The Nation had 16 activists respond to the question, “If you had the ability to reinvent American capitalism, where would you start? What would you change to make it less destructive and domineering, more focused on what people really need for fulfilling lives?” Three of them resonated with me in particular: Chris Macklin on employee ownership, Dirk Philipsen on how we measure prosperity, and Eugene McCarraher on our “moral imagination.”
I’m not going to block-quote them, however- instead, I’ve put in my own reader submission (limited to 400 words), which the magazine is soliciting from its readers. You’ll see that it attempts to weave together concepts from all three of these columns:
Capitalism’s defining quality is evident in its name- capital, not labor, nature, or morals, is put above all else. This preeminence of capital has ramifications for how we produce, consume, earn, save, and tally it all up; I argue that it causes problems in each of these facets of our economic life. Often, people confuse capitalism with markets (free ones in particular). Instead, I think capitalism has a few distinctive consequences: 1) surplus is distributed by those who own, not those who work and make; 2) more consumption is always better; and 3) anything “outside” the economy, like the environment, may as well not exist.
Capital is relevant to these features because it means that the production process can be owned, and thus the fruits of it can be immediately taken from the hands that produce it. As a corollary, this means that to profit, those who own capital must sell as much as possible, some of which is indeed bought back by those who make the goods. And finally, capital seeks its return without any regard to destruction that it doesn’t have to pay for, like ozone depletion or disappearing wetlands.
As long as capital remains preeminent, we cannot remake capitalism. Instead, we need to gradually remake economic structures to chip away at capital’s power. Giving workers stock ownership is one small step, but giving workers complete control over their enterprise is a more radical fruitful step. It would mean that production and consumption would be more tightly linked, as the amount one consumes would be more in line with what one produces. Lavish consumption would not disappear entirely, but would be made scarce. Remeasuring economic value to include environmental externalities is another small step, but forcing these externalities into pricing through democratically-decided taxes is a larger and more fruitful step (and I guarantee, a worker-run Chamber would fight it a lot less).
These steps must be supported by increased class consciousness through education. The value of worker ownership and environmental stewardship are obvious to their beneficiaries; demonstrating that capital’s dominance stands in the way of these benefits is critical. A class-conscious society will support economic structures that value labor and value nature, not just profits. Changing capitalism does not mean removing markets or destroying property, but rather reshaping production and consumption markets so economic value is not distorted by power divides between capital and other.
How would you remake capitalism?
HOw would I remake capitalism? I wouldn’t. We need a new economic paradigm that integrates the factors rather than presupposing from the outset that one (money) is superior to the other (people).
See Harvard economics professor Stehen A. Marglin, The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community
The problem is that neoliberalism, the basis of modern capitalism, is founded on extreme methodological individualism, which then gets conflated with ontological individualism. The further presumption is that anything that is not extreme methodological individualism is methodological collectivism, which is then conflated with ontological collectivism. This is just silly.
What is needed is an economic paradigm founded on methodological localism.
Extreme methodological individualism is based on the microfoundation of the rational actor as an individual that pursues self-interest by maximizing utility. The fundamental assumption is the that this rational actor is a representative agent operating with perfect knowledge in a perfect market. Methodological localism is based on a rational social actor acting within the social boundaries of culture and society, where culture is a system of norms and society is conceived as a complex system of rules that govern relationships among individuals and institutions.
There is no way to remake “capitalism.” It is failed concept, as I believe Marx showed long ago based on methodological localism. See Daniel Little, The Scientific Marx, and “Marx as an analytical sociologist?” Why are we still talking about a failed system instead of looking for adaptive options that meet humanity’s pressing needs?
I was sort of getting at this by subverting the key feature of capitalism, Tom. For some reason, I decided to stay within the topic’s conceit, though.