Capitalism and Anti-Capitlism
(contined from last posting)

Thursday September 1

So, from the last post, I think my question is this: are anti-capitalists really against capitalism, or has that term just become a de facto name for many various bad things which they are against.

Is capitalism (see last post for basic definition) at the root of all the bad things happening?

I think I am losing my way with this thread. I've had a long day at work, and anyway I can't possibly hope to answer these questions in a blog. Comments would be much appreciated.

Capitalism has this basic problem: it causes one person to have power over another. To me that is inherently a bad thing. Because one person 'owns' the means of production, and other people need these to make a living, that means that somebody is legitimised in bossing other people around.

I think I started on this thread because I hate being told what to do. I don't mind talking about things, taking suggestions, helping people to execute a vision they already have - but I hate the lurking fact that somebody else can tell me what to do, just because I need the money. To deal with the pragmatics of getting food in my belly and a roof over my head, I have to take orders from other human beings.

For instance, at work I might be writing a press release, or laying out a leaflet. The 'boss' comes along, looks at it, and declares how they think it should be done. To me, the natural thing here would be to have an equal discussion about it, and if disagreement could not be resolved, I should end up doing it my way, since I'm the one doing the bloody thing. If they really want it done that way, they should do it themselves.

But this is not what happens. Because this other person is the 'boss', who owns the company (i.e. the means of production), when they declare that they think it should be done a certain way, it means that I have to do that, even if it sucks. If I don't, they are able to cut off my current means of subsistence, and they would be legally sanctioned in doing so.

To me, this is an unnatural and horrible arrangement.

But I am still confused. What has this got to do with starving children in Africa, with exploited cane workers in Brazil? A lot, perhaps. It sets a precedent ... founds a system where distribution, exchange and access to valuable material goods need have no reference to need, desire, emotions, moral relationships, empty stomachs. Instead these things are based on an authority that stems from legal ownership of private property.

We get fooled into thinking that its 'natural' or 'normal' that some should have control over food, tools, means of production. This is seen as normal and acceptable, because they own these things. By gathering material wealth, they 'earned' the right.

Do people have a natural right to gather possessions? If a person is very good at finding tasty berries, do they have the right to go and gather all the berries they can, store them up in their house, and lock the door? Is that okay?

Maybe it is okay.

But if somebody fenced off all the berry-growing bushes, declared them to be their own, and would allow no-one to harvest berries unless they paid some kind of tithe, would that be okay? That somebody, I believe, would be a capitalist.

Thinking about the person and their berries, yes, I can see a link between the principles of capitalism (exclusivity, power), and the major instance of people being horrible to each other that are occurring in the world today.

On the other hand, I don't think I could go along with a theory which claimed that capitalism was the cause of all the bad stuff - a theory which claimed that all the bad things are capitalism in its many wicked guises.

The invasion of Iraq, for instance. That is not an 'instance of capitalism'. It is aggression, racism, imperialism, but it does not fit with the capitalist system of legally sanctioned ownership, production and profit. The invasion of Iraq is a straightforward, violent power-grab.

So, although I have some major issues with capitalism, I object to those who use 'capitalism' as a term for some huge, faceless system that is causing all the bad things in the world. I object because that is way too simplistic. There isn't one big, evil system. There are lots of bad things happening, and although they may be linked, they are not the same.

Or if there is one, essential force behind global wickedness, I don't think that capitalism is it. Capitalism is just a means for people to exert power of each other - and a fairly restrained, subtle one at that.

I make these objections because I respect the dictum: 'know thine enemy'. If you don't know exactly what you're fighting against, how can you possibly expect to topple it?

1 comment posted by Alex Scott