The Problem With Capitalism

                                                  

So capitalism, what is the problem with it? I mean really though? Well numerous things, but they all have their root in individualism. I mentioned this in a previous post, and I said I would explain more and “come for” neoliberals and capitalists. And that’s what I'm doing now. The reason that I discussed religion previously is that I view religion and capitalism to be the root of most world problems. But, of course, they have their root too. So whats wrong with individualism? Well, whats wrong with being a selfish ass hole, who doesn’t care about anyone's benefit but their own? Because that’s essentially what individualism is. It is a lifestyle philosophy based around living life only concerned with your own well-being, and relying on luck to take care of everything else. Now some astute readers my be thinking “aren’t you a psychological egoist”? And well yes I am. But I'm also a collectivist. Psychological egoism is about how we act, naturally and socially. Individualism is about ignoring the collective in-favor of the individual, and that is almost certainly not in any ones best interest.

Mutualism, I’ve mentioned it before. It is when beings work to benefit each-other. The way I see it is that every social interaction should be mutually beneficial, and if it’s not something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Capitalism destroys this, because of it’s individual focus. It’s superior or subordinate, not associate nor partner. Asking what can you do for me, or even what can I do for you, instead of what can we do for each-other. I would also like to note that in biological terms mutualism is countered by competition, and is thought to be the most common ecological interaction. Not to do an appeal to nature, more just a preemptive come-back to every capitalists favorite “human nature”. So if I grant you that for people you grant me this for nature, mutual benefit. I’m kidding, I won’t grant you that for people. And even if I did one species for all nature is unfair, clearly you’re getting gypped, and if somebody gets gypped, it’s not mutual. Anyway it should be obvious that mutualism is better but some may still be thinking, that capitalism is mutual, that it increases value, makes everybody richer etcetera etcetera. And I will address those, starting with increasing value. In some ways capitalism does increase value. What’s really in question here is your definition of value. Use value is how useful something is. Does capitalism increase this? As a general rule? No, sometimes, For sure. So what about exchange value, well yes it does increase that. But how? Subjective individual will. And that’s all well and good, but for an economic philosophy, for a society, a collective, is that really whats best? What is the best to value? Pierre Joseph Proudhon would refer to this as the right of increase or profit. Value, all value is only ever increased by labor. This is one of the reasons I subscribe to the now heterodox labor theory of value. And capitalists acknowledge that value is increased by labor alone (that is without tricks). This is why proprietors exploit laborers in laboring to increase the value of a product not owned by them, and therefore the laborers are alienated from their labor. That labor maybe increasing value 10 fold, and maybe 1 percent to the laborer. Seems to me that somebody’s getting gypped, and that means it’s not mutual.

As for making everybody richer, That is only partly true. Many people will say if you look at the most prosperous countries, they’re all capitalist. However if you look at economics (as I do) on a spectrum from capitalist to communist, and socialism right in the middle. Then what we see is that the best countries, that is most prosperous, are actually very close to that socialist line. Still technically on the capitalist side, but much closer to socialism. Which indicates to me, the closer countries get to socialism, the better they are. If we look at laissez-faire systems they suck. Even the Anglo Saxon economy of the U.S. is better than that, of course no where near as good as the social market economy of Germany, or the tripartism of Nordic countries.

Some may also argue that countries that have recently embraced the free market have seen incredible growth. Which is sort of true, but so did North Korea. Using Marxian economics, to each to their ability, to each to their need. This resulted in astonishing growth for North Korea. Initially they were out doing South Korea by a lot. This leads me to think a couple of things. One, is that Marxism (more specifically, to each to their ability to each to their need) works very well, for very fast growth, when all you have to worry about is necessities, but becomes more complicated in a luxury economy, and therefore is less sustainable than stabilized capitalism. Which grows a lot slower but for a lot longer. Also all these countries are also coming out of authoritarian regimes, and the recently acquired liberty, in my opinion, plays a much bigger part, however I would also grant “the free-er the market the free-er the people” for me a “free market” is simply fair exchange, and this can be mutual instead of competitive. Though competition might be inevitable, the right of increase (or right of profit) is not. And that's really the problem with competition isn't it? Picture a school boy whose friend gets an A on a paper. Now this school boy says to himself “if my buddy can get an A, I can sure as hell get an A plus”. Then he studies really hard, and maybe gets that A plus, maybe not, either way he competed with his friend, to do better. No malice, or hatred, they maybe even studied together, mutually, all the while competing for credibility and trust, not profit, nor power. And that really is it, as profit increases power increases, and dangers increase. When some company makes it so rich, so powerful, so big, that if it were to ever fall, it would almost certainly crash the entire world economy, and likely society as well. In 2008 we saw something like this. Had we not bailed out those banks, the entire U.S. economy would have crumbled, and the effects that could have had on the world is unthinkable.

In closing I’ll just say a couple a final things. First of all I should be clear I am NOT against individuality. I am against individualism. Individuality is ones personality, desires, hopes and dreams. Individualism is, like I said above a lifestyle philosophy about putting the individual above the collective. But a collective is simply a collection of individuals. So as a collectivist it is true to say I value the collective over the individual, but it would also be true to say I value all individuals over just one individual, where as an individualist values the individual over the collective, or values one individual over all individuals. Anyway if you are more interested in the difference between individualism and individuality, I’d recommend watching this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eijYEYzAQu0 ) by Peter Coffin. Last thing I want to say is that I feel a very similar way about capitalism as I do religion. I think that it is flawed and toxic at it’s very core, and as much “good” as it might be said to do, it does more harm, is not necessary, and we, as a species can and should do better. Though I support no violence, oppression, nor authoritarianism of any kind. So in that spirit fuck antifa and fuck the fucking Marxist-leninists man, fuck em’ all, what they ever do for us, huh! Bonus points if you can tell me the quote I'm drawing from. Good night.