Wikipedia describes “anti-capitalism” in the following manner:
“Anti-capitalism refers to opposition to capitalism in terms of beliefs or attitudes. As such, it is a very broad term covering a wide collection of views and ideologies, some of which oppose each other more than they oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists in the strict sense of the word are those who wish to completely replace capitalism with another economic system, however, there are also ideologies which can be characterized as partially anti-capitalist, in the sense that they only wish to replace or abolish certain aspects of capitalism, rather than the entire system.”
Take notice that, just as the term “capitalism” is surprisingly hard to describe, in modern practical usage, with sufficient clarity and precision as a realistic economic concept (although it seems much easier to describe as a politico-ideological tool of social rhetorical warfare), its logical oppositional derivative “anti-capitalism” cannot possibly be less confusing than the mother-term, no more capable of separating pure economics from politics and ideology.
In its subsequent list of opponents of capitalism, Wikipedia uses the word “ideology” in describing them all, which is important to me in the sense that one of my own principal definitions of capitalism proper refers to it as an ‘ideology.’ Defining ideology in this latter sense, Webster’s Dictionary explains it as “the doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc.,” which, in my judgment, is not quite adequate . I doubt that we can call an individual exponent of a particular way of thinking “an ideologue,” unless his (or her, or their, if they are a group) doctrines have acquired a sizable following, but not as opinions as much as an unfurled political banner, devoid of all intellectuality, having assumed an unthinking populist character, communicating in slogans, rather than in ideas.
What now follows, with regard to Wikipedia, is “a brief description of the most notable anti-capitalist ideologies, viewpoints, and trends.” Once again, if the following are all understood as ideologies, it is only logical that their criticism of capitalism also regards the latter primarily, if not exclusively, as an ideology.
---“Socialism argues for extensive public control over the economy, which may or may not be associated with democratic control by the people over the state (there are both democratic and undemocratic philosophies calling themselves ‘socialist’). In addition, socialism advocates a high degree of economic equality, and the eradication of poverty and unemployment.”
It is easy to notice right away how vulnerable “socialism” becomes in this context to the utterly unfair charges of egalitarianism (“a high degree of economic equality”) and social coercion (“the eradication of … unemployment”), while the highfalutin goal of “the eradication of poverty” can be easily dismissed as a pipe dream at best, and a cynical ploy at worst.
Curiously, while Webster’s Dictionary calls capitalism primarily “an economic system,” it prefers to deny the same “courtesy” to its socialist counterpart, calling it either a “stage” in the Communist doctrine, or a “political movement” (!), or, at the very best, “the theory or system (the word "economic" is decidedly missing here!) of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by the society or the community, rather than by private individuals, with all members sharing in the work and the products.”
My primary interest in socialism here is stimulated by a combination of two factors: that capitalism cannot be allowed to flourish in modern world in its purest laissez-faire form, due to its individualistic (read: egoistic-therefore-antisocial) character, and, having to be subjected to strict government control, loses any claim to its identification as capitalism proper, and has to be redefined; and the second factor is the core implication that Socialism as-Such is guaranteed to enter the resulting picture on the coattails of the aforementioned government control, creating the so-called mixed basket, and thus profoundly altering the ideological field under the present consideration. It can be credibly argued that American Great Society used to be a form of socialism, and that the state-sponsored redistribution of wealth continuing in America today, through a vast set of severely curtailed, but still functioning government programs for the poor, is also a form of socialism in disguise. At any rate, the proposition of systematically taxing the worker to support the non-worker can hardly be described as representative of normal capitalist practice...
I shall, however, continue with our text from the Wikipedia:
--“Marxism argues for collective ownership of the means of production and for the eventual abolition of the state with an intermediate stage in which the state is used to eliminate the vestiges of capitalism. Marxism is the foundation of several different ideologies, including communism, and of certain types of socialism.”
Needless to say, I am confidently considering communism in its historical evolution as a pseudo-ideology at best, which is important for the appreciation of the fact that the so-called collapse of "Soviet communism" has been the collapse of a sham, rather than a socio-political phenomenon in its own right, and, consequently, it cannot be seriously accepted as a theoretical thesis, or as an argument of any sort.
---“Social democracy is a partially anti-capitalist ideology, which has grown out of the reformist wing of the socialist movement. Social democrats do not oppose the actual foundations of capitalism, but they wish to mitigate what they see as capitalism’s most negative effects through the creation of a mixed economy and a welfare state.”
This half-hearted historical excursion into the origins and evolution of Social Democracy serves very little purpose, except to further obfuscate the subject we are discussing. For instance, what does Wikipedia mean by “the actual foundations of capitalism” which Social democrats “do not oppose”? Are we talking here, perhaps, about modern European Social Democracy not opposing the political manifestation of American Capitalism, as opposed to Soviet-style "Communism," in their mutual political Cold War contraposition? This is of course a rhetorical question, because I personally have no doubt whatsoever that that is what it was. Other than that obvious political factor, modern Western Social Democracy has clearly stood in opposition to the American capitalistic model, which solid fact is becoming clearer and clearer, as the world has been marching on into the twenty-first century.
The following two ideologies stated in Wikipedia as “anti-capitalist” are of lesser relevance to the subject of our discussion, and I am about to list them here just for the sake of curiosity and completeness.
---“Anarchist philosophies argue for a total abolition of the state, with many anarchists opposing capitalism on the grounds that it entails social domination, involuntary relations and coercive hierarchy. Some forms of anarchism oppose capitalism as a whole, while supporting certain particular aspects of capitalism.”
In this context, I cannot contain myself from quoting the concluding sentence from Nietzsche’s Antichrist-57, which once again brings to mind his superb idea of a mysterious interconnectedness of philosophical things: “The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry.” Need I say more?
--“Ecofeminists attack capitalism for treating the natural world as just a body of resources to be exploited and reshaped, to serve human purposes and interests. They see it inherently snapping the relationship between humans to one another, and to the natural world. They see capitalism as a patriarchal construction ‘based on the colonization of women, nature, and other peoples.’”
In other words, as I would look at it, ecofeminists, whatever their objective, see capitalism as an ideology, and as such it becomes an easy and legitimate target of unequivocal condemnation. But, as is so often the case, the inbuilt shortcomings of ecofeminism (surely to be confused with “ecofreakism”!), instinctively recognized by the mainstream as a fringe movement, give capitalism a reprieve of sorts, for at least being unmistakably mainstream...
(To be continued in Part II.)
“Anti-capitalism refers to opposition to capitalism in terms of beliefs or attitudes. As such, it is a very broad term covering a wide collection of views and ideologies, some of which oppose each other more than they oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists in the strict sense of the word are those who wish to completely replace capitalism with another economic system, however, there are also ideologies which can be characterized as partially anti-capitalist, in the sense that they only wish to replace or abolish certain aspects of capitalism, rather than the entire system.”
Take notice that, just as the term “capitalism” is surprisingly hard to describe, in modern practical usage, with sufficient clarity and precision as a realistic economic concept (although it seems much easier to describe as a politico-ideological tool of social rhetorical warfare), its logical oppositional derivative “anti-capitalism” cannot possibly be less confusing than the mother-term, no more capable of separating pure economics from politics and ideology.
In its subsequent list of opponents of capitalism, Wikipedia uses the word “ideology” in describing them all, which is important to me in the sense that one of my own principal definitions of capitalism proper refers to it as an ‘ideology.’ Defining ideology in this latter sense, Webster’s Dictionary explains it as “the doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc.,” which, in my judgment, is not quite adequate . I doubt that we can call an individual exponent of a particular way of thinking “an ideologue,” unless his (or her, or their, if they are a group) doctrines have acquired a sizable following, but not as opinions as much as an unfurled political banner, devoid of all intellectuality, having assumed an unthinking populist character, communicating in slogans, rather than in ideas.
What now follows, with regard to Wikipedia, is “a brief description of the most notable anti-capitalist ideologies, viewpoints, and trends.” Once again, if the following are all understood as ideologies, it is only logical that their criticism of capitalism also regards the latter primarily, if not exclusively, as an ideology.
---“Socialism argues for extensive public control over the economy, which may or may not be associated with democratic control by the people over the state (there are both democratic and undemocratic philosophies calling themselves ‘socialist’). In addition, socialism advocates a high degree of economic equality, and the eradication of poverty and unemployment.”
It is easy to notice right away how vulnerable “socialism” becomes in this context to the utterly unfair charges of egalitarianism (“a high degree of economic equality”) and social coercion (“the eradication of … unemployment”), while the highfalutin goal of “the eradication of poverty” can be easily dismissed as a pipe dream at best, and a cynical ploy at worst.
Curiously, while Webster’s Dictionary calls capitalism primarily “an economic system,” it prefers to deny the same “courtesy” to its socialist counterpart, calling it either a “stage” in the Communist doctrine, or a “political movement” (!), or, at the very best, “the theory or system (the word "economic" is decidedly missing here!) of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by the society or the community, rather than by private individuals, with all members sharing in the work and the products.”
My primary interest in socialism here is stimulated by a combination of two factors: that capitalism cannot be allowed to flourish in modern world in its purest laissez-faire form, due to its individualistic (read: egoistic-therefore-antisocial) character, and, having to be subjected to strict government control, loses any claim to its identification as capitalism proper, and has to be redefined; and the second factor is the core implication that Socialism as-Such is guaranteed to enter the resulting picture on the coattails of the aforementioned government control, creating the so-called mixed basket, and thus profoundly altering the ideological field under the present consideration. It can be credibly argued that American Great Society used to be a form of socialism, and that the state-sponsored redistribution of wealth continuing in America today, through a vast set of severely curtailed, but still functioning government programs for the poor, is also a form of socialism in disguise. At any rate, the proposition of systematically taxing the worker to support the non-worker can hardly be described as representative of normal capitalist practice...
I shall, however, continue with our text from the Wikipedia:
--“Marxism argues for collective ownership of the means of production and for the eventual abolition of the state with an intermediate stage in which the state is used to eliminate the vestiges of capitalism. Marxism is the foundation of several different ideologies, including communism, and of certain types of socialism.”
Needless to say, I am confidently considering communism in its historical evolution as a pseudo-ideology at best, which is important for the appreciation of the fact that the so-called collapse of "Soviet communism" has been the collapse of a sham, rather than a socio-political phenomenon in its own right, and, consequently, it cannot be seriously accepted as a theoretical thesis, or as an argument of any sort.
---“Social democracy is a partially anti-capitalist ideology, which has grown out of the reformist wing of the socialist movement. Social democrats do not oppose the actual foundations of capitalism, but they wish to mitigate what they see as capitalism’s most negative effects through the creation of a mixed economy and a welfare state.”
This half-hearted historical excursion into the origins and evolution of Social Democracy serves very little purpose, except to further obfuscate the subject we are discussing. For instance, what does Wikipedia mean by “the actual foundations of capitalism” which Social democrats “do not oppose”? Are we talking here, perhaps, about modern European Social Democracy not opposing the political manifestation of American Capitalism, as opposed to Soviet-style "Communism," in their mutual political Cold War contraposition? This is of course a rhetorical question, because I personally have no doubt whatsoever that that is what it was. Other than that obvious political factor, modern Western Social Democracy has clearly stood in opposition to the American capitalistic model, which solid fact is becoming clearer and clearer, as the world has been marching on into the twenty-first century.
The following two ideologies stated in Wikipedia as “anti-capitalist” are of lesser relevance to the subject of our discussion, and I am about to list them here just for the sake of curiosity and completeness.
---“Anarchist philosophies argue for a total abolition of the state, with many anarchists opposing capitalism on the grounds that it entails social domination, involuntary relations and coercive hierarchy. Some forms of anarchism oppose capitalism as a whole, while supporting certain particular aspects of capitalism.”
In this context, I cannot contain myself from quoting the concluding sentence from Nietzsche’s Antichrist-57, which once again brings to mind his superb idea of a mysterious interconnectedness of philosophical things: “The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry.” Need I say more?
--“Ecofeminists attack capitalism for treating the natural world as just a body of resources to be exploited and reshaped, to serve human purposes and interests. They see it inherently snapping the relationship between humans to one another, and to the natural world. They see capitalism as a patriarchal construction ‘based on the colonization of women, nature, and other peoples.’”
In other words, as I would look at it, ecofeminists, whatever their objective, see capitalism as an ideology, and as such it becomes an easy and legitimate target of unequivocal condemnation. But, as is so often the case, the inbuilt shortcomings of ecofeminism (surely to be confused with “ecofreakism”!), instinctively recognized by the mainstream as a fringe movement, give capitalism a reprieve of sorts, for at least being unmistakably mainstream...
(To be continued in Part II.)
No comments:
Post a Comment