Capitalism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eclecticology (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 1 May 2002 ("Peter" Kropotkin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:09, 1 May 2002 by Eclecticology (talk | contribs) ("Peter" Kropotkin)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Capitalism refers to a set of practices that were institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods (including land and labor) in a free (meaning, free from state control) market; a set of theories meant to justify the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets; and a set of beliefs about the advantages of such practices.

The meanings of "capitalism"

The word "capitalism" is used for many different meanings, sometimes opposite ones. However, most defintions in the West are variants on the definition "economic system in which capital goods belong to non-state entities."

This, however, is not the case in China and differences in terminology sometimes confuse and complicate discussions of Chinese economic reform. Under Chinese Marxism, which is the official state ideology, capitalism refers to a stage of history in which there is a class system in which the proletariat is exploited by the bougeiosie. In the official Chinese ideology, China is currently in the primary stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, because of Deng Xiaoping's dictum to seek truth from facts, this view does not prevent China from undertaking policies which in the West would be considered capitalistic including privatizing factories and encouraging the growth of the private sector.

As with many common words, and most particularly ideologically laden words, "capitalism" has many meanings, and there is a lot confusion when using it as to whether it means any particular meaning, or whether it is just a slogan or insult used without particular meaning intend (or worse, with confusion intended).

"Capitalism" as a phenomenon (e.g., the system of the private ownership of capital) is certainly different from "capitalism" as an ideology (the philosophical advocacy of that system--not the same kind of notion at all.

Opponents of capitalism sometimes deny that these represent subtantially different things, or say they go hand-in-hand. Although it is arguable whether or not two meanings of the word "capitalism" of the same kind are somehow "equivalent" under someone's subjective notion of equivalence, for the sake of not making a straw man argument when accusing someone else to be a proponent of capitalism, these different concepts must be clearly distinguished.

Capitalism and political ideologies

There are many different and opposite ideologies that value capitalism:

libertarianism (sometimes also called classical liberalism) defends a "pure" form of capitalism with minimal State intervention, e.g. Natural Capitalism which emphasizes the role of private business in seeking energy and material efficiency, and the role of government in making it difficult or expensive to reduce biodiversity or pollute the commons - but little else.
conservatism varies depending on countries in its specific stances, but in western countries, usually defends something not unlike the status quo of current capitalist practices (see political conservatism).
mercantilism defend state intervention to protect domestic commerce and industries against foreign competition (see protectionism).
social democracy argues for extended state regulation and partial intervention in a capitalist background (see welfare state, political liberalism, liberal democracy, new liberalism).

Many different and opposite ideologies fight capitalism and argue for collectivism, which

socialism argues for extensive State control of economy, though with small tolerated areas of capitalism.
fascism argues for extensive State control of economy, with delegation of its powers to complacent capitalists.
communism argues for collective ownnership of the means of production, and the overthrow of the state.
libertarian socialism argues for collective control of economy without the need for a State.

Arguments for and against capitalism

Since there are so many divergent ideologies backing or fighting capitalism, there is no possible agreed upon argument list for or against it. Each of the above ideologies makes very different claims for or about capitalism. Some ideologies refuse to use the word at all.

There seem to be four separate and distinct questions about capitalism which have clearly survived the 20th century and remain hotly debated today. Certain thinkers claim or claimed to have simple answers to these questions, but political science generally sees them as scales or shades of grey:

Is capitalism moral? Does it actually encourage traits we find useful or appealing in human beings? Yes: Ayn Rand, Robin Hanson No: John McMurty, Karl Marx

Is capitalism ethical? Can its rules and contracts and enforcement systems be made wholly objective of the people administering them, to a greater degree than other systems? Yes: Buckminster Fuller, John McMurty, Friedrich Hayek No: Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin

Is capitalism efficient? Given whatever moral purposes or ethical standards it might serve, can it be said to allocate energy, material resources, or human creativity better than any of the alternatives? Yes: Paul Hawken, Joseph Schumpeter No: Peter Kropotkin

Is capitalism sustainable? Can it persist as a means of organizing human affairs, under any conceivable set of reforms as per the above? Yes: Buckminster Fuller, Paul Hawken No: Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Marx

why does no one agree what capitalism is?

It's hard to answer this objectively. Apparently there has never been a clear agreement about the linguistic, economic, ethical and moral implications, that is, the "political economy" of capitalism itself.

Rather like a governing political party that everyone seeks to control, regardless of ideology, the definition of "capitalism" at any given time tends to reflect the current conflicts between interest groups.

The non-obvious combinations demonstrate the complexity of the debate. For instance, Joseph Schumpeter claimed in 1962 that capitalism was more efficient than any alternative, but doomed due to its complex and abstract rationale which the ordinary citizen would not ultimately defend.

Also, the overlapping claims confuse most debaters. Ayn Rand made an original defense of capitalism as a moral code, but her arguments for its efficiency were not original, and selected to support her moral claims. Karl Marx believed capitalism efficient but unfair at the administration of an immoral purpose, and thus ultimately unsustainable. John McMurty, a current commentator within the anti-globalization movement, believes it has become increasingly fair at the administration of this immoral purpose. Robin Hanson, another current commentator, asks if fitness and fairness and morality can ever really be separated by other than electoral political means?

in whose interest is capitalism ?

Finally, the arguments appeal strongly to different interest groups, and often support their positions as "rights".

Currently recognized property owners especially corporate shareholders and holders of deeds in land or rights to exploit natural capital, are generally recognized as advocating extremely strong property rights.

However, the definition of capital has broadened in recent years to recognize and include the rationales of other major interest groups: artists or other creators who rely on copyright law, legal patent and trademark holders who improve what they call intellectual capital, workers who are largely trading in their own less creative labor guided by a body of shared and imitative instructional capital - the trades themselves, all have reasons to prefer status quo property law over any given set of proposed reforms.

Even judges, mediators or administrators charged with fair execution of some ethical code and the maintenance of some relationship between human capital and financial capital within a capitalist representative democracy, tend to have strong self-interest reasons to argue for one view or another - typically, that view that assigns them a meaningful role in the capitalist economy.

Karl Marx made the strong claim that this role actually affects their cognition, and leads them inexorably to irreconcilable points of view, i.e. that no agreement about capitalism was possible by "class collaboration", and "class struggle" between these defined it. This view was advocated by many revolutionary movements of the 20th century, but was often abandoned in practice as it seemed to lead to "class war", endless violence between those with irreconcilable points of view.

Today, even those parties traditionally opposed to capitalism, e.g. the Chinese Communist Party of Mao Zedong, see some role for it in the development of their society. Debate focuses on incentive systems, not on the overall moral structure or ethical clarity of "capitalism".

what is capitalism good for?

One important modern argument is that capitalism simply isn't a system, merely a set of questions, challenges, and assertions regarding human behavior. Similar to biology or ecology and its relationship to animal behavior, made complex by human language, culture and ideas. Jane Jacobs and George Lakoff argued separately that there was a Guardian Ethic which was fundamentally related to nurturing and protection of life, and a Trader Ethic more related to the unique primate practice of trade. Jacobs thought that the two were made and kept separate in history, and that any collaboration between them was corruption, i.e. any unifying system that claimed to make assertions regarding both, would simply be serving itself.

Other doctrines focus narrowly on the application of capitalist means to natural capital (Paul Hawken) or individual capital (Ayn Rand) - assuming a more general moral and legal framework which discourages these same mechanisms when applied to non-living beings coercively, e.g. "creative accounting" combining individual creativity with the complex instructional base of accounting itself.

Aside from the very narrow arguments advancing specific mechanisms, it is quite difficult or pointless to distinguish critiques of capitalism from critiques of Western European civilization, colonialism or imperialism. These arguments often recur interchangeably within the context of the extremely complex anti-globalization movement, which is often (but not universally) described as "anti-capitalist".