Unconfirmed Reports

It has occurred to me that political radicals have been making a serious error for the last hundred years or so.

Since the mid-19th century, activists have habitually railed against “capitalism” as the fount of evil. The two most distinguishable incarnations of this have been the Old Left of communism / radical socialism, where capitalism was criticised as oppressor of the workers, and the New Left of anti-capitalist / anti-globalisation activism, where capitalism has been criticised as the oppressor of the world’s poor.

In this blog, I have previously ruminated on capitalism, and what exactly might be wrong with it. Something has never seemed quite right to me: capitalism is an abstract economic system, perhaps not even an actual system, but just a theoretical concept for describing economic systems. What anti-globalisation activists, and socialists before them, rail against doesn’t seem to be anything nearly so abstract. In fact, it is noticeable that many activists do not even seem to understand much, or want to understand much, of economic theory. What they are really criticising is something much more concrete: evil men (usually men) who exploit, rob, torture and kill to get their own way in the world.

So here is my proposal: that oppressed European workers, and more recently, disenchanted political activists of all social classes, have been mistaken in using Marx’s theory of “capitalism” as an ideological focus for their activities. They have convinced themselves that this abstract economic concept (in brief: the accumulation of surplus value through the ownership of the means of production) is the oppressor, when in fact the oppressor in both cases is something more concrete, more human.

One of the fascinating things about Marxism is the way it has been used as an ideological basis in all sorts of struggles where capitslism has barely existed: Cambodia, for example… or even in Russia, in the germination of the mother of all Marxist struggles, capitalism was hardly at an advanced stage of development.

Why the mistake? Because it is in many ways easier, and more intellectually satisfying, to believe that your enemy is an abstract system. “The System”. This gives activisits a definite strategy for changing the world for the better: bring an end to the capitalist system of economics, replace it with communally owned means of production, and all the bonds of oppression shall be lifted. If, on the other hand, the oppressor is a concrete group of real human beings, certain laws and organisations, then the path to liberation becomes much messier. We see instead an ongoing fight - perhaps the vanquishing of the oppressors, but for how long until they would be replaced by other oppressive villains?

Am I trying to defend capitalism here? Not quite. I agree, without hesitation, that capitalism is used throughout the world as a tool of oppression. The rich few own much of the means of production, while the disenfranchised many have to work for those wealthy owners. In some places, especially poorer countries, this is not so far from slavery - albeit in a somewhat milder, more flexible form.

But capitlism here is just a tool, a particular pattern of economic flow. And surely there are also examples of it being used for good: as an organic and efficient way of joining people together into productive organisations. It is even possible that workers may be paid well, and enjoy their work. Such examples cause a real, and barely acknowledged problem for political activists who claim to be fighting “capitalism” - because it is very hard to convincingly describe such examples as oppressive, or destructive. When an acivist claims to be in favour of individual liberty, and organic social organisation, and against bureaucracy, it is even harder to convincingly criticise such an example of benign capitalism.

Further, when activist say they want to protect people in poor countries from the impingement of “capitalism”, they are deliberately ignoring, or explaining away the fact, that lots of people in poor countries actually want to get involved in the global capitalist circus. Not everyone, but lots of people. When I have visited poorer countries, people I have met have been obviously impressed at my capacity to travel, to work in various jobs and professions, carry treasures in my backpack that derive from all continents. It almost pains me to admit it, but there is some truth to the claim that capitalist expansion brings more wealth and opportunities to people in poorer countries. You may think it’s all exploitation and globalisation, but try telling an Indian or Chinese man who now works in a computing company that he should go back to the family rice fields. He will probably be too polite to tell you to fuck off.

We may think we know better, that we have “been there and done that” with capitalism… that people in poor countries may think they want to become consumers, but they don’t realise how lucky they are to be living traditional lives in harmony with the countryside. Well that’s just condescending: who am I to tell the poor of the world what they “really want”? They will decide for themselves… and they may even get it “wrong”, but they will decide for themselves.

The conclusion of these arguments, then, is that capitalism itself is not the enemy, but rather those who use capitalism as a means of oppression. And the means to vanquish this enemy would be to curtail the actual activities that are oppressive (slave wages, poor working conditions, untrammelled right to profit, unrestrained environmental destruction), rather than to outlaw capitalist economics, and make all means of production into public property.

All this sounds much more reformist than radical. Perhaps I’m getting old, losing the outlaw spirit. Or perhaps I’m learning to resist the emotional attraction of over-simplified theories.

And perhaps what is needed is a series of hybrid solutions that cannot be summarised as any clear single solution.

Perhaps we should maintain the right to private ownership of the means of production, but there should also be a rule (or perhaps just a social custom), that all workers should be given a stake in the organisation for which they work.

And perhaps, rather than do away with the law of private property altogether, it should just be curtailed, softened. After all, I like my record collection, and my books, and the sandals I bought in Portugal. I like that these things are mine, and while I don’t mind lending them to people sometimes, I like that I have the right to possess them. Almost everyone, even anarchist punks, have some feelings like this of rightful possession.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the legal protection of private property is too purist, too sacrosanct. If there is a person with twenty million dollars, and they are surrounded by people who are starving, then they have the legal right to hold on to their twenty million dollars (it’s their’s! they own it!). I find this legal system neither just, nor practical, nor sensible.

And of course, that is what taxation is for: to legally take away some of that twenty million dollars, and give it to those who need it. Which leads me on to a final observation: radical activists are apt to claim that we live in a “capitalist society”, but this is not really true. We (writing from England here) live in a society that has aspects of capitalism, socialism, religious tradition… even aspects of anarchism at times. Even just looking at the economy, capitalism only accounts for a certain proportion of it. In my working life, for instance, I have worked as a freelancer (not a capitalist relation), in a small company (yes, capitalist, but very benign), in a large and boring corporation (capitalist, but oppressive only in the sense of extreme boredom), and I now work for a sort of trust, from which no private individual gains any dividend of profit.

It’s pretty clear why I have never felt very convinced by activists who try to speak to me as a “worker” who needs to rise up against my “capitalist” masters.

If you want to make the world a better place - and yes, there is plenty wrong with it, plenty that needs urgently to be changed - try to work out exactly what needs changing. Don’t buy in to nice simple theories of everything. Perhaps we will always need some amount of ideology, just to give us a focus and framework, but don’t ever end up like those “Young Socialist” organisations who try to recruit you at rallies: they are stagnant, delusional, and make a huge contribution to putting most people off activism altogether.