Yes, I know it's a cliché |
This is one
of the topics in which tends to result in nasty comments criticizing the text normally
– usually people even read it. It’s a subject that brings all kinds of heated
responses. Some see capitalism as a “necessary evil”, the best that we got and,
since capitalism was the economic system that prevailed it’s probably the best
we can do. I will ignore this reasoning for the sake of the argument that I
will make in this article. For that reason I will start from the assumption
that it is indeed possible to overcome capitalism and think about some new
thing (whatever that new thing may end up being). And no, this is not an
article defending socialism.
First, let’s
talk about the “villain”
Usually
when people talk about capitalism the tendency is an ideological exaggeration towards
some extreme: or extremely optimistic about what capitalism has done for human
progress and individual justice; or extremely pessimistic about the social and psychological
damages that capitalism brings. Since we already have plenty of content defending
either extreme I will try to make a more nuanced analysis – knowing there’s a
risk of being misinterpreted.
It’s not a
surprise that the capitalist economic system has its problems and also its
qualities. On one hand the social division of labor brought something which
were virtually impossible before – like social rise for example. On the other
hand this same capitalism kept some of the vices from other systems – in particular
the tendency that, once someone has more economic power he can use this power
to gain more power, making more and more difficult for others to rise economically
as well.
Many times
the “cons” surpasses the “pros” because of capitalism’s own configuration and the
visibility that those who take advantage from it easily gain. When fighting for
less economical regulation, the “economic liberals” only reinforce how much a non-regulated
economy tend to an unfair balance in the market – the opposite of the original
goal of an ideal free market. Those who have more will always have more opportunities
to have even more, mining the chances of social rise of those who are at the
bottom of the economic pyramid – and this has nothing to do with meritocracy1.
The fact that these same defenders of less/no regulations are always begging
for it when things get bad – like in times of economic crisis – sound hypocrite.
Especially if we consider that those people frequently represent mega-corporations
or banks, whose owners pile up huge fortunes and are in positions of such
privilege that it’s difficult for regular people to identify with them.
But as a
system per se – and excluding those
who seek to take advantage of it – capitalism has, of course, its merits. Today
it’s possible to distribute goods and services to a much broader population
thanks to this configuration. At least in theory, no one is the “owner” of the
system like in feudalism or in the aristocracies from the ancient world – although
we can argue that the owners of the Capital are the owners of capitalism, but
that’s not what I’m talking about here. Anyone can hope for a better
social and economic position; and proportionally, there’s less starving people in the
world today.
The
configuration of the capitalist system allowed more access to goods and services
and globalization in a level that would not be possible in previous economic
systems. The capitalist economy become a common language between culturally
different nations, probably avoiding many wars that now are fought in the realm
of international trades – although I
know capitalism had created some new conflicts as well. But on paper,
capitalism seems like a good idea.
What really
matter in this debate
When a
debate about capitalism comes to light, it’s common to talk about its pro
and cons and if the solution is to keep using it or to change it. This is, at
least for me, the main problem and the reason why this debate always ride in
circles and never evolves: to give capitalism a subjective value – for good or
bad – instead of analyze it in a more practical way.
Considering
that capitalism is the predominant system in the world, the real debate should
be: with the knowledge that we have about other systems and the experience with
the capitalist economic system that we have until now, is it possible to do
better? Is it possible to improve the distribution of goods and services,
decrease the insecurity, improve human relations, individual liberties and the
social justice? A pessimistic vision would say that this is the best we can do,
that the limits of the system aren’t related to it – like our biases and
biological needs, for example. A more optimistic view would say the opposite:
that it is possible to overcome capitalism and that it’s a system that
accentuates, promote and/or create many of the problems that we take as human
nature. According to this view, it’s indeed possible to do better. Both visions
have its truths, at least in some level. Of course
the answer demands that we consider several factors, and many are indeed
outside the system. Questions of:
Human
nature – egoism is accentuated in a capitalist system and can be decreased or
is it inevitable no matter the system?
Ethics – it’s
fair that a single person or a small group be able to possess disproportionally
much more in comparison to other member of society, which many of them are
significant contributors to this fortune?
Society –
violence and crime are increased in a capitalist system or it’s impossible to
escape it?
Politics – full economic interference, no interference at
all or interference only when it’s necessary?
Among other
questions. Having a position about this and other issues is what will define
what comes next.
But what
about the alternatives? They even exist?
When we
talk about a post-capitalist society, the usual thing is to think about a
transition to some kind of socialism and/or communism – which is odd,
considering that one is an economic system while the other is a form of
government, and technically would not be comparable with each other. That’s
because the dichotomy left/right is what we grew up with. But we can’t
think of changing a system to another one that is now hundreds of years old. We
have to think forward; after all, they’re both products of its time. And
the world carry on since then, with new problems and challenges that neither Karl
Marx nor Adam Smith would had being able to conceive.
There’s a
quote, frequently attributed to Einstein – but I cannot say it was really him
who said it – that reads: “you cannot solve a problem with the same mindset
that you had when you created the problem in the first place”. I believe there’s
a good argument to be made there. Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchism, Monarchy…
All of those ideas are part of the old mindset. If we really want to overcome capitalism
and carry on to something better, we need to learn from the old models, but
thinking towards something actually new, more suited to our needs and our
current problems, like:
The increasing
growth in world population;
The profound
cultural differences;
The climate
change;
The
management of limited resources;
The
distribution of goods and services;
The
technological advancement;
The real
time flood of information;
The new
models of interpersonal relationship;
And so on.
Talking is
easy
Thinking
about something totally new is extremely hard. Some would say it’s nearly
impossible. It would not be possible for people from feudal societies to think about
a system like capitalism the same way it was not possible for indigenous people
in Brazil to understand the greed that the Portuguese conquerors had for rocks
that they could not see any real value. The Greek Philosophers, the greatest
minds or their time, couldn’t imagine a post-slavery society in their utopic
visions of the world. Even the afterlife in most religions is just an imitation
of the social/political system of the society in which the said religion are
rooted.
So how can
we think of something new? This is the million-dollar question. But there are those
who dwell over these questions. The late futurologist Jacques Fresco promote
for decades his idea of a post-capitalist society called The Venus Project. Like
every idea that proposes a solution to all of the world’s problems, It has its
supporters – in an almost religious way – and its critics. But it’s at least an
attempt to think in a detailed and systematic way about a new system taking into
consideration the current problems of the world and the possibilities of today’s
technology. I don’t remember another alternative that is so well thought out.
So, is it
possible to think about a totally new – and better – system?
Well, the
good news is, during all History of humankind, new systems were created, changes in status quo were made and human mentality were transformed.
Slavery is not seem as something natural or socially accepted anymore. We
refine our ethics in relation to punishments. We shift from a profoundly
religious Europe to a more rational Europe. We left the aristocratic heritage
and its authority behind and began to focus on individual skills, and so
on. Changes happened. There’s nothing that indicates that it will not happen
again.
One can
argue that there’s still much to do regarding the topics I mentioned above.
That much has change, but in practice, nothing changed. But the truth is we
live in a world where racism is a crime. It’s a step forward. It’s possible to
get even further ahead? If we think we can’t, we close ourselves to new ideas
and we will never be able to overcome our own mental limitation. We will keep
trying to solve the problems with the same mindset we had when we created it.
But if we think that the answer to this question is “yes”, we already got one
step forward. The next is to focus on “how”.
I don’t
think we will get to solutions trying to bring back old ideas. But it is
important to recognize the past, learn from it and have it as a reference
point. We can’t put all humankind in suspended animation and wakes us up a
decade later with a new mindset in a new world. A new system will have to grow
gradually. That’s why the title of this article refers to a “post-capitalist”
world and not a world “without” capitalism. Whatever comes next will not be
created from scratch; it will be the result of what capitalism got right and
what it got wrong. This is the best interpretation of “progress” that we can
have.
So, is it
possible to think about a post-capitalist world after all? In a way, we already
are. We are starting to think about things like creative economy, collaborative communities, basic income, decentralized
virtual currency, 3D printing, among others. These ideas are starting
to bring new solutions to old problems. Some of those ideas may disappear with
time, but others will stay, grow and transform into other things, things that we
can't even imagine – just like societies from the past couldn’t imagine
post-slavery, post-feudalism or post-barter worlds.
But the
truth is that I think this is not even the right question. It’s not about
thinking if overcome capitalism is necessary or possible; it’s about thinking
if we can do better than what we have now. I believe we can. History already show us that. If we will actually do it, that’s a totally different question.
Rafael Algures is a Bachelor of Philosophy specialized in Neurosciences of Language. He is also a copywriter, content and science writer, and a comic book creator. His latest work, “Gutter of Horror: Transition”, a short horror comic about Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence are available at Amazon – digital and print.
1. The
concept of “merit” is a topic for another time.