Social Networking and Capitalism (Are Historical or Authentic Capitalism AND Social Networks Related?)

You would be correct if you were to say about Linked-In that it is, or must be, intended for social interaction. That is so. But we need to ask a little more about this. What kind? To give a preliminary answer, Linked-In is designed, quite intentionally, leaves out any social interactions that do not involve money.

     Having said that, we need to discriminate between social interactions. Let's discuss two kinds. There are more, but we need to identify social interactions in a preliminary way first. And first, there are the social interactions connected with money outcomes, or the interactions measured by money. Second, social interactions of another kind: these are social interactions that do not have this type of linkage. These are two preliminary kinds of social interaction. If we say that even  the latter are part of capitalism, then even this un-money-linked kind of relation is, really, another part of capitalism, the non-market part of capitalism. It can be linked with capitalism even if it does not have this money interest, which is to say not directly.

.

Another way to put across the same idea is that capitalism does NOT have such a separation, or that the money-related and non money-related "really" are the same thing. This is very tricky; maybe you get the idea. Capitalism is about (not individualism and private properties but) social interaction but not always. It's very tricky! What is important is to understand that, when looking at the period of history characterized as capitalistic we may understand that capitalism does not operate as a system that is sequestered to only the money or trading kind of person. Capitalism exists in an entire society, a society featuring certain characteristically "capitalist" processes. ("Socialists" are capitalists.) If it is social, then capitalism comprises the persons in the society. Other kinds of persons are involved, but (rather than classes) these two kinds of socializing are mixed up together, so it is one system.
     Therefore, I hope it is clear that the 'social' network LinkedIn does NOT reproduce the social network of capitalism at all, or not of the kind of capitalism that actually developed historically.  The social networks or social foundations were fully integrated with human society as it was then----not put up on a "social network," which is by comparison an artificiality. Thus, the social network of Linked-In is not the social network of (historical) capitalism.

Linked-In is not capitalism.

(second version of a recent post)

Marx and Engels thought that the capitalist system was bound to fail. They believed that, definitely, it would do so. Of course, this is one of their most famous predictions! They also specified details of how that failure was to happen. Here the “proletariat” were involved. But this did not occur, or not so far and not in that precise way. It still may happen; there may be such a systemic failure. But, in any case, the situation is quite different. Whatever explanations there are, they need to account for this difference. The explanations marx and Engels adhered are somewhat, it is safe to say, insufficient.

     How are we to understand the miracle of capitalism? If we fail to understand what it is that is at the basis, or what the basis is, we won't be able to understand the capitalism which is the result. So, I want to take the position, here, that we need to know the basis: what the basis is. Otherwise you are going back to your old position which is one of no understanding. Capitalism is difficult to explain, and there are alternate explanations of “basis.” But, I think we need a basis... What follows is only one way to approach it ... a ... way.

     I contend that capitalism is based on such differences as may exist. There are actors, and these simply comprise the relevant population or society. In fact they are what are called economic actors or players. For example, rich and poor, owners and workers are "actors" in the economic system. These are persons who are different from one another, either individually or as different groups, since individuals may comprise any of various kinds of groups. As to difference: we witness that as time goes by there is the illusion of a leveling of the playing field. There at least seems to be such a leveling. Differences with regard to capitalistic society seem to be reducing. Regarding it as apparent, not real, is helpful. It corresponds to the Picketty narrative, of course. It helps us to remain open-minded. Thus do we investigate this real or apparent tendency that implies a movement towards reduction of difference. Thus, we are allowed to retain our skepticism. (Of course, if the whole "basis" really is difference, then eliminating the basis might also eliminate capitalism.)

     With that in mind, we may observe the way in which average citizens come to eventually realize that, due to society's glorious progress, they too can enter the field of play and be part of the great market, in a bigger way! Again: what is at stake is reality vs. illusion. This had actually been true for a long time---in some sense. But now we see! Now the public realized! That is one possible interpretation, among many. The markets opened up and everyone got the chance to prosper. But if the public did not know that they could do this, in what sense do I was it actually true? Add to this the observation that the United States of America is almost from the beginning based on giving people, citizens, more freedom and we see that it translates to the freedom to work where one pleases, at the career of one's choice, or start one's own business should one want to, or have the energy. But technically it's possible. Under what conditions can "anyone" "succeed in America"?

     The apparent leveling of the playing field does not mean the playing field is level and even more so it does not mean that capitalism proceeded from any such historical basis. What, then, is the real nature of the level playing field? What is the "level playing field principle"? So, here we can return to our basis idea that it is just the opposite, and what capitalism actually requires is difference.

     The situation today is better described as ambiguous. There is a level on which persons are newly seeing the way that capitalism can (Or, alternatively: capitalism apparently can) dissolve differences and thus all they need to do is be the proverbial “nice guys” and they get the proverbial, much-vaunted “good life.” That may be so, and certainly that is what “they” want you to believe. But at the same time, you could listen to what I am saying here. Coexisting with all the apparent “facts” is quite the opposite “fact,” which is the precise idea that capitalism happens only when the actors are different.
     How can both things be true? They could---if the nature of the situation is ambiguous one. So, the "basis" I am looking for is not only difference. It is also that of ambiguity. We see how complex capitalism is. It never led to a crash due the isolation of a class of "proletarians."

Does capitalism level the playing field?

marx and Engels thought the capitalist system was bound to, definitely would—fail. They also specified how it would do so. So, it was bound to fail, and is would, and it was to happen in a certain way. Their theories have not been supported by the history of the world up until now, and I am not the first writer to point this out. In other words, it has not happened, or not in the way that marx and Engels predicted it would, which does not mean it will still not happen. What such a catastrophic failure would look like is another matter. In any case, if it fails, the reality or real explanation for that one will ultimately have to be a bit different from marx and Engels, who, while they adhered strongly to certain explanations, it has been shown by fair Madame History that this must be somewhat wrong… After all, capitalism is still here.  And... what is the explanation?

     Now let me throw you a curve: How are we to understand the miracle of capitalism? We don't have to understand it negatively; we could also have a positive understanding. We should understand what is at the basis or what holds it up. If we fail to understand anything about what is at the basis, we won't be able to understand it. An understanding of the basis, which we could also call a "positive" understanding (of the miracle) is just what we need to know. Otherwise, we shall be back in the position of not understanding at all. We may not understand the whole thing or entire basis, since capitalism is difficult to explain in general. And there are alternate explanations, in any case. But I will suggest that not understanding at all is to be greatly feared. That is not desirable.

     The basis for the existence of large-scale capitalism, in a societal setting, is, I will suggest, difference. We know about, for example, all the different products. We know that you find a variety of different, competing products. There is also a difference in the actors, differences that exist amongst actors—what are called the economic actors, or agents, or "players." For example, broad classifications of rich and poor, also owners and workers. Whether these distinctions are actually sustained over a long time is just the issue. These persons who are different from one another differ either individually or in groups (i.e. group A and group B). As time goes by, we witness the illusion of a leveling of the playing field. But why say "illusion"? Well, I am pointing out the apparent leveling, and saying that perhaps there is an apparent leveling only. There seems to be a certain leveling of differences, and this comes with regard to capitalistic society. Regarding it as apparent, not real, allows us to remain open-minded about it. At the same time that we investigate this tendency in the direction of reducing difference, we do not have to automatically accept its reality. We are simply trying to retain our skepticism, which may turn out to be helpful.

     With that in mind we can offer the observation that average citizens at some point do seem to realize what they had not fully realized heretofore, which is that they too can enter the field of market play. This had been true for a long time before, but not every member of the public comprehended it. The United States of America is based on freedom. It is, almost from the beginning, engaged in a fundamental process: it gives the citizens more freedom. (You can say "The People" if that feels better to you!) In practice this really translates into freedom to work where one pleases, and other economic sorts of things. You may go into whatever career or job you want, or one may start one's own business, should you want to---and have the energy.

     But this apparent leveling of the playing field does not mean the playing field is level, and, more so, much more so, it certainly could not mean that capitalism has proceeded, historically, in this way. Thus, the basis is both the basis of a level playing field and, at the same time, not. There room for an open discussion of this "level playing field principle." So, here, we return to our 'basis' idea, for we stated just the opposite.

     To frame the situation as it is today, I would like to point out that there is an element in capitalism of the ambiguous. There is a level on which persons are newly seeing the way that capitalism can (alternatively: that capitalism apparently can) dissolve differences. It may seem to be every day  the case that more and more all you need to do is be the proverbial “nice guy.” They get the proverbial, much-ballyhooed “good life.” That may be so, and certainly that is what “they” want you to believe. But all the same: coexisting with that “fact,” that one is free to participate in the glorious capitalistic life, one is free to listen to what I am telling you and understand also just the opposite “fact,” which is a precise idea that capitalism occurs only when the actors are different. How can both things be true? They can, if capitalism proceeds on a basis of (not only difference, but) ambiguity.

Choice of brand distinguished from choice of product.

Giving customers the opportunity to engage and interact with a product or service is the most powerful way to win brand loyalty. AgencyEA strategically engages consumers in their natural environments to establish deep brand connections. From mobile tours and product launches to local activations and product sampling, our B-to-C engagement solutions communicate brand attributes at every touch point. - See more at: http://agencyea.com/portfolio/consumer-engagement/#sthash.vulv2At1.dpuf

Every sentence has the word "brand" in it. But I would prefer to see the products disaggregated, so to speak. Not so unlike many others, I would describe the major point of capitalism as free markets and also the "freedom to choose." But this quote above actually illustrates a practice that is not so good for capitalism. This means "EA" (an agency) is a capitalist business working against capitalism.
     But that should come as no surprise: Persons need to earn a living, right? If they do, and if they operate within capitalism -- and to some degree they have to operate within the world they live in, which is capitalism -- they may do it as they like. There is no rule that says they have to do so in a way that corresponds to capitalism or in a way that, in a sense, does not correspond to the host system. So they can act as they wish. But in any case, the intent of the "EA" agency may not be in accord with the best interests of an economic system validly getting its vitality from real choice.
     This is the simple reason, which can be easily enough grasped. If it were a market system, it should allow the consumers the choices they need. Should they want to choose by product, rather than brand, should they be able to? Here is an agency working for the whole brand. Does this maximize consumer/customer choice? Whereas consumers should have choice of products, this company (agency) wants to produce a choice of brand.
     This is found by just reading the agency's language: In the first sentence: "brand loyalty" ; In the second: "brand connections" ; In the third there are all kinds of exotic concepts like "tours," "launches," "activations," and "sampling" in order to engage "C," which may indicate customers (or consumers). But engage them how? They are being directed to the whole brand, obviously and that seems not at all the same as being directed to a product.

This does not mean the "EA" agency will be successful at limited our choices to brands, only that this is where they seem to be going--this is the intent of the business, their policy. It does not seem to me to be in line with the fundamental vitality of capitalism, or, in other words, capitalism's best interests.
 
What the public, or "C" actually need is free choice of products. "Brand" is one step removed from the best interests of consumers in a dynamic (or "actual") free market system.

(readers should also see Iyengar's excellent book on this, and on all matters regarding "choice," apparently, called "The Art of Choosing," published by the "12" imprint of Hatchette Publisher)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheena_Iyengar

The things now

The things that are going on now in the world seem truly horrific.

Social reform has been successfully stymied. Capitalism has not come under a general system of regulation -- or of modification, control, adjustment, or governance. (I don't mean governance by the central banks or the WTO, b.t.w.)

Protecting the capitalist system from destruction is in the interest of everyone. There is no group (say, 1,000 or more persons anywhere, like the lawyers, or the Jamaicans, or the English working stiffs) of any size that would really benefit from continued lack of general economic interventions. Maybe the two more extreme of the three Koch bros.--Um, that is two persons!

Economics, with and without politics

                                                Theoretical Statement

 

 

Businessmen do things out of necessity. We may distinguish such practicality from the act of doing things out of inquiry, scientific curiosity, or altruism. If a farmer or distributor wants to get a price for a product that he has in bulk, he would probably set up an exchange. According to my recent reading, this is how the stock exchange or commodity exchanges are created, in a city like Chicago, for example. Shipments of grain are coming in. Remember, it is for the purpose of feeding the population. So, that is number one. But eventually everyone needs to know something: what is the best price, what should I be paying? A very practical concern. They are not asking out of scientific curiosity! You can probably do this in a slap-dash way, but it seems quite reasonable someone would set up the first grain exchanges this way. So,  they want to set a price. This so would help the buyers and sellers come together. It beats standing in front of a warehouse or loading dock and guessing, and, similarly, it probably also beats having to wondering whether that person you are dealing with is on the up and up. All this seems reasonable, then. It applies to the setting of prices on the wholesale level, of course, not on the retail level since all the little stores can (in older days) probably work out prices for themselves as word of mouth will serve to travel around town easily. But big importers might hide things, right? I think so. So, an exchange is needed, for whatever reason. Not having one is not desirable. Not having one does not improve the life of a big city. So, the Chicago Board of Trade was created. It proves that in real life trade is regulated. 
     There is no “free market” in the sense of some kind of nativism, or in the sense of a naturalistic human activity in which regulations are never imposed. That is a lie. It is a false tale. It doesn't exist. We always “regulate” economics; so, commodity or other exchanges can serve as an example. And there are other kinds of regulation or rule-setting, too, like government in general!

     It is simultaneously true that the imposition of this kind of regulation can be done by business itself. If instead regulation is by outsiders, they could be motivated by something else: like politics. I also mentioned the topics of inquisitiveness or inquiry, scientific curiosity, and altruism, above. The upshot is that, while there are plenty of ways to regulate, or "intervene," there is an argument there about having that done by the businessmen themselves. Yes, this could be preferable. But what orthodox propaganda economists and other big talkers ("rhetoric") will not tell you, for example, is that the businessmen are the same persons as the persons that work in government. Therefore, we are all human beings in the same society. The established economists just happen not to have thought of that (it would take actually thinking, of course, so that's really difficult for them; and, yes Virginia, that does include university professors----who, I may add, are a dime a dozen).
     So, I got distracted. We were specifying an area of argument. Government does regulate the exchanges to some extent. They do not always do a good job, so perhaps this should be kept to a minimum—but not in the case where regulation by businessmen fails, where there is a big scandal, etc. And those kind of things can happen. The idea that there is a clear demarcation between some kind of natural unregulated human trading activity on the one hand and “government regulation” on the other (and this is the second time I am making the point) is wrong.
     This common idea of regulation and free market as being two different, opposed things, seems to exist as regulation. The idea itself is a kind of regulation, since it exists for the same motive: it is a desire to get into policy and tell persons what to do in their lives. They are regulators, you see. It is an interesting point. They are economists, not businessmen, right? It is thus the worst kind of ideological interest, a fraud, not part of the day-to-day workings of business. So, we must eventually come to the conclusion that these theories of “unregulated” markets or naturalism in the market is fraud pure and simple—nothing more to say. Talking about this garbage (sorry, Mom--I'll wash my mouth out) and subscribing to it are the exact same thing.

Thus we have established that societies do, in fact, regulate the activities they engage in, including, naturally, their market activities. Perverts who talk about "the free market" things are irrelevant, then, and markets are (doh) by nature regulated--so are other things; this is the way life is, including political life under government. Regulation exists within the practice of doing business and our example was (that of) the establishment of the exchanges, which, remember, are regulation. It is done either by business, or government, or others. Some agency (big word, for me). There is an argument for the businessmen themselves to do it (and economists are not businessmen), and also an argument that there will certainly be government involvement. Under some circumstances, the two are separate but the latter factor is inevitable. This is so, if only because the government and the businesses are in a democracy often staffed by the same persons.

Out of necessity, business is always going to be regulating itself. This is true in America, a capitalist society. It regulates, and it is a society. It is also not a utopian paradise or an land of individualism, or free enterprise or something like that. It's a society, that's all. We do not see the idea that it is a specifically or radically individualist society gaining traction. The idea is not having any success at all. It is what some persons want for America but it isn't happening. Maybe that just doesn't work. The economy is successful. Why? Because, I would argue, in America businessmen do a good job of regulating themselves—then let us go further. Now we ask—how? As to this matter (of the how of it, or, sometimes, I say the "why" of it too), it traces back to politics. It traces back to the very founding of the country or nation and the political developments. These developments led to the U. S. Constitution, all of it being an organic process of self-regulation (but political this time you see). Societies regulate and economies regulate. Societies have political institutions. Economics is also impacted by these institutions. Go far enough back, and see: the economic success traces back to the founding political events of the country. 

Capitalism's Changes

Persons are telling us about how great “capitalism” is. We hear that a lot, but let us also ask what it is they mean by “capitalism.” Capitalism changes, and the present form of capitalism is not the form of capitalism at, for example, some particular time, such as the middle of the 19^th century. At that time, the system was still developing. It certainly had not reached the level that it has now. (Capitalism won't reach any higher level. It will not "grow" anymore, if by that we mean reach a higher level, in the real sense. That is why we need reform, to continue with any real sense of progress.) Comparing the old and the new, or for that matter any two stretches from within our subjective impression of "capitalist time," capitalism's status is probably going to have some significant differences. When we think that it is all the same, that is a big a mistake we are making. It is better to understand capitalism as changing over time, we cannot think that every period is the same. Now, in any of the old time slices, the system, and also the social structure (that's relevant in my view), was growing--and changing--and in a specific sense.
     This in the sense of space: the sense that it had much virgin space, there was a large area yet to be converted. These were spaces in which to attempt new growth and this relates to society and to the way in which one makes one’s way through life, since one does so in some particular fashion. Therefore,  there is no one "capitalist way." For example, earlier one may find success by having any one of a variety of skills; but more recently something has changed: more recently, one makes one's way simply playing money games. (Obviously I myself do not think that that is very healthy.) Also, these kinds of games have previously always been a topic of derision, which tells you something. Nowadays, nobody says anything. They act like that is just the way the world works.

     On this subject, millionaires used to be mildly amusing. The board game “Monopoly” was invented in their honor, as a commentary on the existence of the millionaires, and the world they helped to create——the reality is that there was wealth to be accumulated. And wealth was accumulated, through capitalistic development, production. Today these persons may well be seen as figures of grave concern and possibly (they are) speeding us to world destruction.
     At fault? I would bring your attention back to the single-minded emphasis on unilateral capitalism as if there is one single thing. This might be described as an emphasis on "capitalism" as something that worked before, and “ought to” work now, just as well as before!——all one need do is lower taxes. Now, that is not necessarily true. So, I would concede that while capitalism does continue to make profits, "old" and "the new" are different. The "modern" is usually a kind of summation or abstraction, whereas the older regime has many specific details, even ornamentation. Of course, what is going on is extremely complicated and the truth is that everyone just claims to know. We never admit to not-knowing. 

     If you say “capitalism,” I need to ask you to tell me which one. Is it the quaint, old version stolidly opposed by the Left? Could you call that the good old days, I wonder? Not really, but that one was full of space to grow—and to struggle, strangely enough. And that one had opposition! In fact, at the time of that particular version, which we might call in a very special way the "old" version of capitalism, opportunities existed to fill in all those spaces. This was space that had been heretofore untouched. To touch such a space for the first time could be astonishingly inhuman, which we see in the literary work of Upton Sinclair. He illustrated the astonishing inhumanity men are capable of: “The Jungle.” Sinclair was very dedicated to exposing this side of capitalism.
     The process is that after the creation of the first new businesses, these businesses often opened up further spaces, and this process has continued (but only up until very recently). At some point that will stop working. And maybe it already has stopped working. The “old” capitalism was still recognizable in the 1950s, although it had at that time an appearance (appearances and rhetoric again) of being a monolith, a gray, hulking sort of thing. Or you may mean the capitalism of today, a system that has already grown very much indeed-—and now expresses and manifests a world-owning “globalization” phase. We are told this is just another form of capitalism.

     It has accomplished so much success: so much growth that it is “creatively destroying” itself. There is no territory left that has not been visited by those seeking to make money off of that space or that territory's "resources." There is scarcely any ground left to be trod in this world, nowhere that has not felt the impress of the system of capitalism——capitalist shoe print and footfall. Note that there's a big difference between footprint and shoe print.
     And yet, for those who tout the system, like Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, the old shoeprint is always the same. This is ideology.