Revision as of 08:45, 26 March 2002 edit24.150.61.63 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:08, 26 March 2002 edit undoTaw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,615 edits s/ip/copyright/Next edit → | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Also, the overlapping claims confuse most debaters. ] 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. ] believed capitalism efficient but unfair at the administration of an immoral purpose, and thus ultimately unsustainable. ], a current commentator within the ], believes it has become increasingly fair at the administration of this immoral purpose. ], another current commentator, asks if fitness and fairness and morality can ever really be separated by other than electoral political means? | Also, the overlapping claims confuse most debaters. ] 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. ] believed capitalism efficient but unfair at the administration of an immoral purpose, and thus ultimately unsustainable. ], a current commentator within the ], believes it has become increasingly fair at the administration of this immoral purpose. ], another current commentator, asks if fitness and fairness and morality can ever really be separated by other than electoral political means? | ||
Finally, the arguments appeal to different interest groups. Current property owners, artists or other creators who rely on ], workers who are largely trading in their own imitative and less creative labor, and judges, mediators or administrators charged with fair execution of some ethical code within capitalism, have self-interest reasons to argue for one view or another. ] made the claim that this 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. | Finally, the arguments appeal to different interest groups. Current property owners, artists or other creators who rely on ], workers who are largely trading in their own imitative and less creative labor, and judges, mediators or administrators charged with fair execution of some ethical code within capitalism, have self-interest reasons to argue for one view or another. ] made the claim that this 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. | ||
=== what is capitalism good for? === | === what is capitalism good for? === |
Revision as of 09:08, 26 March 2002
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 of them are variants on the definition "economic system in which capital goods belong to private individuals."
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, 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: 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?
Finally, the arguments appeal to different interest groups. Current property owners, artists or other creators who rely on copyright law, workers who are largely trading in their own imitative and less creative labor, and judges, mediators or administrators charged with fair execution of some ethical code within capitalism, have self-interest reasons to argue for one view or another. Karl Marx made the claim that this 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.
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".
See also
- Related topics: History of Economic Thought.
- Related words: capitalist.
- Related ideologies: classical liberalism (libertarianism, minarchism, anarcho-capitalism), conservatism (political conservatism), mercantilism, protectionism, social democracy (welfare state, liberalism, political liberalism, liberal democracy), state interventionism, state capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, libertarian socialism.