First, let me note that while many here were spending their precious youth studying the great economic and political philosophers, I was learning to use a slide rule. Thus, the arguments (and insults) between various political and economic factions do not come easily to me. All too often they seem to be there for no other reason than to add levels of obfuscation to an already too complex scenario. Worse, they never seem to fix anything.
The best rule of thumb I ever learned in the process was from an engineering problem solving seminar. It’s applications are far wider than that, though. To paraphrase, “If what you’re doing isn’t solving the problem, you’re looking at the wrong problem.”
Up ‘til now, though, not wanting to take on all the myriad factions and disciples, I haven’t said much. I still don’t want to, but I’m more than mildly ticked at some examples of current usage. I won’t fight about this, but I will suggest that before you dismiss it, you consider the problem you think you are trying to solve in the light of the above rule of thumb.
The statement: Capitalism has Failed
(Most of this was originally written as a comment in a diary with that title. I should note that this is not a comment on that diary particularly, as it could have been written (and pretty much was) only in regard to the title, and without any reference to the accompanying text in the diary. I’ve been seeing the same general statement on a regular basis ever since I started reading here, and everything finally came together this morning in one swell foop. The other primary factor was the continuing use of Corporate, and Corporatism, as pejoratives. Snarl.)
I note that, first, the concept that is being called “failed” was originally defined by Karl Marx as the flawed antithesis of his new and noble philosophy; it was created with the sole purpose of failing, so that he could win his philosophical argument as handily as possible. Ever since then, it has served as a straw-man whose sole purpose is to play an antagonist to Marxism, and to be invalidated in as many ways as possible.
Secondly, the corporate form, which seems to be so easily substituted for capitalism once the initial argument is made, has nothing whatever to do intrinsically with the original argument. Once again, that substitution is intended to simplify a complex system in order to make it easier to obfuscate the original argument and claim a win where none exists.
The creation of a legal contract between two or more entities is the key to all corporate systems. That those contracts can be created to fit any social, economic, or political system is all too often ignored. Thus, the target of action in such a system is generally invalid; it is not the corporate form, but the system a particular contract has been developed for that needs to be targeted, but attacks are directed toward the form rather than the underlying problem, and thus go nowhere, year after year.
Don’t get me wrong — I have no more prejudice against Marx’s philosophy than I have against any other economic or political theory that hasn’t solved the same set of problems, and I certainly don’t have a better idea to offer except to Quit Trying to Simplify Everything so much.
If you feel you need to argue, please try to do it without using catch-phrases from your favorite philosopher or school of economics. I may not respond as fully as I usually do, because I’m arguing the overall validity of the theories relative to the given rule of thumb, not the specific details.
Have fun.
Oh, and just for the hell of it, before you declare war on this diary, try to first accurately define, in writing, the problem that you think is being solved by the theory you want to defend. I’ll look forward to seeing those.