Capitalism, competition, free markets and the future of civilisation

[UndercoverElephant]

Capital” just refers to accumulated wealth – ie whatever money, investments and property a person or legal entity owns beyond what it needs to spend to continue existing. It therefore implies private ownership of property, including companies that make and sell goods or provide services. “Capitalism” usually also includes a fuzzy selection of other things connected to money, including banking and usury (lending with interest). It is most easily understood in terms of what came before it, which was feudalism. Feudalism was fundamentally different in the sense that feudal lords were the landowners and the serfs that worked their land had almost no possibility of escape. There was very little social mobility or opportunity. There was a sort of “malthusian deadlock” which was only broken by the Black Death in 1348-49, which drastically reduced the available workforce and drastically increased the amount of available land. Governments at the time attempted to regulate the situation with price controls and by trying to force peasants to take any employment they were offered, but this simply did not work: reality forced a labour market into existence, greatly improving the bargaining power of the poor. It also fuelled all sorts of labour-saving technological developments, such as the printing press in 1440, which itself transformed society as much as the invention of the phonetic alphabet transformed ancient Greece: communication of ideas is important. Feudalism did not die instantly, but the Black Death was the first and biggest hammer blow that ultimately led to the rennaissance, the protestant reformation, the scientific and industrial revolutions and to modern capitalism. It also led to the Age of Reason and thinkers like Karl Marx.

Marx believed the end of human socio-economic development would occur when capitalism collapsed due to internal contradictions, and/or the representatives of the working class took control of state power. He thought that capitalism is destined to be replaced by a communist society where the free market and competition was replaced by a centralised, state-run economy where everybody was rendered as equal as possible by the system. Everywhere such a system has been tried, the results have been somewhere between disappointing and disastrous. Cuba is probably the closest thing to a success, especially given the hostile stance of the US. There are some good things about the Cuban system, but they are nowhere near good enough to convince the rest of the world to follow that model, especially not in the West. I hate the current world system as much anybody, but getting angry and believing in unrealistic utopias after the revolution is no better than believing Jesus is coming back soon to save us all. Believing in it might make you feel better, defending it might make you feel morally superior, but if it isn't realistic then it cannot change the world.

There are an awful lot of people who want capitalism to end, but very few who have anything positive to offer in terms of a realistic replacement. It is no use screaming “END CAPITALISM NOW!” The only way to end capitalism is to offer a realistic alternative to capitalism that realists can actually believe in. Books like “Capitalist Realism” are perfect examples of how not to do this. At the end of reading it your hatred of capitalism may have been supercharged, but the author has nothing constructive to offer in terms of replacing it. "We need violent revolution!!" What's the point in that if the revolution doesn't lead anywhere, or leads to something worse?

I would like to focus on competition rather than ownership. By “competition” I mean a (relatively) free market, where people are (within limits) allowed to compete with each other to offer goods, services and employment. This will inevitably involve winners and losers, although the scale of winning and losing can be regulated (with wealth taxes or other mechanisms). It does not have to involve enormous inequality between rich and poor, but accepts that at a non-negligible amount of inequality will remain, and that this is necessary to provide an incentive for people to actually do the stuff that needs to be done in the absence of compulsion by force (slavery and serfdom). It seems to me that the difficulty in imagining a realistic replacement to capitalism is that this element of competition appears to be essential for the functioning of any future large-scale civilisation. Previous systems depended upon slavery or serfdom, which nobody wants to return to, and it is hard to believe the future is communism, at least as it was envisioned by Marx. All of these non-capitalist systems place(d) total or near-total restrictions on the majority of the population competing for wealth in a free market.

QUESTIONS:

(1) To what extent do you think this element of competition is necessary for the healthy functioning of human societies? NOTE: saying competition is necessary is not saying “co-operation is bad”. Humans obviously co-operate in all sorts of ways, all the time. So it is no good answering this question by saying “Co-operation good!”. The question is about the neccessity of SOME competition.

(2) To what extent do you think this element of competition is a/the definitive characteristic of “capitalism”? Do you think it has to be eliminated from a future system for us to say capitalism has ended? Or could there be a post-capitalist system which retains a significant element of competition and recognises that there has to be winners, losers and socio-economic mobility?

[Potemkin Villager]

(2) To what extent do you think this element of competition is a/the definitive characteristic of “capitalism”? Do you think it has to be eliminated from a future system for us to say capitalism has ended? Or could there be a post-capitalist system which retains a significant element of competition and recognises that there has to winners, losers and socio-economic mobility?

Hmmm interesting where your thinking (about your new book?) seems to be taking you.

I would argue that regulated competition would be critical to any post-capitalist system and the last thing needed would be to eliminate it. If, as is often claimed "competition is a/the definitive characteristic of “capitalism”, then why do capitalists seek to avoid regulation and undermine competition by operating monopolistic cartels.

Of course all this "capitalist freedom" currently extends into privatised natural monopolies such as public transport and utilities with the well known lamentable results.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hmmm interesting where your thinking (about your new book?) seems to be taking you.

Yes. Currently assembling material for a history of western civilisation/philosophy. I have reached the end of the scientific revolution and now I am faced with the Age of Reason and the first attempts by philosophers to historicise philosophy and produce a philosophy of history. That means Hegel and Marx. They were both wrong, because both of them tried to identify the end of history as some pinnacle of human development with no reference to ecology or evolution (liberal protestantism and communism respectively). History will end when we've figured out how to make ecocivilisation work, not because humans have achieved some utopian state defined in terms that don't refer to the non-human real world. I posted this question earlier today on 3 different subreddits. So far, not one person has even tried to answer the questions. The reason, I think, is that the answer to both question is "quite a lot", which rather suggests we should be aiming at a radical reformation of capitalism rather than demanding its end.

I would argue that regulated competition would be critical to any post-capitalist system and the last thing needed would be to eliminate it.

But doesn't that just leave the question of how regulated it has to be in order to qualify as post-capitalist?

We already have some degree of regulation.

If, as is often claimed "competition is a/the definitive characteristic of “capitalism”, then why do capitalists seek to avoid regulation and undermine competition by operating monopolistic cartels.

Because people will abuse any system they can get away with abusing. There are ways of dealing with problems like this if the political will exists. It is not a conceptual or ideological problem. Rather it is a problem with politics/implementation.

Of course all this "capitalist freedom" currently extends into privatised natural monopolies such as public transport and utilities with the well known lamentable results.

Again, these are prime examples of political problems within capitalism rather than with capitalism as an over-arching concept. There's no reason why we can't have a tightly regulated version of capitalism where the free market only operates in those areas where there is no good case for state ownership.

[northernmonkey]

The problem does not lie in capitalism per se any more than it lies in communism per se. It lies in the centralization and concentration of the means of production into too few hands. A problem that is evident in both of the above ideologies as implemented. To paraphrase Greer, it matters little if the tyrants ruling over you are faceless capitalist plutocrats or faceless communist bureaucrats. The boot in your face feels just the same.

Whatever solution exists, assuming there is one (which I frankly doubt), must lie in the dilution of control of the means of production.

[northernmonkey]

Having dwelt on that a little longer, I'm going to go further and suggest the problem is civilization itself since the arguably defining feature of any civilization is the centralization and concentration of the means of production.

Just call me Ted.

[UndercoverElephant]

Whatever solution exists, assuming there is one (which I frankly doubt), must lie in the dilution of control of the means of production.

We can safely say that the end human socio-political evolution is ecocivilisation. Anything short of that is not sustainable, by definition. So either some "solution" exist, or the only way from here is down until humans go extinct.

Diluting the control just means distributing power more equally. This is a problem of political will and implementation rather than of ideology. It means reforming capitalism instead of replacing it. That may sound like a word game, but I don't think it is. The way that we all think about these things is part of the means by which the public remains under control. Lots of people saying "Down with capitalism!" without really knowing what that means is no threat to our glorious leaders.

[UndercoverElephant]

Having dwelt on that a little longer, I'm going to go further and suggest the problem is civilization itself since the arguably defining feature of any civilization is the centralization and concentration of the means of production.

Just call me Ted.

We can't get rid of civilisation. We must either fix it, or keep failing to fix it until there are no more humans.

[northernmonkey]

Having dwelt on that a little longer, I'm going to go further and suggest the problem is civilization itself since the arguably defining feature of any civilization is the centralization and concentration of the means of production.

Just call me Ted.

We can't get rid of civilisation. We must either fix it, or keep failing to fix it until there are no more humans.

I think that's both unnecessarily optimistic and pessimistic. It seems to me perfectly possible for humans to fall back to a pre-civilisational state. All it will take is the right number and severity of pushes. Having arrived back there, nature will take care of the rest and humans would, once more, exist in numbers that matched the carrying capacity of their environment.

I'm not saying the above will definitely happen. I am saying its more plausible than total extinction. Though, of course, that fate eventually awaits all species sooner or later.

[northernmonkey]

Whatever solution exists, assuming there is one (which I frankly doubt), must lie in the dilution of control of the means of production.

We can safely say that the end human socio-political evolution is ecocivilisation. Anything short of that is not sustainable, by definition. So either some "solution" exist, or the only way from here is down until humans go extinct.

Diluting the control just means distributing power more equally. This is a problem of political will and implementation rather than of ideology. It means reforming capitalism instead of replacing it. That may sound like a word game, but I don't think it is. The way that we all think about these things is part of the means by which the public remains under control. Lots of people saying "Down with capitalism!" without really knowing what that means is no threat to our glorious leaders.

I agree that any human civilisation, to be sustainable, has to be in harmony with its ecosystem. For anyone who has properly thought about it, that is trivially true. Unfortunately, most people have not properly thought about it and this is often hilariously the case with a lot of the "green" brigade. Though, not all.

The problem, I think, is that the only empirical evidence to date from the entirety of human existence on earth of humans existing in anything even approaching harmony with their ecosystem is pre civilisational. That is to say, non civilisational.

Civilization per se is not ecologically sustainable because civilization per se is not politically sustainable. It always inevitably ends up with the over-concentration of control of the means of production into too few hands leading to a very small number of humans orchestrating events in their own narrow interests.

Until, that is, something breaks. Which it always does. Usually in the local eco-system on which a given civilization depends.

I am happy, naturally, to hear of historical examples where the above may be shown to not be true. I've not come across any myself.

[UndercoverElephant]

Having dwelt on that a little longer, I'm going to go further and suggest the problem is civilization itself since the arguably defining feature of any civilization is the centralization and concentration of the means of production.

Just call me Ted.

We can't get rid of civilisation. We must either fix it, or keep failing to fix it until there are no more humans.

I think that's both unnecessarily optimistic and pessimistic. It seems to me perfectly possible for humans to fall back to a pre-civilisational state.
All it will take is the right number and severity of pushes. Having arrived back there, nature will take care of the rest and humans would, once more, exist in numbers that matched the carrying capacity of their environment.

I don't agree, and the reason is books. Once upon a time it was possible to destroy bits of the past by burning books. But that was when books were few and incredibly precious, and forces existed that could exert almost total power. It doesn't matter how hard humans are pushed, books will survive, and the more important the books are, the greater will be their tendency to survive.

[UndercoverElephant]

Whatever solution exists, assuming there is one (which I frankly doubt), must lie in the dilution of control of the means of production.

We can safely say that the end human socio-political evolution is ecocivilisation. Anything short of that is not sustainable, by definition. So either some "solution" exist, or the only way from here is down until humans go extinct.

Diluting the control just means distributing power more equally. This is a problem of political will and implementation rather than of ideology. It means reforming capitalism instead of replacing it. That may sound like a word game, but I don't think it is. The way that we all think about these things is part of the means by which the public remains under control. Lots of people saying "Down with capitalism!" without really knowing what that means is no threat to our glorious leaders.

I agree that any human civilisation, to be sustainable, has to be in harmony with its ecosystem. For anyone who has properly thought about it, that is trivially true. Unfortunately, most people have not properly thought about it and this is often hilariously the case with a lot of the "green" brigade. Though, not all.

The problem, I think, is that the only empirical evidence to date from the entirety of human existence on earth of humans existing in anything even approaching harmony with their ecosystem is pre civilisational. That is to say, non civilisational.

Civilization per se is not ecologically sustainable because civilization per se is not politically sustainable. It always inevitably ends up with the over-concentration of control of the means of production into too few hands leading to a very small number of humans orchestrating events in their own narrow interests.

Until, that is, something breaks. Which it always does. Usually in the local eco-system on which a given civilization depends.

I am happy, naturally, to hear of historical examples where the above may be shown to not be true. I've not come across any myself.

We don't need any historical examples. If we rule out the possibility of a return to the state of nature, because it is impossible to get rid of all the books, then ecocivilisation and extinction are the only possible long term outcomes. Deduction beats induction every time.

[northernmonkey]

Industrial civilization has collapsed

I have a book. It tells me how to make and use a tractor

I have no access to either the energy nor raw materials necessary to make a tractor

I do, however, have access to grass and a horse.

Books are useful where they are useful and not where they are not. Indeed, there are more than a few of examples of previous civilizations that went on to lose much of their recorded knowledge following collapse. Even knowledge that might otherwise have remained useful in the aftermath of that collapse.

Having said all of that, I've already stated that I am not saying anything definitively in terms of where humans are headed, I am saying however, that there is no solid reasoning behind the assertion that the future is a simplistic, binary one of ecological civilization versus extinction. It is far less of an intellectual stretch to envisage a future of a collapsed global industrial civilization leading to the rebirth of much simpler civilizational forms. Which, in turn, are of course not sustainable. But, which are at least capable of being reborn themselves - albeit in likely ever more civilisationally impoverished forms. That process could go on, conceivably, for many centuries if not millennia. But, it is most likely headed in one direction. One that will be ever simpler until ecological balance is restored. My guess is that will be when what remains is little more than hunter gatherers. I say this because farming itself (being the foundation of civilization), of any kind, has proven time and again to be unsustainable.

In other words, I don't think that extinction is at all likely short or medium term. Nor do I think that the choice is between extinction or eco-civilization sustainability. I don't actually think there is a choice. Long term, humans will come back into balance with the eco-systems on which they depend - almost certainly kicking and screaming all the way to there from here. But, that balance is not likely to include much "civilisation" in it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Industrial civilization has collapsed

I have a book. It tells me how to make and use a tractor

That one isn't any use, so people burned it long ago. Your book is on permaculture.

I am saying however, that there is no solid reasoning behind the assertion that the future is a simplistic, binary one of ecological civilization versus extinction. It is far less of an intellectual stretch to envisage a future of a collapsed global industrial civilization leading to the rebirth of much simpler civilizational forms.

Those are still civilisation. Just simpler.

Which, in turn, are of course not sustainable. But, which are at least capable of being reborn themselves - albeit in likely ever more civilisationally impoverished forms. That process could go on, conceivably, for many centuries if not millennia. But, it is most likely headed in one direction.

Yes. That direction is ecocivilisation.

[northernmonkey]

This is where we differ. Because, apart from this one issue, I should say we appear to be not that far apart on this topic. But, it is kind of a pivotal difference. The issue is one of the nature of civilization itself - any civilization

Arguably, civilization is what happens when technology allows surpluses to be created which then become inevitably concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class of humans who, being not especially cleverer than the rest of this hairless ape species, are unable, long term, to manage even their own narrow self interests in a sustainable manner. This has been shown to be the case repeatedly throughout history and the unsustainability of the current global industrial civilization is the pinnacle of that phenomenon. Consequently, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that humans are likely to be capable of changing their ways to the extent of creating and maintaining a civilization that is, by design, ecologically sustainable. So far as I can see, "sustainable-civilization" is an oxymoron.

But, as I have said, I think we are a long way off the end of all forms of civilization. I just don't happen to think there is reason to assume that what follows this one is any less likely to be pushing past the limits of what is sustainable. It is just going to be doing so at a lower level of complexity due to it being more technologically degraded than the one we are currently living through the dying days of.

So, purely for the sake of entertainment you understand, I will speculate that the final destination of this process at some point in the near-distant future (a few hundred to a few thousand years from now) will be an oscillation between an Upper Paleolithic-esque and late-Neolithic-esque existence that will then never get much beyond that point before collapsing back again.

That final equilibrium could then conceivably persist for a very, very long time. At least as long as it persisted prior to the advent of civilization. Which, let's not forget, is barely more than eight thousand years old and that's stretching the definition quite a bit as compared to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods which go back at least a hundred thousand years where we can say that those people were anatomically more or less the same as us. If time spent in a given state is anything to go by, civilization is not the natural state of man. Barbarism is.