Share

Critics of Capitalism

Friday 06 February 2009

by: The Chronicles of Favilla  |  Les Echos

photo
The authors, writing as The Chronicles of Favilla, suggest we would do well to review the works of Karl Polanyi and Joseph Schumpeter, both of whom predicted capitalism's collapse. The former due to the destruction of social solidarity, the latter due to destruction of the creative spirit. (Photo: Corbis)

    In the face of the scale of the crisis, it is tempting to revisit the great authors to understand its roots. Marx's return to grace, after 30 years of disqualification due to the collapse of Soviet socialism, cannot be otherwise explained. But rather than hunting for ideas in the middle of the 19th century, we could do well to concentrate on two more recent, and in many respects far more illuminating, works. The two authors, Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Polanyi, followed parallel paths, as they both came from central Europe before emigrating to the United States. Their major works came out at the same time: "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" in 1942, "The Great Transformation," two years later.

    People are very familiar with Schumpeter's thesis that capitalism's dynamic is due more to the entrepreneurial spirit than to the mechanical effects of the accumulation of capital as described by classic theory. One often omits to recall that he had a pessimistic vision of that dynamic, predicting that it would be progressively paralyzed by the organizational constraints of the system, notably by bureaucracy. At first sight, this analysis proves more apt to explain the failure of socialism than the present crisis. However, if one replaces "bureaucracy" with "financial system" in the Schumpeterian thesis, one rediscovers how fragile any creative process is and how it may be threatened by an external cell that cancerizes it.

    One is also faced with a cancerization of the initial system in Polanyi, but this one is of a different sort. The sociologist explains that the irresistible tendency in capitalism is for the economy to colonize society to turn it into a market society. Progressively, nothing at all escapes the monetary evaluation of human activity. The economy rises from its bed to swamp all spheres of human life. In an original synthesis of social democracy and self-managing utopianism, he deduced from this observation that civil society must organize itself to return the economy to its bed and thus preserve large sectors from any influence of monetary speculation.

    In these two cases, the angle of the attack against capitalism is sociological, not economic. Schumpeter wants to preserve the spirit of creativity, and Polanyi, the spirit of conviviality. In other words, the fundamental problem would be more cultural than economic. And what if they were right?

    --------

    Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.

  

»

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

What the former Soviet Union

 Mon, 02/09/2009 - 19:06 β€” Fr Tothus (not verified)
What the former Soviet Union had was not socialism, but a dictatorship, though it serves Western corporate interests to continue to lump the two together to discredit the former. The fact that the standard of living in today's "socialist" countries of Northern Europe are much higher than that found in the proto-fascist capitalist US and Britain and their colonies, never seems to intrude on such idolatry of the rule of private capital. Capitalism, apart from the "irresistible tendency" to "colonize society" is and always has been a disaster for poor people, which is to say, the vast majority. What could be more democratic than worker control of the means of production, and popular decisions concerning investment, as socialism, in its truest form, advocates? Socialism has never been allowed to stand or fall on its own merits, but has instead undergone sustained attack by the forces of private capital, held by a tiny minority who control the lion's share of wealth and power for their own selfish and often nefarious purposes. The standard of living in every capitalist society has been achieved DESPITE capitalists' best efforts to deny them to the workers. To argue otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Henry Ford famously

 Mon, 02/09/2009 - 20:01 β€” Anonymous (not verified)
Henry Ford famously commented that he wanted to pay his workers well enough that they could afford to buy Fords. The idol-worshippers at the temples of greed lost sight of that immediately because it didn't suit their interests. Well, now we have the collapse that many people predicted. How many looked at what was going on even in Clinton's presidency and asked, How long can this go on before the machinery breaks down?

ya neither Russia nor China

 Mon, 02/09/2009 - 20:58 β€” Number Nine (not verified)
ya neither Russia nor China ever had what Karl Marx wrote and reamed about. There for leading to Capitalist propaganda about Socialism. If capatilism was worth defending as the best right giving to man, Unions started by the Robber Barons would never have been needed for the Worker. Yet there is a Worker Ownership system working right now in Spain. The Mondragon Cooperative where the Workers even own the bank, like Credit Unions here in the States, and Farmers have had Cooperatives for years. Just getting together is best.

Yes, "monetization" of

 Mon, 02/09/2009 - 22:25 β€” ai tengri (not verified)
Yes, "monetization" of values, that is the core problem capitalism dumps in our laps. The natural sequence, then, is that social values rooted in compassionate service to our fellow humans become deformed by the conditions which favor "capital accumulation". So, the fix to the current economic imbroglio is seen as "freeing up credit" to "restore consumptive activity". A path to nowhere in the jungle of evolutionary events.

I agree 100% with Fr Tothus.

 Mon, 02/09/2009 - 22:29 β€” Larry Milton (not verified)
I agree 100% with Fr Tothus. Our society has collapsed. We are greedy and selfish, and do not think of what is best for us ALL, only what serves our interests. We allow ourselves to be controlled by the media, because it is easier than being an independent thinker. That is why Obama's groupies have been so successful. They know how to ask us our opinions, and make us feel important, while doing what they want, and telling us what our opinions are or should be. And we believe all of it. The only difference I see between now and the last 8 years is we now act like we have some morals, whereas the last regime spouted Christianity, but ignored real morals.

social-democracy exists

 Tue, 02/10/2009 - 00:57 β€” Unplugged (not verified)
social-democracy exists today and work very well; the happiest people live in? you guessed it, they live in social-democratic countries like Sweden, Denmark, Canada, France, Italy, Japan etc.

The authors cited are really

 Tue, 02/10/2009 - 04:08 β€” Anonymous (not verified)
The authors cited are really on to something. I would point out though that the social-democratic countries cited (Scandinavian and others)are mixed economies, with a good dose of capitalism involved. But by and large they embody what I have always thought was the way to go. Interesting that Americans who blindly defend our out-of-balance capitalism always point to the Soviet Uniion as a bad example and conveniently ignore the messes in capitalist Latin America. It is discouraging to see the media reinforce old myths and labels so often. By the way in my observations living in Yugoslavia in the sixties and seventies, they seemed to be doing a good job, all things considered.

An important work by a

 Tue, 02/10/2009 - 05:56 β€” Uppity Woman (not verified)
An important work by a contemporary author is The Fifth Sacred Thing, by Starhawk. It is set in a dystopian future, but it describes a socialist society set apart in a small area that thrives just beyond the reach of violent, corrupt neighbors. The society outlined in this novel shows how a truly democratic socialism could work. Well researched and thoughtful, it brings together several of the best ideas to emerge from the last century about sustainable, conscious living where people are valued more than money, and our bond with nature is the most sacred of our covenants. Our current economic crisis affords us the opportunity to consider ways we could take better care of each other and our Earth. This book inspired me to hope for a socialist future. I know it is possible because socialism has been our basic social framework for most of human history, and it is our default social mode in times of crisis. The only people who do not stand to benefit from socialism are megalomaniacs, because their mindset cannot exist in a socialist society for long. A truly democratic socialist society does not tolerate fascism or dictators, and this can be seen when people are organizing at the grassroots level to meet an emergency or solve a serious problem. It only takes one sociopathic narcissist to inspire the folks actually dealing with a dire situation to get out the duct tape. The current economic crisis may not be our crisis; but it just may be our opportunity to get over a bunch of bad ideas that have plagued us for some time now.

Excuse me. We are told here

 Tue, 02/10/2009 - 16:35 β€” Gadfly (not verified)
Excuse me. We are told here that we needn't go all the way back to Dark Ages of the 19th century and that bearded German whose name is not mentioned in respectable company to find trenchant critics of capitalism. Then we are told "Polanyi...explains that the irresistible tendency in capitalism is for the economy to colonize society to turn it into a market society. Progressively, nothing at all escapes the monetary evaluation of human activity." We are, however, not told that Polanyi's idea had already been developed by the German guy under the term 'commodification', the transformation of everything in a human life into a commodity, something to be exchanged, something valued solely in monetary terms. The difference between the German and these two Johnny comes lately is that between a rich, subtle, widely applicable system of analysis and a facile, simple minded slogan. PS: FR TOTHUS, you are great here as usual, but what need have we of mere facts when we think once again we've got TRUTH by the tail? Sila, jangan berhenti menulis.

What I find so interesting

 Tue, 02/10/2009 - 18:36 β€” Randy Nelson (not verified)
What I find so interesting about capitalists is that they continually spread propaganda that says that Socialists are tax and spend people who give bad results for people. Here in Saskatchewan, Canada we brought in the first Socialist government in North America. As a result, we got single payer medicare run and funded by government and the rest of the country had to follow suit. Always the capitalists said, and still say, that medicare and other Socialist programs, are unsustainable. But even with many other Socialist policies, our Socialist governments have run balanced budgets almost continually since 1944. It has been the Capitalist governments in Canada and, when they have been in power in Saskatchewan, that have run budget deficits and huge debts.

Socialism makes me think of

 Thu, 02/12/2009 - 18:31 β€” Rick (not verified)
Socialism makes me think of middle school. Principles, freedom, and reason buried beneath dominant personalities, peer pressure, and personal vendettas. Capitalism makes me think of sports. And academics. Both of which gave me refuge from middle school society. The type of capitalism the American economy has devolved into is like a sports league with corrupt refs, coaches who don't demand sportsmanship, and players who have no respect for themselves or each other. Will a transformation from Capitalism to Socialism somehow revive our values? If Capitalism is responsible for our loss of values, in theory the absence of capitalism will restore out values. Based on my experience with middle school and other social groups, I doubt it. In fact, I expect Socialism to make things even worse: solidarity will devolve into mob rule, which will devolve into authoritarianism by an intelligentzia, followed by dictatorship. I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to read a thorough analysis of what makes some socialist societies, such as Sweden's, work well, and what makes others, such as Russia's, fail miserably. After all, Russia's version of Capitalism isn't very pretty. Is it the national character, then? Would the Swedes be just as content with a Swedish capitalism? And would Americans be just as miserable (or worse) with an American socialism?

Rick please look up the

 Thu, 02/12/2009 - 22:55 β€” Unplugged (not verified)
Rick please look up the following words in a dictionary: socialism, democracy, communism and totalitarianism