorly, say that instead.
  - voidhorse 6y ago
    You’re right—I called you out far too quickly, I’ve edited the original comment to point this out . My apologies—that wasn’t a fair response to your comment.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ughitsaaron 6y ago
> capitalism was created so that passions wouldn’t result in autocratic regimes “Capitalism was created” by whom? What about exceptions, such as Chile under Allende?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You’re the second person who has confused my paraphrasing of the article’s arguments as my own. I’m not sure who created capitalism because that is not my own argument. I am in fact arguing against the article’s core premise, albeit from a different angle. Edit, here’s the key sentence from the article about capitalism, since I’m being downvoted: > A system devised to nullify human passions by keeping us focused, instead, on our interests. Systems are “devised” on purpose. You can disagree that capitalism was “devised”, just understand that you’re arguing against the article, not me.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

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.
- voidhorse 6y ago
  You’re doubtless right about that, and it’s the same defeatist principle that’s let capitalism survive as it long as it has (aside from the natural fact that it concentrates power in such away that those that wield it are incentivized in keeping the structure in place). Any empiricist can’t ignore the brash inequality of modern day late capitalism—thinking that, in spite of the many negative effects of this inequality, that it is simply “the best we can do” is in my mind a fallacy of affirming the present as the only possibility comparing it to failed regimes is also disingenuous in my opinion and a limited view of alternatives—we have novel ideas in play today, e.g UBi—the situation is not “capitalism or soviet era communism” as many capitalist apologists would have you believe.
  - lend000 6y ago
    I suspect if you proposed a superior alternative instead of just decrying capitalism (which to me seems no different than saying 'cancer sucks!' and then leaving it at that), you might get more traction.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Except they never offer much evidence to support this statement. "Capitalism exists therefore it is efficient". While one can point to the proposed historical alternatives, it's not an automatically conclusive argument that "not-capitalism" was the problem in say, Soviet Russia as opposed to the fact that the government was defacto a brutal authoritarian dictatorship (i.e. not democratic) that was also incredibly corrupt (I mean, corruption is essentially pure capitalism in action - monopolize a resource and charge what the market will bear for access). It's a very specific American thinktank led strain of thought that declares America's success is "capitalism" and not robust and responsive democratic institutions which aggressively try and prevent corruption.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’m responding to the article, which called capitalism: > A system devised to nullify human passions by keeping us focused, instead, on our interests. That is the article’s argument, not mine. I am not sure why you are responding as if that is a position I personally hold and am willing to defend. If you think I represented the article’s point poorly, say that instead.
- voidhorse 6y ago
  You’re right—I called you out far too quickly, I’ve edited the original comment to point this out . My apologies—that wasn’t a fair response to your comment.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ughitsaaron 6y ago

> capitalism was created so that passions wouldn’t result in autocratic regimes “Capitalism was created” by whom? What about exceptions, such as Chile under Allende?

ashtonkem 6y ago
You’re the second person who has confused my paraphrasing of the article’s arguments as my own. I’m not sure who created capitalism because that is not my own argument. I am in fact arguing against the article’s core premise, albeit from a different angle. Edit, here’s the key sentence from the article about capitalism, since I’m being downvoted: > A system devised to nullify human passions by keeping us focused, instead, on our interests. Systems are “devised” on purpose. You can disagree that capitalism was “devised”, just understand that you’re arguing against the article, not me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]