Slog
News & ArtsFriday, July 27, 2012
Economy Most Americans Don't Know What Capitalism Is
Posted by Charles Mudede on Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM
John Bussey:
Just half in U.S. view capitalism positively, even fewer can define it. But the election will be a referendum on it. http://on.wsj.com/MJKDbsThe fact that so many can't define it is a sign of the system's success. If you don't know what capitalism is, you won't be able to mentally separate it from reality. If you can't separate it from reality, you will not see it as what it truly is, historical, but as what it is truly not, natural. If see it as natural, will be incapable of imagining other alternatives, other forms of social relations, other possible worlds.
Retweeted by Wall Street Journal
1
what alternative do you propose?
me, i'd just take what they do in germany or france or england and copy it lock stock and barrel from high speed rail to socialized health care to gun control to a parliamentary system to how they finance college. or canada, which recently passed the usa in per person wealth,
these are all capitalist systems btw.
me, i'd just take what they do in germany or france or england and copy it lock stock and barrel from high speed rail to socialized health care to gun control to a parliamentary system to how they finance college. or canada, which recently passed the usa in per person wealth,
these are all capitalist systems btw.
3
Charles,
While I don't disagree with portions of your post, I do not think you have substantiated your assertion that Capitalism is unnatural in the slightest.
While I don't disagree with portions of your post, I do not think you have substantiated your assertion that Capitalism is unnatural in the slightest.
5
Most people can't define communism, either. I guess that means they can't separate communism from reality, either?
What does that even mean, that you have to be able to define something to "separate it from reality"? Are we supposed to be able to separate everything from reality, as if not being able to define gravity or calculus or the Renaissance somehow leads to confusion between those things and reality?
What does that even mean, that you have to be able to define something to "separate it from reality"? Are we supposed to be able to separate everything from reality, as if not being able to define gravity or calculus or the Renaissance somehow leads to confusion between those things and reality?
6
@4 I take it to mean that widespread ignorance prevents challenges to the status quo at times when the status quo is clearly not working for most people.
7
The issue with capitalism is that most never get to experience it.
Even well paid professionals still sell their labor.
It is rare for a person to have access to enough capital to create a business...fail or succeed and then be able to try again.
Yet this is exactly what we should be doing!
Even well paid professionals still sell their labor.
It is rare for a person to have access to enough capital to create a business...fail or succeed and then be able to try again.
Yet this is exactly what we should be doing!
8
Capitalism is a great idea - the consumers essentially run the marketplace. But that's not what we have in the U.S. We have a Frankenstein's monster of an economic system. Some capitalistic parts, some socialist parts... monopolies, oligarchies, cronyism and corruption, and so on.
The only problem with pure capitalism is that it is its own worst enemy. It's ultimately self-destructive. Free competition will inevitably end with one company/market/person controlling everything. The end point of free competition is the complete absence of competition.
The only problem with pure capitalism is that it is its own worst enemy. It's ultimately self-destructive. Free competition will inevitably end with one company/market/person controlling everything. The end point of free competition is the complete absence of competition.
9
@8: Is there any country, anywhere, that has an ideologically pure and homogeneous economic system? Has there ever been?
10
@5: The difference is that we don't currently have a communist economy.
The people who can't define capitalism are the same people who exist within a capitalist economy & society. In a lot of ways, it determines how we interact with others, how we measure success, and how we view concepts like fairness.
If someone doesn't recognize that these things are influenced by capitalism specifically, then it simply becomes "the way things are", or natural. At that point, it becomes very difficult to seriously consider alternative systems.
The people who can't define capitalism are the same people who exist within a capitalist economy & society. In a lot of ways, it determines how we interact with others, how we measure success, and how we view concepts like fairness.
If someone doesn't recognize that these things are influenced by capitalism specifically, then it simply becomes "the way things are", or natural. At that point, it becomes very difficult to seriously consider alternative systems.
11
@9,
Nope and nope (at least, as far as I know).
The problem is the people who throw out blanket statements like "Communism has already been tried, in the Soviet Union, and it failed." Which is bullshit because the Soviet Union had as much of a patched together economic system as the U.S. does.
As you said, every nation has a piecemeal economy. There may be little societies here and there that run on some pure form of capitalism or communism or whatever, but they're small, isolated anomalies.
Nope and nope (at least, as far as I know).
The problem is the people who throw out blanket statements like "Communism has already been tried, in the Soviet Union, and it failed." Which is bullshit because the Soviet Union had as much of a patched together economic system as the U.S. does.
As you said, every nation has a piecemeal economy. There may be little societies here and there that run on some pure form of capitalism or communism or whatever, but they're small, isolated anomalies.
12
Also, does "define" mean in a sentence, in a paragraph, a short essay?
I truly believe that my economics professor in college would have take a few to gather this thoughts on how he would define capitalism given the parameters for his answer.
Wikipedia says:
Most Americans know that, but only a few could articulate it on the spot. That doesn't mean they are not bright enough to make intelligent decisions about economic policies and political choices. If that is what you're trying to get at Charles.
I truly believe that my economics professor in college would have take a few to gather this thoughts on how he would define capitalism given the parameters for his answer.
Wikipedia says:
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.
Most Americans know that, but only a few could articulate it on the spot. That doesn't mean they are not bright enough to make intelligent decisions about economic policies and political choices. If that is what you're trying to get at Charles.
13
Democratic socialism with a predominantly capitalist economic system is the only prescription that has ever or will ever provide wealth and happiness for the majority of its citizens. There ARE no "alternative systems"; there are relatively minor adjustments of the various sliders one way or the other. The US's economic system is not hugely different from Germany's, or Japan's, or Brazil's, or France's, or Australia's, or any other even partly successful country. Even China is predominantly capitalist in its actual economic workings -- the industrial powerhouse that they have become appeared only after managers of companies and managers of capital were given the freedom to work outside of immediate state control. And the real engine of China is the small private entrepreneur.
Pure state control of capital and business has died out for a reason: it doesn't work. At all. There are no counterexamples because counterexamples are impossible. Just as obviously, "pure" capitalism, with no socialist state providing fiscal management and social benefits, doesn't, and can't, exist.
Pure state control of capital and business has died out for a reason: it doesn't work. At all. There are no counterexamples because counterexamples are impossible. Just as obviously, "pure" capitalism, with no socialist state providing fiscal management and social benefits, doesn't, and can't, exist.
15
@ 11, it's complicated further by the fact that people who do understand this stuff also don't agree on what "pure" capitalism is. Some will say it's laissez-faire; others will acknowledge the state. Some will allow for a wild-west free-for-all and whatever happens happens, but others will acknowledge the need for rules.
It's a lot like Christianity; most Americans will describe themselves as Christian, but most will disagree over what that means. They'll agree on a few major points but have serious disputes over what appear to be minor ones to outsiders.* Capitalism is similarly regarded - most people understand (or are, at the very least, comfortable with) how markets are supposed to work and how most of us benefit, even those at the bottom. (You think urban poverty is bad today, you should have seen it 100 years ago.)
* I know of a small congregation who split up over the issue of whether those "left behind" after the rapture will be aware that the rapture happened. Some argued vociferously that no, when it happens our memories will be wiped clean of the people who get to float up to Heaven that day.
It's a lot like Christianity; most Americans will describe themselves as Christian, but most will disagree over what that means. They'll agree on a few major points but have serious disputes over what appear to be minor ones to outsiders.* Capitalism is similarly regarded - most people understand (or are, at the very least, comfortable with) how markets are supposed to work and how most of us benefit, even those at the bottom. (You think urban poverty is bad today, you should have seen it 100 years ago.)
* I know of a small congregation who split up over the issue of whether those "left behind" after the rapture will be aware that the rapture happened. Some argued vociferously that no, when it happens our memories will be wiped clean of the people who get to float up to Heaven that day.
16
It seems #13 demonstrates the point of the post well: "Things are the way they are and there is no other way for them to be".
18
@16, are you dim-witted? There are many, many possible ways for "things to be". All of the good ones involve a measure of personal freedom to operate in the economic sphere without total governmental control. If you can't tell the difference between, say, Brazil and US, then maybe you ought to get better tools besides hammers. Read a book.
19
Charles, the Stiglitz interview on the Daily Show is a 'must see.' What's going on in the US is not capitalism, it's a perversion and smoke screen for a lot misconduct by the richest 0.01%.
20
what it is truly not, natural
Actually, when you consider that humans have been trading goods and services with each other since prehistory, capitalism is quite arguably rooted in natural, evolutionarily significant human instincts involving reciprocity. The ability to negotiate a shrewd deal with a neighboring tribe could well have determined whether a given clan of cave people would survive the winter.
Likewise, the compassionate intentions behind communism - i.e., from each according to his ability, to each according to his need - are also rooted in human nature. From an evolutionary standpoint, these instincts would only have worked at the level of the clan or tribe, however, and would have fallen apart at the level of the city, where that kind of naively trusting attitude would have quickly separated the country bumpkin from all of his possessions.
Actually, when you consider that humans have been trading goods and services with each other since prehistory, capitalism is quite arguably rooted in natural, evolutionarily significant human instincts involving reciprocity. The ability to negotiate a shrewd deal with a neighboring tribe could well have determined whether a given clan of cave people would survive the winter.
Likewise, the compassionate intentions behind communism - i.e., from each according to his ability, to each according to his need - are also rooted in human nature. From an evolutionary standpoint, these instincts would only have worked at the level of the clan or tribe, however, and would have fallen apart at the level of the city, where that kind of naively trusting attitude would have quickly separated the country bumpkin from all of his possessions.
21
16, re: 18... QED! :D
Re: Charles post: Most people can't tell you what money is nor where it comes from either.
I'll bet that perhaps only a couple of you here -at most- actually know where money comes from and what it really is.
If you understand this tool called "money" that we humans have created, you'll quickly see that there are in fact other options and ways for things to be.
Re: Charles post: Most people can't tell you what money is nor where it comes from either.
I'll bet that perhaps only a couple of you here -at most- actually know where money comes from and what it really is.
If you understand this tool called "money" that we humans have created, you'll quickly see that there are in fact other options and ways for things to be.
22
@19: Perhaps the biggest coop of "the 1%" is selling the idea that capitalism and government regulation are somehow at odds with each other when in fact the opposite is true.
You can't have a large scale system of free and fair trade without government regulation anymore than you can have a professional baseball league without umpires.
You can't have a large scale system of free and fair trade without government regulation anymore than you can have a professional baseball league without umpires.
23
Capitalism's greatest bulwark is people's fear of losing what they have, even though the ones who are so afraid are usually the ones who don't have much. I've met a lot of libertarians and they've almost all worked shitty minimum-wage jobs, but they were all prepared to kill to protect their property rights.
The degree of doublethink required to believe that a capitalist system is free or fair - and those are ultimately the fundamental values that get brought up - is an amazing thing to see.
The degree of doublethink required to believe that a capitalist system is free or fair - and those are ultimately the fundamental values that get brought up - is an amazing thing to see.
24
20, Um, trade =/= capitalism.
Making a shrewd deal =/= private ownership of the means of production in mass society.
I submit that you are conflating two very different things.
Rigging the game so that winner takes all is pathological, an illness, a social wrong. Which makes it no surprise that the rich have social & mental problems. Just look at Mittens.
Making a shrewd deal =/= private ownership of the means of production in mass society.
I submit that you are conflating two very different things.
Rigging the game so that winner takes all is pathological, an illness, a social wrong. Which makes it no surprise that the rich have social & mental problems. Just look at Mittens.
26
@22, the hypocrisy with which the pull out the invisible hand is what bothers me. Crowing about the American dream while they have rigged the system so only the children of the rich and powerful can succeed is really the greatest scandal of the last 30 years.
27
I've seen and experienced the other worlds, and reject them. I'll take what we have and work to improve it.
28
@27, universal health care, access to higher education and a net for basic needs (food and shelter) are needed for an economic system that encourages risk taking and innovation. Canada and Australia's median incomes are now $20-30k higher, and China, India and Ghana are graduating more people. The US is already fallen way behind with this Tea Party/Grover Norquist bullshit fest.
29
I believe that's called dodgeball.
anymore than you can have a professional baseball league without umpires.
I believe that's called dodgeball.
30
If Americans don't know what capitalism is, then they can't know what about our current system they actually like. The average American wants universal health care, a welfare state, and high taxes on the rich, but whip out the word "socialism" to describe those policies, and the average American turns against them.
What I wouldn't give for a fucking educated populace for once.
What I wouldn't give for a fucking educated populace for once.
31
the most important thing you need to know about marxism is this: it's not an economic theory; it's theory of an economic system, capitalism. if you are not critiquing capitalism that is a very good indication that you are not a marxist. this is something many americans find hard to understand: marxism is not economic theory or an alternative economic system. marxism is only about capitalism. capitalism goes, marxists go with it.
32
Marxism is a critique of capitalism makes sense. Most people in the US equate it with communism, but there's a political point to that. It's a weak defense to set up the straw man of 'it's better than other systems.' I couldn't believe this pathetic cartoon from this week's Economist:
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2lkfz80.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2lkfz80.jpg[/IMG]
33
People are, however, starting to understand what capitalism does and who it victimizes. More and more people are turning to more "radical" ideologies and whether you agree with Occupy and the current anti-capitalist trend or not, one must agree that more and more people are realizing that there are people who benefit from their suffering and making profit from their labor while they go nowhere.
34
27, What's it like living in the Inca's moneyless empire? How was using negative-interest currencies? You know of a world where the rich voluntarily give back to improve the whole? Where people treat each other as equals, regardless of social status? A place where there is no artificial scarcity of money?
Do tell, where are these worlds? I wanna check them out first hand too.
Do tell, where are these worlds? I wanna check them out first hand too.
36
@31: I don't see how you can disentangle Marxism, the critique of capitalism from communism, the alternative to capitalism that followed directly from that critique. Well, I guess you can, but not without stripping Marxism of any claim to being revolutionary.
@33: Suffering? Jesus Christ, kid, read a fucking history book. You don't know shit about real suffering. You haven't experienced it, and you haven't witnessed it. None of us have. The level of suffering it takes to fuel a revolution doesn't exist in this country. You and your friends aren't fighting suffering, you're fighting boredom.
@33: Suffering? Jesus Christ, kid, read a fucking history book. You don't know shit about real suffering. You haven't experienced it, and you haven't witnessed it. None of us have. The level of suffering it takes to fuel a revolution doesn't exist in this country. You and your friends aren't fighting suffering, you're fighting boredom.
37
@2 No, capitalism needs a just government to regulate it. When unregulated, capitalism leads to monopolies, which stifle all the best parts of capitalism--its ability to reward innovation, its ability to allow supply and demand to make the most unpleasant jobs the best paid, and its ability to allow the best-made goods and services to command the best prices. When regulated, however, capitalism can be very good for society.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS