This article is from the blog buildingarevolutionarymovement.
In this post I’ll explain why people say they support capitalism and then the actual reasons why people support capitalism. To end capitalism we need to understand why people support it. I’m listing the positives in the post that I don’t agree with. In future posts I’ll describe the myths of capitalism and the reasons why we need an alternative.
It’s easy and common to conflate capitalism, liberalism, neoliberalism and free market economics. Many use them interchangeably and I’m going to go with that for this post.
Why people say they support capitalism
There isn’t a viable alternative economic system. Capitalism’s supporters agree that capitalism isn’t perfect but it’s all we’ve got. [1]
The moral argument for capitalism is based on individual freedom being a natural right that pre-exists society. Society is valued and justified because it benefits humans and enhances economic freedom, instead of limiting it.
The practical argument for capitalism is that many forms of centrally controlled governments have been tried and failed. Therefore privately owned and controlled means of production is the only viable way to run economies. [2]
Everything is better under capitalism. Capitalism has resulted in improved basic standards of living, reduction in poverty and increased life expectancy. There is also the argument that Western capitalist countries have the happiest populations because they can consume whatever products and services they like. [3]
Economics arguments. Capitalism results in exponential growth, which allows companies and individuals to benefit. This relates to the idea of, ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’, where if the rich get richer, then this will benefit everyone. Capitalism produces a wide range of goods and services based on what is wanted or can solve a problem. It is argued that capitalism is economically efficient because it creates incentives to provide goods and services in an efficient way. The competitive market forces companies to improve how they are organised and use resources efficiently. [4]
In 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang describes the free market ideology:
“We have been told that, if left alone, markets will produce the most efficient and just outcome. Efficient, because individuals know best how to utilize the resources they command, and just, because the competitive market process ensures that individuals are rewarded according to their productivity. We have been told that business should be given maximum freedom. Firms, being closest to the market, know what is best for their businesses. If we let them do what they want, wealth creation will be maximized, benefiting the rest of society as well. We were told that government intervention in the markets would only reduce their efficiency. Government intervention is often designed to limit the very scope of wealth creation for misguided egalitarian reasons. Even when it is not, governments cannot improve on market outcomes, as they have neither the necessary information nor the incentives to make good business decisions. In sum, we were told to put all our trust in the market and get out of its way.
Following this advice, most countries have introduced free-market policies over the last three decades – privatization of state-owned industrial and financial firms, deregulation of finance and industry, liberalization of international trade and investment, and reduction in income taxes and welfare payments. These policies, their advocates admitted, may temporarily create some problems, such as rising inequality, but ultimately they will make everyone better off by creating a more dynamic and wealthier society. The rising tide lifts all boats together, was the metaphor.” [5]
Capitalism has brought significant technology innovations. These included smartphones; the internet with rapid home delivery; streaming movies; social media; and automation has dramatically increased labour productivity. [6] Business invests in research and development to create better products and remain competitive. Employees work to improve their best practice to increase their productivity. [7] Supporters of capitalism argue that capitalism is very flexible and adaptable at dealing with society’s problems as they develop. An example would be climate change, with technologies such as renewables, carbon capture, nuclear power and geoengineering.
Capitalism is a social good and provides services to others. Selfishly working to make money means producing goods and services that others need. Even overpaid professions such as playing sport, or unpopular professions such as banking. This means that people can earn money and solve a problem for someone else. [8]
Capitalism promotes equality. This is the ‘American Dream’ idea that you may start out poor but if you work hard, you can be successful and rich. This is also known as meritocracy. [9]
Capitalism fits well with human nature. Humans are naturally selfish, greedy and competitive. People that work hard are successful and outcompete their competitors, and are therefore rewarded financially. Capitalism also allows for other aspects of human nature such as altruism, patience and kindness. This is done through the creation of welfare systems and charities. [10]
Capitalism and democracy work well together. Capitalism is built on democracy. Everyone gets one vote so they have equal political power, which is not affected by their race, gender or views. [11] Capitalism also encourages people to get involved in all aspects of society to get what they want. This includes getting involved with both governance and the government, from voting in elections, to standing in local or national elections. [12]
Capitalism gradually balances differences across countries through free markets and free trade. Countries can use their competitive advantage to benefit themselves and also access goods and services from the rest of the world. [13]
Capitalism maintains low taxes, which is good for workers and businesses. Low business taxes encourages companies to stay and provide more jobs by reinvesting the money they would pay in tax into the company. Some also argue that low business tax generates more tax for the government. [14]
Allan H. Meltzer, who wrote ‘Why Capitalism’, argues that capitalism has three strengths: economic growth, individual freedom, and it is adaptable to the many diverse cultures in the world. [15] He makes the case for capitalism in more detail:
“Capitalist systems are not rigid, nor are they all the same. Capitalism is unique in permitting change and adaptation, and so different societies tend to develop different forms of it. What all share is ownership of the means of production by individuals who remain relatively free to choose their activities, where they work, what they buy and sell, and at what prices. As an institution for producing goods and services, capitalism’s success rests on a foundation of a rule of law, which protects individual rights to property, and, in the first instance, aligns rewards to values produced. Working hand in hand with the rule of law, capitalism gives its participants incentives to act as society desires, typically rewarding hard work, intelligence, persistence and innovation. If too many laws work against this, capitalism may suffer disruptions. Capitalism embraces competition. Competition rewards those who build value, and buyers with choices and competitive prices. Like any system, capitalism has successes and failures—but it is the only system known to humanity that increases both growth and freedom. Instead of ending, as some critics suppose, capitalism continues to spread—and has spread to cultures as different as Brazil, Chile, China, Japan, and Korea. It is the only system humans have found in which personal freedom, progress and opportunities coexist. Most of the faults and flaws on which critics dwell are human faults. Capitalism is the only system that adapts to all manner of cultural and institutional differences. It continues to spread and adapt, and will for the foreseeable future.” [16]
Reasons why people actually support capitalism
So why do ordinary people continue to support capitalism or not actively seek an alternative economic system? This is a huge, complex question so I don’t plan to answer this in detail now. I do want to outline some broad reasons.
There is no alternative (tina). When Margaret Thatcher used this phrase, she meant that capitalism was the only viable economic and political system. In the 21st century it has become near impossible for most to imagine a coherent alternative to capitalism, this is known as ‘Capitalist Realism’. [17] The dominant narrative is that any attempts to organise societies in a non-capitalist way have been complete failures, and this has been accepted by many. Movements, leaders and parties which have attempted to reform capitalism by creating measures to bring about a fairer, more equal and less harsh society, have been attacked, distorted, misrepresented and finally crushed, examples being Corbynism in the UK, Bernie Sanders in the USA, and Syriza in Greece. This results in ‘disaffected consent,’ which I wrote about in this post. [18]
Need a job to pay bills. People are understandingly cautious about supporting an alternative to capitalism that might disrupt their lives and make things more difficult or worse. However unpopular and unstable capitalism is, it does allow a large number of people to live.
Want a fairer capitalism. Many that are struggling just want capitalism reformed to make their lives a bit better, rather than grand plans to change everything. These are seen as achievable, reasonable, small changes. Many are too busy trying to survive and provide for their families to engage with politics themselves – meetings, groups, campaigns are all too time consuming. They want this done for them by political parties.
Have not experienced collective struggle and don’t understand things could better under a different economic system. The left is historically weak, so many that want things to be better have no experience, knowledge, access and interest in left organisations and institutions, eg the trade unions. Many are anti-left and identify with the Tories.
Way out of poverty. For many born poor, capitalist society offers some that work hard and are lucky the chance to get rich, or if not rich then to have a comfortable lifestyle.
Personally benefit from capitalism. For those that enjoy the benefits of capitalism, this is a powerful motivator to keep things as they are. They have worked hard for their money and private property, and are looking forward to retirement with a pension plan. The Tories are the political party of capitalism. Many may not really like the Tories but they are perceived to be good at running the economy and maintaining the status quo. For many this is the deciding factor.
Bought off by consumption. The decline in real wages since the 1970s, and the lack of opportunities to make meaningful democratic inputs into political decision making, has been compensated by the expansion of consumption – homes, cars, electrical equipment, furniture, holidays etc. This has been made possible by the explosion of household debt and cheap goods from Asia. [19]
Economics as a subject is based only on the the theories of those who support it. University courses in economics are only taught by those that support capitalism. They do not teach the significant problems with capitalism or the viable alternatives. [20]
Endnotes
- https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/
- https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-strongest-arguments-in-defense-of-capitalism?share=1
- https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-statistics-showing-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler, https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now
- https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/, https://vittana.org/17-pros-and-cons-of-capitalism, https://netivist.org/debate/pros-and-cons-of-capitalism
- 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, 2010, Introduction
- https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/erik-olin-wright-real-utopias-anticapitalism-democracy/
- https://vittana.org/17-pros-and-cons-of-capitalism
- https://vittana.org/17-pros-and-cons-of-capitalism and https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/
- https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/ and https://vittana.org/17-pros-and-cons-of-capitalism
- https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/
- https://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/
- https://vittana.org/17-pros-and-cons-of-capitalism
- https://netivist.org/debate/pros-and-cons-of-capitalism
- https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2018/04/chris-grayling-the-argument-for-capitalism-over-socialism-cannot-be-won-with-a-history-lesson.html and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html – download word doc of article Why lower corporation tax means more for Treasury
- Why Capitalism, Allan Meltzer, 2012, page ix
- https://www.writersreps.com/Why-Capitalism
- Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher, 2009, page 2
- https://buildingarevolutionarymovement.org/2020/04/29/what-is-neoliberalism/
- Neoliberal Culutre, Jeremy Gilbert, 2016, page 25
- Richard D. Wolff Lecture on Worker Coops: Theory and Practice of 21st Century Socialism, 3 mins, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s
It strikes me that our fatal “problem” does not so much involve “civilization” as it does an aspect of human brain functioning that developed over millions of years of natural and sexual selection: the desire—and need—for immediate gratification (short-term hedonism vs. long-term hedonism as the famous, late clinical psychologist, Albert Ellis, would say). Closely related to both natural and sexual selection, much like them, but different, and operating continuously in all organisms, I think immediate gratification (getting one’s basic needs met) probably occurs as a third, fundamentally important biological principle along with natural and sexual selection. How do I conclude this? It naturally and necessarily occurs to maximize all living organisms’ (from bacteria to mammals) adaptation and survival within a dangerous and uncertain biosphere.
When the drive for immediate gratification occurs in an especially complex, powerfully creative, and intelligent animal, such as humans, it can have not only adaptive and but also maladaptive consequences. It can sometimes produce decadence and destruction. Among humans, religion and philosophy serve as excellent examples. While abstract religious and philosophical magical thinking disconnected from biological reality can help people resolve their painful cognitive dissonance and thus quickly feel relief and pleasure, by strongly discouraging acceptance of and integration with unwanted biophysical realities, religions and philosophies often lead to self-and other-destructive behaviors. Two critically important examples of this include encouraging and supporting over-population and catabolic capitalism. Infinite human population and consumption growth—obviously!—cannot, and will not, occur on all-too-finite Earth, yet much religious and economic philosophical reasoning produce outrageously strong avoidance and denial of this obvious but unwanted biological reality.
Of course, many people, probably most, want nothing to do with this idea, the idea that much like natural and sexual selection all life has a drive for immediate gratification. Why not? Because the clash between this unwanted reality and the desire quickly and easily to change ourselves and solve our many horrific, high-energy, civilizational problems produces great, painful cognitive dissonance. Given that hundreds of millions of years of evolution hard-wired this strong predisposition within mammals’ and other species’ neural networks, including us, we will not quickly change this strong, mostly unconscious tendency.
To resolve the resulting dissonance between this reality and our wishful thinking, most of us most of the time strongly prefer and unconsciously double down on our short-term hedonistic wishful and magical thinking: our reality-disconnected religions and philosophies. Doing this gives us often immediate relief from our painful cognitive dissonance—just as social psychologist Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory predicts. (For much on cognitive dissonance theory, see the third edition of Mistakes Were Made (but not by ME) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, 2020.)
In the face of these often unwanted realities and the complex nature of Earth’s biosphere—quite possibly THE single, most complex system in the universe—it seems to me that no human even begins to know enough to have the ability to say how evolution supposedly “should” or “must” unfold on Earth. Yet many people, explicitly or implicitly claiming god-like omniscience regarding such things, do exactly that whether based on religious, philosophical, or scientific reasoning.
I would take this a step further. Because of our ability to walk upright that frees our hands & arms, our opposing thumbs, and our overdeveloped intellect and self-consciousness, humans are by far the most powerful species on Earth. Unfortunately, humans have been as irresponsible as possible with that power, causing the Sixth Great Extinction, global warming/climate change, ocean acidification, ecosystem destruction, and poisoning every inch of air, water, and land (and other horrors that I can’t think of off the top of my head).
Instead of using our great gifts for good, specifically expanding our consciousness and otherwise evolving mentally & spiritually, humans have instead obsessed on intellect, ego, and very harmfully & unnaturally manipulating the natural world. This began at least 60-90,000 years ago, when humans began leaving Africa and causing extinctions wherever they went. The next big wrong move was killing native plants and producing an overabundance of food, thereby causing overpopulation, aka agriculture. It’s been all downhill since.
There is a much shorter answer to the question of why people support capitalism: Capitalism’s effect on humanity and the world over a few centuries is the same as a cocaine party’s effect on a small group of people over a few hours — or the effect of a cocaine habit on an individual, over a period of weeks or months.
Capitalism also rewards and encourages delusional thinking, as in the use of words like “consume,” “consumer,” “consumption,” and “growth.” If we really “consumed” the products of capitalism, there would be no waste, no pollution, and no landfills. And yet we produce and dump billions of tons of waste per year — into the air (36+ billion tons of carbon per year), into our rivers and oceans, and onto and into the the Earth itself. It could even be fairly said that capitalism, like a drug dealer, is not only in the business of making and distributing poisons, but of forcing them into and onto every living and non-living thing on Earth.
The question isn’t whether capitalism will collapse, but when — and whether it will happen because we’ve poisoned the air, water, land (and, ultimately, ourselves); or if we simply run out of the raw materials (topsoil and fresh water being the most critical), and capitalism, in effect, starves to death.
As Paul Ehrlich has said (with no lack of irony), “A long history of exponential growth does not imply a long future of exponential growth.” The same, of course, is true of a long history of spreading poisons.
Both by poisoning and exploiting earth’s resources, capitalism is unwittingly racing to use up the planet as quickly as possible.
Capitalism is a symptom of a symptom of a symptom, not a cause of anything. It IS an evil that needs to be cut out, because it will otherwise eventually consume all life on Earth. But the problem is that money and civilization exist, not which economic system people use. If you obsess on getting rid of capitalism, you won’t solve any environmental/ecological problems, because the causes of them go way beyond that.
Yes, Jeff. Essentially correct, I think, and an important aspect of my long post. For much more on this, read “Demonic Males, Apes and the Origins of Human Violence” by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, 1996. Riveting concerning our (men mostly) aggressive, often violent social behavior toward each other and thus other species as well. Murder, rape, warfare? Evolution produced that in us and we won’t end it by ending capitalism or civilization.
Richard Heinberg’s hot-off-the-press “Power, Limits and Prospects For Human Survival further expands on this theme as it relates to the most fundamental aspects of biology: energy flow in ecosystems. Sorry. Our angrily and arrogantly demanding that nature supposedly should not, must work as it does will not change the fundamental processes that made us and make us behave as we so destructively do.
I strongly and unequivocally reject the basic premise of these ideas. There ARE small groups of humans, mostly hunter-gatherers, who have focused on the right things instead of the wrong ones. These people are so much more mentally & spiritually advanced beyond modern humans that even our most brilliant scientists can’t begin to understand them when they try to explain their spiritual ideas.
This is a CHOICE, not something forced on us by evolution. I have no opinion whether the choice is conscious or unconscious, but because some people have made the right choice, it’s clearly not preordained. The big problem with your premise and why it very much matters is that if your premise were accepted, the logical conclusion is that there’s nothing we can do, so we might as well continuing destroying the Earth and all life on it. That’s a defeatist attitude that I’ll never accept.
2/3 of American houses are now ‘privately owned’. R. Ronald writes in The Ideology of Home Ownership: ‘Home ownership has long been considered in terms of its ideological significance. This association arguably originates in the late nineteenth century with Engels who suggested that individual home ownership leads to the embourgeoisement of the working class and diminishes autonomy in the political sphere. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to suggest that states and political groups have historically recognized the significance of promoting working-class home ownership as a means to promote an individualist ethos and resist the growth of collectivist forms of social organization.’ Spinoza, Morelly, Babeuf saw this coming. Spinoza, in the TP called home-owners ,being out of the commons and no part of the people, ‘foreigners’ (‘peregrini’) and didn’t allow them voting-right and weapons. Buonarotti wrote that the plan of the Equals (French Rev.) was that initially the rich should not be stripped of their property, but that they would be denied abundance, pleasure and respect; meanwhile the working man would be guaranteed ‘honest, permanent prosperity.’ This, he claimed, would soon open the eyes of those misled by prejudice and routine.’ To late for that i suppose. There is no such thing as a society, anymore.
in addition some quotes from Spinoza’s Political Treatise, his last, unfinished and, in the dominant Lockean discourse, mostly ignored work :
6.10 The militia must be formed out of citizens alone, none being exempt, and of no others. And, therefore, all are to be bound to have arms, and no one to be admitted into the number of the citizens, till he has learnt his drill, and promised to practise it at stated times in the year.
6.12 The fields, and the whole soil, and, if it can be managed, the houses should be public property, that is, the property of him, who holds the right of the commonwealth: and let him let them at a yearly rent to the citizens, whether townsmen or countrymen, and with this exception let them all be free or exempt from every kind of taxation in time of peace.
7.8 There is another accession to the cause of peace and concord, which is also of great weight: I mean, that no citizen can have immovable property. (‘nullus civis bona fixa habeat’)
7.19 Furthermore, in the state of nature, there is nothing which any man can less claim for himself, and make his own, than the soil, and whatever so adheres to the soil, that he cannot hide it anywhere, nor carry it whither he pleases. The soil, therefore, and whatever adheres to it in the way we have mentioned, must be quite common property of the commonwealth — that is, of all those who, by their united force, can vindicate their claim to it, or of him to whom all have given authority to vindicate his claim. And therefore the soil, and all that adheres to it, ought to have a value with the citizens proportionate to the necessity there is, that they may be able to set their feet thereon, and defend their common right or liberty.
What if..
Exactly. The Turtle Island Natives had no concept of land ownership; that’s a mental disease brought here from Europe (that also infected China). On an environmental/spiritual level, it’s totally immoral to claim ownership of land. As a traditional Native once said to me, if anything the land owns you! People can USE the land and they can defend their territories, but claiming to own land is egomaniacal if not meglomaniacal.