The Case For Capitalism
I have long been fascinated by the invisible line that exists between anarchism and communism. I tend to envision the two concepts as being like neighboring countries, let's say France and Germany. When looking at the two nations on a globe, you may notice that they are separated by nothing more than a paper-thin arbitrary line, and yet when you spin the globe only slightly, it becomes apparent that an entire world encompassing thousands upon thousands of miles exists between them. Such can most certainly be said of anarchism and communism.
On the surface it would appear that the two movements are polar opposites, one rooted in rugged individualism, the other in cooperative communal harmony; one in chaos, one in order. However despite what you may have learned from the school of John Lydon, most anarchists consider their intentions—as well as their movement at large—to be largely absent of chaos. Likewise, there are few self-proclaimed communists who would fully dismiss the virtue of the individual.
If anything, the differences between the two movements are dwarfed by their vast similarities. Both seek to abolish the state as a controlling force, both emphasize the need for individuals to work together to make society function, both are rooted in secular philosophy, and both are highly skeptical of uneven distribution of wealth, usually uniting around a common enmity toward the class system. Most notably, both movements are fiercely and bitterly opposed to capitalism. The exception, of course, would be anarcho-capitalism, which I would venture to say is a far more realistic vision of anarchy, but I'll save that argument for a future article. Anarcho-capitalism is hardly the mainstream of the anarchist movement, and so for the sake of this article I'll stick with the purist forms of each respective movement.
So with all of the aforementioned similarities established, what predominate belief or idea separates anarchism from communism? Some would argue that a primary difference is common ownership vs. individual initiative, and there is certainly some truth to that, but I fear I am oversimplifying. Some would argue that the two movements are separated by self-governance vs. collective cooperation, the basic root of democratic socialism. Again, I am oversimplifying, and I plan to oversimplify even more as I propose my own theory on the matter.
My belief is this: the most fundamental divide existing between anarchism and communism is a differing understanding of human nature. At the risk of generalizing, an anarchist is more likely to believe the best in human nature, whereas a communist is more likely to hold a pessimistic view. Before you start challenging my conclusions, just hear me out. I intend to explain my reasoning at length, as well as my concerns about the repercussions of both worldviews (which is really why I felt compelled to write this piece in the first place).
One fundamental tenet of anarchism is the belief that human beings are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without the ever-watching eye of authority (which is, itself, a man-made and usually fear-based concept). To the anarchist, authority is unnecessary because (among other things) it is rooted in intimidation, and is a means by which unworthy human beings exploit and enslave one another. Since the methods by which authority is decided are completely arbitrary (even in the case of democracy), authority is hardly a necessary element for a productive society.
I confess that I myself toyed with the idea of anarchism (or at least, minarchism) for a brief time, perhaps due to a combination of my love for old school punk rock and an enjoyment of old Ayn Rand novels. It ultimately occurred to me, however, that human nature most certainly is not good, or even decent for that matter. Dinesh D'Souza once said that a baby does not lack the will to do harm, but only the strength, and D'Souza has never been more right. What I ultimately came to accept is that human nature needs restraint. "Chaos" isn't the goal of anarchy; only the inevitable result.
Karl Marx, for all his faults, was at least smart enough to understand that in order for his vision of communal harmony to ever be possible, there would first be required a long period of (what I would venture to call) brainwashing and social conditioning, what Marx referred to as socialism. Okay, granted, most communists and socialists wouldn't refer to it quite that way, but that is really what it boils down to. Spend enough time drugging your subjects with soma, a la Brave New World, and you might succeed in shattering human nature just enough to create a beautiful and blissful automatonic society.
Marx understood (perhaps more than most modern day communists) that human nature is inherently selfish. Capitalism caters to a carnal desire within each of us to better ourselves with little concern for the collective, in short, to look out for number one. Marx's solution was therefore to bridge the gap between capitalism and communism through a period of socialism, in which human nature could theoretically be harnessed and reengineered.
Why am I repeating myself? Because I strongly wish to emphasize the idea of socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx. I fear that many of today's well-meaning socialists have no idea just what the movement was intended for. Aldous Huxley couldn't have illustrated it better. Since I have already established that the philosophies of communism and anarchism represent two extreme ends of a spectrum (separated by a very narrow line), the question remains, what is the happy medium? In our modern culture, it seems to come down to capitalism and socialism. The feudalistic age is dead (and I say good riddance to it), and there is scarcely a relevant monarchy left on Earth, so we ought to establish then whether capitalism or socialism is the better method of operating a productive society. Conveniently, I believe this is a question I have already answered.
While neither of the two systems is perfect, I sincerely believe that capitalism, by default, is the better method. "But hey Chris," I can hear you saying, "we already knew you would say that. You're a rightwing nutjob. What's your point?" Once again, this is a question I have already answered. If you know anything about me, it should come as no surprise that I would favor a capitalist society over one that is governed by socialist policy, but my point here is to illustrate specifically WHY I favor capitalism, and once again it boils down to human nature.
Socialism, by and large, is an effort to drown the effects of human nature by authoritarian means. Do you remember when you were a child and were asked to perform some menial task by your parent(s)? You replied, “Do I have to?” and your parents replied, “No, you get to.” That’s basically how socialism works. You realize that certain things are expected of you, and that you have absolutely no choice in the matter but to conform to the will of the powers that be, but you are told—and are made to understand—that it is for your own good, and for the good of society. Many people have no problem whatsoever with this notion, even here in America. I suppose that’s exactly what Marx and Engels hoped to accomplish. The irony, however, is that the Communist Manifesto sought to create the perfect libertarian society (communism) by proposing some of the fiercest authoritarian policies known to man (socialism). Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? When you do the math, it becomes clear that communism minus socialism equals anarchism, because unless you can quell people’s selfish carnal instincts, chaos will inevitably rule the day.
So let us recap. Socialism is 1) repressive 2) an attempt to reengineer human nature through authoritarianism 3) the sole stepping stone for communism, and 4) an immense historical failure on all fronts (I’ll have to elaborate on this in a future article as I fear I have already rambled on excessively), then it should be an absolute no-brainer that a socialist system of government is not the most effective way to promote a productive society. And since we have already established that anarchism is no better (and hardly any different, despite Marxist criticisms), then that leaves capitalism by default, the worst system of government on Earth (except for all the others).
Capitalism most certainly has its flaws, some of which I have already touched upon. There is the vast potential for exploitation, people are rewarded for systematic greed, and overall it is pretty dog-eat-dog. Nevertheless, when you consider the alternatives, it really doesn’t seem so bad. I don’t intend to begin rambling on about the American dream or the potential of a free market, although I can certainly think of a few distinct advantages off the top of my head. I support capitalism because I do not believe that human nature can be reengineered, nor do I believe that it contains enough goodness or purity to be left to its own devices. The brilliance of capitalism is that it caters to people’s selfish desires and harnesses that seemingly negative energy for positive use, through economic growth and expansion that provides jobs, keeps prices competitive and fuels some of the world’s most powerful economies. Oscar Wilde once said, "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Truer words were perhaps never spoken, and while we may be only as civilized as our fallible natures will allow, our rise to decadence is a long-standing testament to the potential of the capitalist way of life.
More on this later.
I have long been fascinated by the invisible line that exists between anarchism and communism. I tend to envision the two concepts as being like neighboring countries, let's say France and Germany. When looking at the two nations on a globe, you may notice that they are separated by nothing more than a paper-thin arbitrary line, and yet when you spin the globe only slightly, it becomes apparent that an entire world encompassing thousands upon thousands of miles exists between them. Such can most certainly be said of anarchism and communism.
On the surface it would appear that the two movements are polar opposites, one rooted in rugged individualism, the other in cooperative communal harmony; one in chaos, one in order. However despite what you may have learned from the school of John Lydon, most anarchists consider their intentions—as well as their movement at large—to be largely absent of chaos. Likewise, there are few self-proclaimed communists who would fully dismiss the virtue of the individual.
If anything, the differences between the two movements are dwarfed by their vast similarities. Both seek to abolish the state as a controlling force, both emphasize the need for individuals to work together to make society function, both are rooted in secular philosophy, and both are highly skeptical of uneven distribution of wealth, usually uniting around a common enmity toward the class system. Most notably, both movements are fiercely and bitterly opposed to capitalism. The exception, of course, would be anarcho-capitalism, which I would venture to say is a far more realistic vision of anarchy, but I'll save that argument for a future article. Anarcho-capitalism is hardly the mainstream of the anarchist movement, and so for the sake of this article I'll stick with the purist forms of each respective movement.
So with all of the aforementioned similarities established, what predominate belief or idea separates anarchism from communism? Some would argue that a primary difference is common ownership vs. individual initiative, and there is certainly some truth to that, but I fear I am oversimplifying. Some would argue that the two movements are separated by self-governance vs. collective cooperation, the basic root of democratic socialism. Again, I am oversimplifying, and I plan to oversimplify even more as I propose my own theory on the matter.
My belief is this: the most fundamental divide existing between anarchism and communism is a differing understanding of human nature. At the risk of generalizing, an anarchist is more likely to believe the best in human nature, whereas a communist is more likely to hold a pessimistic view. Before you start challenging my conclusions, just hear me out. I intend to explain my reasoning at length, as well as my concerns about the repercussions of both worldviews (which is really why I felt compelled to write this piece in the first place).
One fundamental tenet of anarchism is the belief that human beings are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without the ever-watching eye of authority (which is, itself, a man-made and usually fear-based concept). To the anarchist, authority is unnecessary because (among other things) it is rooted in intimidation, and is a means by which unworthy human beings exploit and enslave one another. Since the methods by which authority is decided are completely arbitrary (even in the case of democracy), authority is hardly a necessary element for a productive society.
I confess that I myself toyed with the idea of anarchism (or at least, minarchism) for a brief time, perhaps due to a combination of my love for old school punk rock and an enjoyment of old Ayn Rand novels. It ultimately occurred to me, however, that human nature most certainly is not good, or even decent for that matter. Dinesh D'Souza once said that a baby does not lack the will to do harm, but only the strength, and D'Souza has never been more right. What I ultimately came to accept is that human nature needs restraint. "Chaos" isn't the goal of anarchy; only the inevitable result.
Karl Marx, for all his faults, was at least smart enough to understand that in order for his vision of communal harmony to ever be possible, there would first be required a long period of (what I would venture to call) brainwashing and social conditioning, what Marx referred to as socialism. Okay, granted, most communists and socialists wouldn't refer to it quite that way, but that is really what it boils down to. Spend enough time drugging your subjects with soma, a la Brave New World, and you might succeed in shattering human nature just enough to create a beautiful and blissful automatonic society.
Marx understood (perhaps more than most modern day communists) that human nature is inherently selfish. Capitalism caters to a carnal desire within each of us to better ourselves with little concern for the collective, in short, to look out for number one. Marx's solution was therefore to bridge the gap between capitalism and communism through a period of socialism, in which human nature could theoretically be harnessed and reengineered.
Why am I repeating myself? Because I strongly wish to emphasize the idea of socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx. I fear that many of today's well-meaning socialists have no idea just what the movement was intended for. Aldous Huxley couldn't have illustrated it better. Since I have already established that the philosophies of communism and anarchism represent two extreme ends of a spectrum (separated by a very narrow line), the question remains, what is the happy medium? In our modern culture, it seems to come down to capitalism and socialism. The feudalistic age is dead (and I say good riddance to it), and there is scarcely a relevant monarchy left on Earth, so we ought to establish then whether capitalism or socialism is the better method of operating a productive society. Conveniently, I believe this is a question I have already answered.
While neither of the two systems is perfect, I sincerely believe that capitalism, by default, is the better method. "But hey Chris," I can hear you saying, "we already knew you would say that. You're a rightwing nutjob. What's your point?" Once again, this is a question I have already answered. If you know anything about me, it should come as no surprise that I would favor a capitalist society over one that is governed by socialist policy, but my point here is to illustrate specifically WHY I favor capitalism, and once again it boils down to human nature.
Socialism, by and large, is an effort to drown the effects of human nature by authoritarian means. Do you remember when you were a child and were asked to perform some menial task by your parent(s)? You replied, “Do I have to?” and your parents replied, “No, you get to.” That’s basically how socialism works. You realize that certain things are expected of you, and that you have absolutely no choice in the matter but to conform to the will of the powers that be, but you are told—and are made to understand—that it is for your own good, and for the good of society. Many people have no problem whatsoever with this notion, even here in America. I suppose that’s exactly what Marx and Engels hoped to accomplish. The irony, however, is that the Communist Manifesto sought to create the perfect libertarian society (communism) by proposing some of the fiercest authoritarian policies known to man (socialism). Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? When you do the math, it becomes clear that communism minus socialism equals anarchism, because unless you can quell people’s selfish carnal instincts, chaos will inevitably rule the day.
So let us recap. Socialism is 1) repressive 2) an attempt to reengineer human nature through authoritarianism 3) the sole stepping stone for communism, and 4) an immense historical failure on all fronts (I’ll have to elaborate on this in a future article as I fear I have already rambled on excessively), then it should be an absolute no-brainer that a socialist system of government is not the most effective way to promote a productive society. And since we have already established that anarchism is no better (and hardly any different, despite Marxist criticisms), then that leaves capitalism by default, the worst system of government on Earth (except for all the others).
Capitalism most certainly has its flaws, some of which I have already touched upon. There is the vast potential for exploitation, people are rewarded for systematic greed, and overall it is pretty dog-eat-dog. Nevertheless, when you consider the alternatives, it really doesn’t seem so bad. I don’t intend to begin rambling on about the American dream or the potential of a free market, although I can certainly think of a few distinct advantages off the top of my head. I support capitalism because I do not believe that human nature can be reengineered, nor do I believe that it contains enough goodness or purity to be left to its own devices. The brilliance of capitalism is that it caters to people’s selfish desires and harnesses that seemingly negative energy for positive use, through economic growth and expansion that provides jobs, keeps prices competitive and fuels some of the world’s most powerful economies. Oscar Wilde once said, "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Truer words were perhaps never spoken, and while we may be only as civilized as our fallible natures will allow, our rise to decadence is a long-standing testament to the potential of the capitalist way of life.
posted by Kris Avalon at
11:41 AM
|
3 Comments
