Review: Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity(bostonreview.net)
bostonreview.net
Review: Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity
http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality-philosophy-religion/james-g-chappel-bad-romance
26 comments
It's not a religion, because it is not based on faith. It consistently delivers results whether its practitioners believe in it or not.
[deleted]
> It consistently delivers results
Perhaps. Whether those are the results intended are another matter qv. Enron and many more.
Edit: Then again, it depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean as generally practiced my criticism stands but if you mean pricing that reflects all aspects inc. externalities rather than ignoring them (as with fossil fuel use) then I'd agree. Which do you mean?
Perhaps. Whether those are the results intended are another matter qv. Enron and many more.
Edit: Then again, it depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean as generally practiced my criticism stands but if you mean pricing that reflects all aspects inc. externalities rather than ignoring them (as with fossil fuel use) then I'd agree. Which do you mean?
> Perhaps.
No doubt about it. Look around you, all the stuff in your dwelling, etc., all from capitalism.
> Enron
Enron made its hay from taking advantage of California's regulation of consumer electricity prices, and the inability of the regulators to adapt.
No doubt about it. Look around you, all the stuff in your dwelling, etc., all from capitalism.
> Enron
Enron made its hay from taking advantage of California's regulation of consumer electricity prices, and the inability of the regulators to adapt.
> all the stuff in your dwelling, etc., all from capitalism
The value of those things depends on whether they were produced in ways that takes externalities into consideration ie. I fear we're destroying the ecosystem to create those.
You haven't made clear where you stand on that, and it's crucial to understanding each others positions. I'd be grateful if you'd address that.
re. enron, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#2001_Accounting_scandals:
"Enron used a variety of deceptive, bewildering, and fraudulent accounting practices and tactics to cover its fraud in reporting Enron's financial information"
That doesn't fit in with what you said.
The value of those things depends on whether they were produced in ways that takes externalities into consideration ie. I fear we're destroying the ecosystem to create those.
You haven't made clear where you stand on that, and it's crucial to understanding each others positions. I'd be grateful if you'd address that.
re. enron, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#2001_Accounting_scandals:
"Enron used a variety of deceptive, bewildering, and fraudulent accounting practices and tactics to cover its fraud in reporting Enron's financial information"
That doesn't fit in with what you said.
> I'd be grateful if you'd address that
Sure. I propose that externalities (like pollution) be taxed, in order to "internalize the externalities".
> That doesn't fit in with what you said.
That refers to the accounting. I was referring to their manipulation of prices, which was only made possible by California's fixing of consumer electricity rates.
As for accounting fraud, that's illegal and not free market.
Sure. I propose that externalities (like pollution) be taxed, in order to "internalize the externalities".
> That doesn't fit in with what you said.
That refers to the accounting. I was referring to their manipulation of prices, which was only made possible by California's fixing of consumer electricity rates.
As for accounting fraud, that's illegal and not free market.
I'm all good with this. Nice to get straight answers to straight questions. Thanks.
The faith part comes from interpreting the economic results of capitalism. Do you accept it as a useful economic system given all the problems you see with it? Are you willing to entertain the possibility of alternatives? If not, why?
It takes a lot of faith to overlook the many impending environmental disasters.
Many also cling to the false dichotomy between capitalism and "soviet russia / north korea / venezuela"
Many also cling to the false dichotomy between capitalism and "soviet russia / north korea / venezuela"
> It takes a lot of faith to overlook the many impending environmental disasters.
Capitalism is the only hope of fending off environmental disaster, because it is the only system capable of producing the surplus needed to deal with it. When people are starving, they lose all interest in anything but their next meal, regardless of how they get it.
For example, the US was the first to clean up its waterways, and this is because the surplus generated by capitalism made it fairly easy.
Capitalism is the only hope of fending off environmental disaster, because it is the only system capable of producing the surplus needed to deal with it. When people are starving, they lose all interest in anything but their next meal, regardless of how they get it.
For example, the US was the first to clean up its waterways, and this is because the surplus generated by capitalism made it fairly easy.
You’re crediting capitalism with solving the very problems it created.
All human societies produce pollution, going back to the very beginning. In fact, archaeologists love to study ancient trash heaps.
The amount of pollution per person varies wildly. Some societies were perfectly sustainable.
Among the most capitalistic and consumerist societies (e.g. US) the pollution is staggering.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
Among the most capitalistic and consumerist societies (e.g. US) the pollution is staggering.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
What economic system produces no waste or pollution?
> The faith part comes from interpreting the economic results of capitalism
Interpreting results comes from evidence, not faith. One constructs a theory based on evidence. One tests the theory by seeing if future evidence behaves like the theory suggests.
Religion isn't like that, it does not predict things in a way that is testable. Creationism, for example, makes zero predictions and so is not at all testable, making it a faith, not science.
> Do you accept it as a useful economic system given all the problems you see with it?
Yes. Without question. Look around you - all the goodies you have were created by capitalism.
> Are you willing to entertain the possibility of alternatives? If not, why?
All the alternatives proposed have a historical record of being worse, often far worse.
Interpreting results comes from evidence, not faith. One constructs a theory based on evidence. One tests the theory by seeing if future evidence behaves like the theory suggests.
Religion isn't like that, it does not predict things in a way that is testable. Creationism, for example, makes zero predictions and so is not at all testable, making it a faith, not science.
> Do you accept it as a useful economic system given all the problems you see with it?
Yes. Without question. Look around you - all the goodies you have were created by capitalism.
> Are you willing to entertain the possibility of alternatives? If not, why?
All the alternatives proposed have a historical record of being worse, often far worse.
The weren't created by capitalism, these things we have were often created by workers--who are often exploited under capitalism, because like the review states, because capitalism is value the wrong things like profits and abundance over societal well-being. Profits are just easier to measure even if they're not a useful measure of good.
In the US, you and other exploited workers are free to quit your jobs and start your own workers' cooperatives and produce whatever you like and share the results.
Capitalism solves things with a good enough neural net. Socialism says that it can solve problems analytically, but it just uses a smaller inferior neural net of centralized bureaucracy with access to less data, and a slower learning rate.
Conditions always change, and central planning has consistently shown a relative inability to adapt to change, meaning it just falls further behind.
This is also why corporations don't grow without limit - they become constricted by bureaucracy and unable to adapt, and smaller, nimbler outfits pick them off.
This is also why corporations don't grow without limit - they become constricted by bureaucracy and unable to adapt, and smaller, nimbler outfits pick them off.
It would appear that the 40 year experiment in the west has failed completely though.
Let's say it has failed you personally. You are probably not the only person that feels that way. What in a capitalist society is stopping you from forming a community that is far more socialist? All the companies in your community can be employee-owned. You are free to tax yourselves to provide social services above and beyond the baseline. Why not show the capitalists how your system is superior?
That's true. There's nothing illegal at all about starting your own commune in the US. In fact, I think as many as tens of thousands have been created over the years. All of them either (1) failed (2) became capitalistic (3) have a constant turnover of members.
This comment is deeply insulting to everybody in history who has lived in a society that has in fact completely failed. Respect your relative paradise.
I guarantee you won't discover anything superior to "the west" unless you acknowledge the many things it has gotten right.
I guarantee you won't discover anything superior to "the west" unless you acknowledge the many things it has gotten right.
Your faith is strong brother.
Why is this attitude so prevalent? You make an extreme and unsubstantiated statement denying any merit to one side of a contentious issue. Somebody predictable comes along and argues that there is demonstrated merit on that side and it must be acknowledged if we want to improve upon it. And you respond with disdain, so sure that anybody who dared question your radical position must be totally blindly loyal to the other side to the same extent that you are to yours.
What do you or anybody else gain from that? If I'm just responding to a troll account then I guess that's on me. But if not, please explain your motivations. Why are you publishing far-out opinions and then lashing out when disagreed with? It's exactly how anti-vax advocates and flat-earthers behave.
What do you or anybody else gain from that? If I'm just responding to a troll account then I guess that's on me. But if not, please explain your motivations. Why are you publishing far-out opinions and then lashing out when disagreed with? It's exactly how anti-vax advocates and flat-earthers behave.
Keep the faith!