was capitalism inevitable?

[TruXta]

Well, there's certainly a strand (mostly gone now, but historically important) of the old US Republican party that was strongly non-interventionist. These days it's more of a fringe thing, with Ron Paul perhaps the premier exponent. I'd think it could follow quite easily from that position to one of decreasing the role of the centralised state in defense spending (fewer foreign wars - less need for big scary toys). I admit that this is more speculation than based on fact.

However, a quick google brough this up:

NYT 23 June 2009
War Spending Bill May Pit Republican Against Republican
By Carl Hulse
Democrats are intent on making House Republicans pay a political price for voting en masse against a major war spending bill last week and they are getting some help from an unlikely source – Senate Republicans.

Democrats say the fact that nearly all Senate Republicans voted for the $106 billion measure that provided money for combat operations while nearly all House Republicans voted against it provides an opening to pit Republicans against one another.

--

Anyway. I'd still like to hear your responses to my question above.

 

[articul8]

Your question needs answering from the other way around - to what extent would it be possible for the US ruling class to maintain its global hegemony without serious investment in military hardware? If a militaristic element is a necessary condition of capitalist reproduction, then to abstract individual instances of miltary investment as being not absolutely determined by the profit motive is totally beside the point.

Of course there can be tactical questions about that arise for them about the "right" balance of centralised tax and spend at any particular point in time - there might be times when military spending is not the highest priority. But of course its ideologues are far more willing to flail away attacking the "centralised state" when it comes to welfare or public provision than when it concerns propping up profits or the arms industry.

 

[Blagsta]

Wowowow. How is that capitalist? I wasn't aware that the USAF was privately owned, or indeed in the business of distributing profits to its owners? Nor am I aware of it selling goods or services on an open market. Of course it's part and parcel of an avowedly capitalist nation-state, but that doesn't mean that calling it capitalist somehow explains it neatly or even precisely. It's a military force, paid for by tax dollars the same way the NHS is paid for by tax sterling. Is the NHS capitalist because it buys drugs from privately owned pharmaceutical companies?

If your answer is yes, I'd argue that you have an overly-broad understanding of capitalism.

While US academia is AFAICT adopting more capitalist practices (moving into industry-suppported R&D - a trend increasingly prevalent elsewhere too), the fact remains that the great explosion of science in the US post-WW2 was almost entirely funded by the federal government. Again, tax dollars.

I believe, but cannot be sure, that a US republican would call that socialism, not capitalism.

How are the armed forces capitalist, you're seriously asking how an organisation that exists to protect capitalist nation states is capitalist?

No wonder you're confused!

 

[Blagsta]

Truxta, the development of capitalism and the development of the nation state are inseperable.

 

[TruXta]

How are the armed forces capitalist, you're seriously asking how an organisation that exists to protect capitalist nation states is capitalist?

No wonder you're confused!

So are you then arguing that the NHS is capitalist?

 

[Blagsta]

So are you then arguing that the NHS is capitalist?

Your insistence of diving things up into "capitalist" and "non-capitalist" is odd, when we live in a capitalist economy! The NHS exists as a concession to the working classes after the hardships of the second world war. Arguing whether it is capitalist or not misses the point somewhat! Unless you have an ahistorical purist notion of capitalism being solely about free market exchanges.

 

[TruXta]

Actually, it's good you bring up definitional issues. What is it we're debating here? There's a host of definitions of capitalism, and unless we're somewhat on the same page as regards these, all we'll end up doing is shouting past each other.

Let me take an example. I'm Norwegian. We have a so-called mixed economy, with parts of it largely owned and managed by the state and its executive branches. Another part is more or less capitalist, in the sense that workers are paid a wage, firms are privately owned, capital is accumulated and so on. I'd be hard pressed to call it a capitalist society - in fact, our nearest neighbours the Swedes, take great pleasure in referring to us as the last Soviet state. Clearly parts of the economy is more or less following capitalist economic tenets, and parts of it isn't. Would you call Norway a capitalist state? I wouldn't. And if you do, it's clear to me that what we need to debate is not whether this or that system, state or organisation is capitalist, but what is capitalism.

 

[Blagsta]

Presumably the Norwegian state gets its money from taxes, taxed from people earning money in private businesses?

As I said, you're looking at it ahistorically. The state has always been a part of capitalist development. Just because some concessions have been made, doesn't mean that the economy isn't capitalist. Just because the state runs something doesn't mean it's not capitalist. The former USSR could be argued to have been capitalist, just that the party acted as the boss.

 

[TruXta]

Ok, to make it a little easier then. What isn't capitalism in your view?

 

[Blagsta]

feudalism

 

[TruXta]

That it? Everything else is capitalism?

 

[Blagsta]

You're still trying to look at his ahistorically. A bit weird, given the thread title!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Presumably the Norwegian state gets its money from taxes, taxed from people earning money in private businesses?

It gets a fair old chunk of its money from the state-owned North Sea oilfields. The oil is sold in a market, sure, but the resource itself is owned by the Norwegian people collectively. That's not really capitalism – I think it is fair to distinguish between private enterprise and state-owned businesses even when both operate in the same market.

 

[TruXta]

You're still trying to look at his ahistorically. A bit weird, given the thread title!

Well, no. At least that's not my intention. I'm harping on about definitional issues because it seems to me that if one defines capitalism as broadly as you IMO do, it loses its analytical worth. Kinda like the "totality of social relations" thingie a couple of pages back.

Near as I can tell capitalism started rearing its head in 13-14th century Europe, before there was any such thing as states as we know them. I wish I had DeLanda's A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History with me at the moment - he's got an interesting take on the genesis of capitalism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

a) he certainly strongly implies it in my reading
b) how are 1) the formations of pair bonding resulting in reproduction and 2) group play not instances of social relations?

Well, they're more properly examples of interpersonal relations within society, whereas I believe the context in which BA mentioned "social relations" was that of the relationship of, for example, a class to production.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think the onus is on you to explain how for example kids' play is primarily determined by capitalism. It's not exactly blindingly obvious to me how group processes taking place as a bunch of kids are playing hide and seek is an outcome of capitalism.

I'd say (simplistically) that capitalism is implicated in determining what it is acceptable for those kids to do.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your example of playing football exists in a gift economy? Your footie boots, ball, the jumpers you use for goalposts, the park etc were all produced and exchanged in a gift economy?

Jumpers for goalposts? We'd have given our eye-teeth for jumpers to use as goalposts!

 

[TruXta]

Well, they're more properly examples of interpersonal relations within society, whereas I believe the context in which BA mentioned "social relations" was that of the relationship of, for example, a class to production.

That's certainly a point I'm sympathetic too. The issue for me, pedant as I am, is what's a social relation? Is a dyad or a triad a social entity or an interpersonal relation? (I freely admit to being biased towards methodological individualism, in case anyone's wondering.)

Simmel would have that the triad constitutes the elementary kernel of a group, as the triad permits of the possibility of alliances and power-brokering (you can be outvoted in a triad, but not a dyad). So the triad is much more likely to suppress individual interest.

In this light, maybe using a dyadic relation as a token of a social relation was less than convincing (although we could of course talk about the institution of pair-bonding as a multiplex social structure changing over time in relation to political-economical contexts). However, I'd still stand by the amateur footie match as an example of a social (group<>group) relation that isn't primarily, or even necessarily, determined or shaped by capitalism.

 

[TruXta]

Jumpers for goalposts? We'd have given our eye-teeth for jumpers to use as goalposts!

Piles of rocks, dead birds, branches off a tree. Or no posts at all. That's where it's at!

 

[Blagsta]

It gets a fair old chunk of its money from the state-owned North Sea oilfields. The oil is sold in a market, sure, but the resource itself is owned by the Norwegian people collectively. That's not really capitalism – I think it is fair to distinguish between private enterprise and state-owned businesses even when both operate in the same market.

tbh I know very little about Norway. However, Truxta seems to think (correct me if I'm wrong truxta) that capitalism is purely about free market exchange with no state inteference. This has never actually been the case.

 

[TruXta]

I wouldn't put it quite like that, Blagsta. What I've been objecting to in this thread is this seeming insistence that given the presence of private actors in a mixed market/planned economy (such as arguably was and is the case in post-WW2 W.E./US), capitalism must "crowd out" all other economic modes.

If I was a Hayekian econ libertarian I'd be decrying the irrationality of the command economy elements present in modern economies, and I wouldn't be too far wrong technically (politically and ethically is a different matter).

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's certainly a point I'm sympathetic too. The issue for me, pedant as I am, is what's a social relation? Is a dyad or a triad a social entity or an interpersonal relation? (I freely admit to being biased towards methodological individualism, in case anyone's wondering.)

It's both, but it's not a "social relation" insofar as "social relations" refer to relationship to the means of production of a class.

Simmel would have that the triad constitutes the elementary kernel of a group, as the triad permits of the possibility of alliances and power-brokering (you can be outvoted in a triad, but not a dyad). So the triad is much more likely to suppress individual interest.

In terms of ordinary group dynamics that's likely to hold true if we don't take account of the possibility that some groups will be gemeinschaften rather than gesellschaften.

In this light, maybe using a dyadic relation as a token of a social relation was less than convincing (although we could of course talk about the institution of pair-bonding as a multiplex social structure changing over time in relation to political-economical contexts). However, I'd still stand by the amateur footie match as an example of a social (group<>group) relation that isn't primarily, or even necessarily, determined or shaped by capitalism.

Which begs the question: Is sport a function of group relations or a function of capitalism, or is it, in the modern day, inescapably a function of both?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wouldn't put it quite like that, Blagsta. What I've been objecting to in this thread is this seeming insistence that given the presence of private actors in a mixed market/planned economy (such as arguably was and is the case in post-WW2 W.E./US), capitalism must "crowd out" all other economic modes.

It doesn't "crowd out", but the imperative of accumulation does suppress other economic modes as the primary economic relation. The self-interest (allied to the cant of the "invisible hand") inherent to capitalist relations makes sure of that. An appeal to individual greed plus the historical refusal of capitalism to consider the externalities of the capitalist economic mode makes it too profitable to ignore for too many members of the power-elites.

If I was a Hayekian econ libertarian I'd be decrying the irrationality of the command economy elements present in modern economies, and I wouldn't be too far wrong technically (politically and ethically is a different matter).

Then again, if you were a Hayekite you'd be proceeding from what could be described as a singularly anal interpretation of economics, and so your sense of "right" and "wrong" could be perceived as being skewed.

 

[Wolveryeti]

The self-interest (allied to the cant of the "invisible hand") inherent to capitalist relations makes sure of that.

Are you saying that corruptive self interest isn't a problem in other systems, because if so, I think you're wrong, especially at the levels of scale larger than families. You may not like the way the invisible hand allocates resources but it is a relatively clear reflection of the intents of the actors within it. Talk is cheap and basically people lie a lot about what they want society to look like. They will tell you that they want to keep their corner shop but they'll do all their shopping at Tesco's because it's cheaper.

My point is that it is generally the people that fail the system, not vice versa.

the externalities of the capitalist economic mode

What exactly are you referring to here, and why are these externalities necessarily worse than under other systems?

 

[Shevek]

have a look at formalist v substantivist debates in anthropology

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you saying that corruptive self interest isn't a problem in other systems, because if so, I think you're wrong, especially at the levels of scale larger than families.

No, I'm saying that our current neo-liberal capitalist mode enshrines corruptive self-interest in a way that, for example, Keynesianism doesn't.

You may not like the way the invisible hand allocates resources but it is a relatively clear reflection of the intents of the actors within it. Talk is cheap and basically people lie a lot about what they want society to look like. They will tell you that they want to keep their corner shop but they'll do all their shopping at Tesco's because it's cheaper.

"Talk is cheap and basically people lie" is a fairly poor statement in support of "the market" as is, but a fairly good excuse to continue down the same neo-liberal capitalist road.
And after all, that's what you want, so you'd have no problem with making such an excuse.

My point is that it is generally the people that fail the system, not vice versa.

A system that doesn't meet the needs of people fails the people. A system that induces massive inequality fails a majority of people in favour of a minority of people.

What exactly are you referring to here...

The issues/problems caused by capitalism that capitalism avoids picking up the tab for. Basic stuff like pollution and other social harms.
....and why are these externalities necessarily worse than under other systems?[/QUOTE]
Have I claimed that they're "worse"? Nope.

 

[ska invita]

short answer: no.

nothing is ever inevitable in history.

Ok - what was necessary to make it happen, and what kinds of development would have been possible if it didn't?

I'd like to have a quick stab at this:
combination of ego-driven individualism, a destabilised hierarchy (middle classes taking power from monarchs), and the capacity for greed all make capitalism seem somewhat inevitable with hindsight - however ultimately Pickman is right.

i think its safe to say that capitalism is very logical, and based as it is on individual motives (in league with other like-minded individuals), it always had a lot of potential to exist.

what's amazing to me is how so few have come to have so much power in the face of the many. it certainly would have seemed inevitable that the pioneers of capitalism would have got strung up by their coat tails.

 

[phildwyer]

Capitalism is basically what was once called "usury." Probably the most heavily stigmatized activity in which human beings have ever engaged, including paedophilia.

I'd say the fact that it has conquered the world over the last four centuries was pretty fucking surprising, then.

 

[phildwyer]

nothing is ever inevitable in history.

Fool.

Everything that happens is inevitable. That's why it happens.

 

[phildwyer]

Ok - what was necessary to make it happen

A change in the conception of representation, from referential to self-referential. Obviously this change was not limited to what we call the "economy" but encompassed the totality.

The tendency to regard representation as autonomous and self-generating is present in all societies, but until the C17th it never became general. Even after that one can point to an exponential intensification of this tendency in postmodernism.