Capitalism Cancels the Passions(musingmind.substack.com)
musingmind.substack.com
Capitalism Cancels the Passions
https://musingmind.substack.com/p/mind-matters-cbc
38 comments
I don't think the article is actually advocating a return to feudal monarchy.
Hacker News Capitalism Defense Force is really circling the wagons and downvoting totally reasonable comments on this post.
Now the submission is even flagged. This reminds me of fascism TBH
That's not phrasing it differently, that's changing the whole meaning of the article and it's title.
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(2)
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.
China being a particularly interesting example, as Mao did not permit many passions (aside from Communism).
> 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?
“Capitalism was created” by whom? What about exceptions, such as Chile under Allende?
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.
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]
[deleted]
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.
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.
Ah, ah, but this is rational irrationality we're talking about.
I wish I'd made that up.
I wish I'd made that up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Capitalism inherently resists corruption more than other systems because nobody is expected to work for anyone's interest but their own.
Systems like socialism and communism require some central economic decision authority which controls what people can eat, drive, where they can work and travel and live. These people are expected to do this for the good of others, yet they hold tremendous power. Such power attracts corruption and cannot be defended from it. So socialist systems always become hopelessly corrupt as the do-gooders are instantly outcompeted in the race for power by people who only care about power. Because of course the power-hungry will gain power better than those who want power only to do good; the power hungry are fighting 100% for the goal while the do-gooders are fighting for another goal as well. It's no contest.
Worse, since that central authority has both economic and police power over people, there's no practical way to replace it. A corrupt corporation can be peacefully outcompeted or allowed to die, but the government itself cannot be - it must be overthrown with mass violence.
Systems like anarchy require that individuals self-organize into collectives and work for the good of the collective instead of the good of themselves. Of course such systems become corrupt 5 minutes after scaling beyond Dunbar's number, because there's no mechanism to punish free-riders (aside from some kind of mob justice, or a hyper-invasive police authority).
Unlike socialism, capitalism is decentralized. The government doesn't need to hold so much authority over the details of peoples' lives - where they work, what they eat, where they travel - so there's nothing to corrupt. There is no center of power to corrupt, nowhere for the power-hungry to steal from the do-gooders. There is only the contest to make money; a single goal which is inherently attractive since it brings status and wealth and sex, but when you accomplish this goal you also do good as a side-effect.
So it's not democratic institutions preventing corruption in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently resistant to corruption in a way that socialism and anarchism aren't, because the individual incentives are aligned.
Systems like socialism and communism require some central economic decision authority which controls what people can eat, drive, where they can work and travel and live. These people are expected to do this for the good of others, yet they hold tremendous power. Such power attracts corruption and cannot be defended from it. So socialist systems always become hopelessly corrupt as the do-gooders are instantly outcompeted in the race for power by people who only care about power. Because of course the power-hungry will gain power better than those who want power only to do good; the power hungry are fighting 100% for the goal while the do-gooders are fighting for another goal as well. It's no contest.
Worse, since that central authority has both economic and police power over people, there's no practical way to replace it. A corrupt corporation can be peacefully outcompeted or allowed to die, but the government itself cannot be - it must be overthrown with mass violence.
Systems like anarchy require that individuals self-organize into collectives and work for the good of the collective instead of the good of themselves. Of course such systems become corrupt 5 minutes after scaling beyond Dunbar's number, because there's no mechanism to punish free-riders (aside from some kind of mob justice, or a hyper-invasive police authority).
Unlike socialism, capitalism is decentralized. The government doesn't need to hold so much authority over the details of peoples' lives - where they work, what they eat, where they travel - so there's nothing to corrupt. There is no center of power to corrupt, nowhere for the power-hungry to steal from the do-gooders. There is only the contest to make money; a single goal which is inherently attractive since it brings status and wealth and sex, but when you accomplish this goal you also do good as a side-effect.
So it's not democratic institutions preventing corruption in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently resistant to corruption in a way that socialism and anarchism aren't, because the individual incentives are aligned.
That's a nice armchair theory of capitalism, but I don't know how anyone could look at how advanced capitalism has actually manifested in America and make those claims.
> central economic decision authority which controls what people can eat, drive, where they can work and travel and live.
I don't think this is accurate. There are plenty of systems one could describe as "socialist" in varying degrees in which this is not the case.
> These people are expected to do this for the good of others, yet they hold tremendous power.
Sounds like FAANG c-levels and boards?
> Such power attracts corruption and cannot be defended from it. So socialist systems always become hopelessly corrupt as the do-gooders are instantly outcompeted in the race for power by people who only care about power.
Kind of like how someone who only pursues economic incentives in capitalistic societies will usually wind up with more power and higher quality of life than someone who sacrifices the pursuit of capital for the pursuit of other things like an ethical calling, e.g. help the poor, spread the truth, etc.
> Worse, since that central authority has both economic and police power over people, there's no practical way to replace it.
Lobbying comes to mind. The recent protests in America and how they unveiled sources of police funding (surprise, often corporations) comes to mind.
> A corrupt corporation can be peacefully outcompeted or allowed to die, but the government itself cannot be - it must be overthrown with mass violence.
Interesting--what major corporations or monopolies were "peacefully outcompeted" in the history of American capitalism? As far as I'm aware all of them needed to be broken up explicitly by government intervention?
> Systems like anarchy require that individuals self-organize into collectives and work for the good of the collective instead of the good of themselves. Of course such systems become corrupt 5 minutes after scaling beyond Dunbar's number, because there's no mechanism to punish free-riders (aside from some kind of mob justice, or a hyper-invasive police authority).
Citations? Actually, the reality of open-source software itself would argue against this notion quite strongly. At its origin point OSS was largely autonomously organized groups working toward common good. It wasn't totally free of nastiness in certain corners, but it also wasn't disastrous by any means.
> Unlike socialism, capitalism is decentralized. The government doesn't need to hold so much authority over the details of peoples' lives - where they work, what they eat, where they travel - so there's nothing to corrupt.
How interesting. Here in America, the government still seems to play a pretty big role and is mostly funded by major companies where capital has concentrated. Also, when did the memo get sent out that American capitalism and global capitalism are corruption free(tm). Let's ignore things like child labor, foxconn, sweatshops, backroom deals, money laundering, lower taxes for the rich, and all the rest of the laundry list of naughties that have managed to creep their way into our pure, much better system.
> There is no center of power to corrupt, nowhere for the power-hungry to steal from the do-gooders.
Right, until you realize having one instrument of value (capital) is centralization and breeds the very things you're claiming its free of, only in more subtle forms (which makes it harder for wage laborers to even fight against the system since the mode of oppression supports gaslighting of the kind you've seem to have fallen for)
> There is only the contest to make money; a single goal which is inherently attractive since it brings status and wealth and sex, but when you accomplish this goal you also do good as a side-effect.
Sure work hard and prosper. Anyone can do it. Going from the projects to being a big billionaire CEO is no problem even though the quality of your education, your quality of life, your access to the instruments of capital, etc. is all determined by the relative economic status of your originating conditions, right? Yes it does happen in rare cases, but again we're talking about the construction of an equitable economic system, not one in which 0.000001% of the little guys manages to scrounge his way to the top through a mix of good luck and perseverance.
> So it's not democratic institutions preventing corruption in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently resistant to corruption in a way that socialism and anarchism aren't, because the individual incentives are aligned.
This armchair notion that there are "inherent mechanisms" in capitalism making it "more fair" while there are literally people laughing their way to bank while providing no actual production value to the economy (those centralizing middlemen like banks, wall street, etc. that capitalism supposedly eliminates) swarming around you is perhaps the starkest evidence that one has drank the capital kool-aid.
I don't mean to be harsh, but economic systems are not just abstract theories. They are actually realized, practiced things that we should examine empirically and theoretically and attempt to understand and change. Capitalism in the theoretical vacuum of abstraction and over-simplification does no justice to the empirical realities of capitalist systems and the inequalities they perpetuate.
> central economic decision authority which controls what people can eat, drive, where they can work and travel and live.
I don't think this is accurate. There are plenty of systems one could describe as "socialist" in varying degrees in which this is not the case.
> These people are expected to do this for the good of others, yet they hold tremendous power.
Sounds like FAANG c-levels and boards?
> Such power attracts corruption and cannot be defended from it. So socialist systems always become hopelessly corrupt as the do-gooders are instantly outcompeted in the race for power by people who only care about power.
Kind of like how someone who only pursues economic incentives in capitalistic societies will usually wind up with more power and higher quality of life than someone who sacrifices the pursuit of capital for the pursuit of other things like an ethical calling, e.g. help the poor, spread the truth, etc.
> Worse, since that central authority has both economic and police power over people, there's no practical way to replace it.
Lobbying comes to mind. The recent protests in America and how they unveiled sources of police funding (surprise, often corporations) comes to mind.
> A corrupt corporation can be peacefully outcompeted or allowed to die, but the government itself cannot be - it must be overthrown with mass violence.
Interesting--what major corporations or monopolies were "peacefully outcompeted" in the history of American capitalism? As far as I'm aware all of them needed to be broken up explicitly by government intervention?
> Systems like anarchy require that individuals self-organize into collectives and work for the good of the collective instead of the good of themselves. Of course such systems become corrupt 5 minutes after scaling beyond Dunbar's number, because there's no mechanism to punish free-riders (aside from some kind of mob justice, or a hyper-invasive police authority).
Citations? Actually, the reality of open-source software itself would argue against this notion quite strongly. At its origin point OSS was largely autonomously organized groups working toward common good. It wasn't totally free of nastiness in certain corners, but it also wasn't disastrous by any means.
> Unlike socialism, capitalism is decentralized. The government doesn't need to hold so much authority over the details of peoples' lives - where they work, what they eat, where they travel - so there's nothing to corrupt.
How interesting. Here in America, the government still seems to play a pretty big role and is mostly funded by major companies where capital has concentrated. Also, when did the memo get sent out that American capitalism and global capitalism are corruption free(tm). Let's ignore things like child labor, foxconn, sweatshops, backroom deals, money laundering, lower taxes for the rich, and all the rest of the laundry list of naughties that have managed to creep their way into our pure, much better system.
> There is no center of power to corrupt, nowhere for the power-hungry to steal from the do-gooders.
Right, until you realize having one instrument of value (capital) is centralization and breeds the very things you're claiming its free of, only in more subtle forms (which makes it harder for wage laborers to even fight against the system since the mode of oppression supports gaslighting of the kind you've seem to have fallen for)
> There is only the contest to make money; a single goal which is inherently attractive since it brings status and wealth and sex, but when you accomplish this goal you also do good as a side-effect.
Sure work hard and prosper. Anyone can do it. Going from the projects to being a big billionaire CEO is no problem even though the quality of your education, your quality of life, your access to the instruments of capital, etc. is all determined by the relative economic status of your originating conditions, right? Yes it does happen in rare cases, but again we're talking about the construction of an equitable economic system, not one in which 0.000001% of the little guys manages to scrounge his way to the top through a mix of good luck and perseverance.
> So it's not democratic institutions preventing corruption in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently resistant to corruption in a way that socialism and anarchism aren't, because the individual incentives are aligned.
This armchair notion that there are "inherent mechanisms" in capitalism making it "more fair" while there are literally people laughing their way to bank while providing no actual production value to the economy (those centralizing middlemen like banks, wall street, etc. that capitalism supposedly eliminates) swarming around you is perhaps the starkest evidence that one has drank the capital kool-aid.
I don't mean to be harsh, but economic systems are not just abstract theories. They are actually realized, practiced things that we should examine empirically and theoretically and attempt to understand and change. Capitalism in the theoretical vacuum of abstraction and over-simplification does no justice to the empirical realities of capitalist systems and the inequalities they perpetuate.
> But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward
Maybe there's something in between communism at one extreme and survival-of-the-fittest-style capitalism on the other?
Maybe there's something in between communism at one extreme and survival-of-the-fittest-style capitalism on the other?
Sure, but deriding one without suggesting there is a better alternative is unproductive. And capitalism just implies that people are allowed to own property and engage in business freely. Obviously there are still laws under capitalism; for example, laws against murder. So I think for most reasonable and informed people, it comes down to how you want to define what legal business should be.
For example, activities that cause pollution produce an externality on society, as do many other things, and in my ideal society such things are penalized. However, I don't consider these added complexities to make society any less capitalist. It still is a system built on free commerce and private property; it just has laws to capture externalities. In order for a society to not be capitalist in the strictest sense, a lot of freedoms would need to be taken away (at least one of the two core tenets: ability to own things and the ability to choose your career). So when anti-capitalists like the OP start tooting their horn, I want to make it clear what that implies. Which of those core tenets is the root of all evil, which you want to take away?
For example, activities that cause pollution produce an externality on society, as do many other things, and in my ideal society such things are penalized. However, I don't consider these added complexities to make society any less capitalist. It still is a system built on free commerce and private property; it just has laws to capture externalities. In order for a society to not be capitalist in the strictest sense, a lot of freedoms would need to be taken away (at least one of the two core tenets: ability to own things and the ability to choose your career). So when anti-capitalists like the OP start tooting their horn, I want to make it clear what that implies. Which of those core tenets is the root of all evil, which you want to take away?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
My apologies—that wasn’t a fair response to your comment.
According to this article, some people believed that
self-interest = capitalism and capitalism = safety. Very interesting.
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.
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.
The title instantly reminded me of "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" authored by Deleuze & Guattari. A very interesting text on micropolitics of desire.
"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."
"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."
>“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...
Oh, the irony...
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?
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"
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?
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?
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.
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.
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-powerfu...