Thursday, April 12, 2018

Capitalism is society

What is a large scale capitalist economy? Is it a network? Is it a community? It is related to both of those things, and therefore a way of conducting humanity or human lives. Capitalism is a means to create a society to carry out the various functions in life, particularly those that are organized around exchange. One feature of capitalism may be that various individuals pursue livelihoods, but are linked together as a community. But this aspect, that of linkage or social connection, is missing in the intellectual study field of "economics." The studies methodically go about their business: which is the business of getting things wrong and they thus create a methodical misunderstanding. Marx's analysis, says one Galbraith, the current one, Jamie, was social and political but neo-Classical economics has "dumped" all of that. What it means is they took out the whole social connection. The social part of economics has been removed. This is to say: as intellectual technique. In the real sense economics is social but in the 'study reality,' human beings suddenly do not get along or interact socially. All that's over, and suddenly there are only individuals. This sudden disappearance of human social connections should immediately arouse suspicions.
     It is a wrong view. Nevertheless, this stupid technique, which call for telling us that economic actors are individuals, or mere individuals, has been accepted. The neoclassical view is wrong, yet it is accepted, as course/study material. So what is the fundamental mistake? It places the emphasis on individuals, when human beings are, in reality, social creatures. Capitalism is not out of line with this characterization. We can therefore take a more social view, but - and we may ask for the reason - the persons working in the subject field (area) of "economics," obliterated the hope for all of this.
     What is the reason for such unreasonable ideas? How can we explain it? Capitalism forces us to do one of two things: we have, either, to admit our social side or conceal it. Once you decide to conceal it, something absurd has to result. Then we wait for the "scientific paradigm" to correct itself. The intellectual history of economics consist of the history or the result of a decision to conceal this. It seems to me a decision to conceal the fact that social life is a part of ourselves, that we are social, and this involves initiating something that some persons needed to do because capitalism came along, threatening to confirm these facts, which "Individualists" prefers not to do.
     So, the argument had to be turned the oth-
     
--er way, because this was the only alternative that was palatable to a large constituency, which is to say amongst the rich, among the "ideological superstructure." Thereat is a part of humanity who do not want to admit they are part of humanity.
     But the view is wrong, for now and in the past. Capitalism was not some kind of individual affair. Rather it brings social life into it. We can get the picture. We can clarify. Factory workers now live together. They inhabit cities like Manchester, England. Is there a sudden transformation there, into individuals guided by rational self-interest? Social aspects of capitalism were subsequently expunged from the intellectual picture. These more social kinds of ideas were assigned to socialists, the curators. Intellectual life was now divided into left and right. Manufactures exploited workers. That started in the early 19th century, or before, and it was going like that until about 1850, when workmen's wages in England, mercifully, started to rise. (Braudel) The cause of the workingman was taken up by socialism. In reality capitalism itself was perfectly capable of treating workers like human beings. (Robert Owen) But the wealthy owners were afraid somebody might take away their wealth. For that reason hundreds of thousands of workers had to live in misery. They were used by the wealthy as mere pawns since the overall goal was business expansion. A labor movement was eventually formed, so that workers were (for the next 130 yrs.) able to attain more of the capitalistic "wealth," or "value," which was of course being produced on an ongoing basis. First, poverty had to be endured, in England as well as US. The growth of capitalism is one of the most bizarre stories in the history of man's experience on this earth.
     Of course we may continue to refuse to confront our social nature. Try that. We can all die from global warming - there is that too. But, at any rate, one should not take it as given that capitalism means only something about the individual, or individual ownership, or individualism or anything else like that (other writers might know how to put it more cannily).
     By getting the story of capitalism wrong and calling it individualism we consign ourselves to lives of basic propaganda. It is a big misunderstanding. It is only based on this misunderstanding that persons continue to seek after their ideal, which is a system of total individualism that they can only dream about and theorize about. It is difficult to find such a system in reality. And no wonder --- it is not there as any essential or prominent part of capitalism yet the facts are there is a large capitalist economy. What is it? What does one do with it? That is what we need to find out. It has been a very powerful system but at this time in history things need to change. Capitalism, in my view, now needs to be subject to human control, intentional control. And to exercise control includes the need for understanding what capitalism is, since of course one would need to know what one is controlling. This seems to be very difficult for us. But, I will suggest, that is where economists come in.

*                                *                            *                           *                         *
My usual approach is to understand the phenomena of economics in terms of man's inherent sociality.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century
--


     In fact, the neoclassical view is just wrong. It deliberately places the emphasis on individuals when human beings are social creatures. Capitalism is not out of line with this or an exception. Capitalism forces us to do one of two things: we have either to admit our social side or to conceal it. Intellectual history, in the case of economics, is the decision to conceal this part of ourselves, to conceal that we are social beings, which involves initiating an intellect process which is necessary only because capitalism comes along threatening to confirm what one prefers to reject. So, the argument had to be turned the other way, because this was the only alternative that was palatable to a large constituency, amongst the rich part of humanity.
     Capitalism was never individual. It immediately brings social life into the picture. Factory workers now live together, in cities like Manchester, England. There is no sudden transformation into individuals guided by rational self-interest. Social aspects of capitalism were subsequently expunged from the picture. These were assigned to socialists as curators. Intellectual life was divided. There was left and right. Manufactures brutally exploited workers, which started in the early 19th century or before, until about 1850, when workmen's wages in England, mercifully, started to rise. The cause of the workingman was taken up by socialism, when in reality capitalism itself was perfectly capable of treating workers like human beings. (Robert Owen) But the wealthy owners were afraid somebody might take away their wealth, and for that reason hundreds of thousands of workers were forced to live in misery. They were used by the wealthy as mere pawns in the expansion of business. Eventually a labor movement was formed, and by this or other means workers were (for 130 yes.) able to attain more of the capitalistic wealth that was being produced. First, poverty had to be endured, in England as well as US/America. The growth of capitalism is one of the most bizarre stories in the history of man on earth.