Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

"Marxists, constitutionally unable to differentiate between free enterprise and special privilege..."

Yes, yes, and did you know they can't differentiate between free speech and hate speech? Or free love and true love? Or digital and analog?

I'm always amazed by the cunning perception of economists.

 

[Dak]

"Marxists, constitutionally unable to differentiate between free enterprise and special privilege..."

Yes, yes, and did you know they can't differentiate between free speech and hate speech? Or free love and true love? Or digital and analog?

I'm always amazed by the cunning perception of economists.

I don't see why that statement is problematic. Isn't a standard marxian critique of a "free market" that it systemically perpetuates or realizes privilege?

 

[Einherjar86]

The mistake that economists make is to essentialize a claim that is purely contingent.

Let me try my best to explain it.

That author contends that Marxists see no difference between free enterprise and special privilege. This is, at its most basic, incorrect.

Marxists can certainly admit (Chomsky has said as much) that free enterprise can exist without special privilege. Of course, two individuals can engage in free trade, and an individual can begin some form of enterprise. There is no necessary connection between free enterprise and privilege; the two can exist separately.

Marxists make the point that, given our cultural and economic history, there's no such thing as free enterprise (this is a general statement and by no means accounts for all business start-ups; but for many, and for the largest). Free enterprise, in the course of Western history, is most often the triumph of privilege over those who do not possess equal opportunity. "Free enterprise," experienced by perhaps some individuals, is only ever "free" at the cost of the prohibition of the less fortunate.

I think Man's Gin says it pretty well: "The freedom we have is 'cause someone died."

 

[Dak]

The mistake that economists make is to essentialize a claim that is purely contingent.

Let me try my best to explain it.

That author contends that Marxists see no difference between free enterprise and special privilege. This is, at its most basic, incorrect.

Marxists can certainly admit (Chomsky has said as much) that free enterprise can exist without special privilege. Of course, two individuals can engage in free trade, and an individual can begin some form of enterprise. There is no necessary connection between free enterprise and privilege; the two can exist separately.

Marxists make the point that, given our cultural and economic history, there's no such thing as free enterprise (this is a general statement and by no means accounts for all business start-ups; but for many, and for the largest). Free enterprise, in the course of Western history, is most often the triumph of privilege over those who do not possess equal opportunity. "Free enterprise," experienced by perhaps some individuals, is only ever "free" at the cost of the prohibition of the less fortunate.

This is extremely dependent on a definition of free enterprise and of more/less "fortunate". A stronger argument would be that anything approximating a free market is unlikely to remain that way, as the eventual "winners" will use their winnings to shape the playing field to their future favor. There are still problems with this, but it is a stronger argument.

The inherent assumption, of course, is that disparate economic outcomes of some/any amount or sort are morally wrong. This is the foundational, a priori assumption underpinning all anti-market ideology of any degree.

So it's not so much that the difference cannot be recognized so much as that it cannot be countenanced in practice - which is to essentially say not at all.

I think Man's Gin says it pretty well: "The freedom we have is 'cause someone died."

While I could theoretically agree, this looks like a nationalistic plug, not some sort of economic critique.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is extremely dependent on a definition of free enterprise and of more/less "fortunate". A stronger argument would be that anything approximating a free market is unlikely to remain that way, as the eventual "winners" will use their winnings to shape the playing field to their future favor. There are still problems with this, but it is a stronger argument.

I thought this was the argument; I'm simply providing actual historical evidence for its realization. I've made that exact argument in the past. Why rehash/reiterate it as though I never have?

The inherent assumption, of course, is that disparate economic outcomes of some/any amount or sort are morally wrong. This is the foundational, a priori assumption underpinning all anti-market ideology of any degree.

No, they're not "morally wrong." They just lead inevitably to the incredibly unethical treatment of vast quantities of people. There's nothing "moral" about it. I don't have a solution; but I'd prefer that the "free" market accepts the fact that it causes pain and suffering and that it's not fucking "free."

The entire concept and promotion of freedom is an ideological move that is founded on a logical contradiction.

While I could theoretically agree, this looks like a nationalistic plug, not some sort of economic critique.

Either/or, in my opinion.

 

[Dak]

No, they're not "morally wrong." They just lead inevitably to the incredibly unethical treatment of vast quantities of people. There's nothing "moral" about it. I don't have a solution; but I'd prefer that the "free" market accepts the fact that it causes pain and suffering and that it's not fucking "free."

Of course there is no utopia, pain and suffering will always be with us, even if just in injury and death. And there are consequences, so in that sense no nothing is ever free (IE TANSTAAFL).

The positives of the market are relative to the physical and theoretical anti-markets, not absolute or relative to some elysian image.

A most recent (but in my mind rather frivolous) example: The market is working hard to provide driverless cars.....but are being held up by lawmaking not knowing how to proceed in regulating it.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think that Marxism is utopian either, despite what its critics have said. Marx despised utopian socialism; he saw it as unscientific and purely empathetic. Marx's vision of equality and class revolution wasn't based on emotional attachment, but on material (i.e. scientific) necessity.

The ideology of capitalism justifies its unethical treatment of individuals by reducing it all to "free choice"; this is total bullshit because the majority of individuals' choices are not "free." In fact, there's very little that is "free" about capitalism. Marxism isn't grounded on an ideology of liberty, much less personal liberty; but it's grounded on a notion of fair and ethical treatment.

There is no reason why individual liberty is necessarily better than a system that encourages a flat, horizontal ethics at the expense of personal liberty. The negative reactions most people feel to Marxism is not logical, but purely ideological.

Capitalism simultaneously justifies its widespread unethical treatment of individuals and condemns violence by reducing it to individual action. The violence of teenagers from an impoverished neighborhood who rob a bank is condemned, while the original violence (i.e. that of the impoverishment itself) is justified in the name of "freedom." This is the ideology of liberal capitalism.

Contemporary Marxism, on the other hand, is fully aware that there is no utopia and that violence will ensue. You have criticized people like Žižek in the past for promoting violence; but this is a completely hypocritical move! You allow capitalism - a system that perpetually promotes and rationalizes unethical action - but criticize other forms of violence by reducing it to individuals, or to communism itself: "See, look, communism leads to violence; it is inherently violent!"

The problem is that capitalism is also inherently violent. And no, there's nothing qualitatively, or quantitatively, better about capitalism in comparison to communism or any other politico-economic system. Your critique is grounded entirely on an ideological false consciousness.

I'd much rather have capitalism/capitalists say: "Yes, this is an inherently violent and oppressive system. It is widely unethical and promotes rampant poverty and unequal distribution of wealth; but it's the best system for inspiring innovation." I wouldn't say I entirely agree with the final comment, but at least now you'd be being honest with yourself.

 

[Dak]

Please provide an example(s) of what you consider unethical treatment, and oppression. Not that I doubt that you have examples, just that I want to be sure I know what I am responding to.

Of course there is going to be "unequal distribution of wealth", but to assert that inequality in distribution of wealth is unethical or violent or oppressive is baseless.

 

[Einherjar86]

That is an example; and I think you should admit that unequal distribution of wealth is unethical, is violent, and is oppressive.

That's not to say that we should enforce equal distribution of wealth; but that capitalism needs to take account of its inherent contradictions.

 

[Dak]

That is an example; and I think you should admit that unequal distribution of wealth is unethical, is violent, and is oppressive.

I'm not going to admit to something that is baseless, and that's not an example. An example would be something like "capitalism causes tremendous ecological damage eg Exxon Valdez, deforestation of the Amazon, etc. Or, capitalism causes poverty by funneling profits into shares rather than wages. Etc.

Just stating that it's wrong for person X to have $2 when person Y only has $.93 is like stating that it's wrong for people to dress like clowns and ride unicycles. Neither statement has any sort of inherent or normative ethical value.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not "wrong"; that's missing the point.

And "capitalism causes poverty by funneling profits into shares rather than wages" is just another way of talking about an uneven distribution of wealth; it's simply specifying the entire process.

Nothing I'm saying is arguing that capitalism is "wrong." I'm trying to insist that capitalism rationalizes an inherent favoritism toward certain individuals; it justifies the suffering of vast quantities of people based on the valorization of free action: "Those who are impoverished are there because of their own actions, not because of the structure of the system." Capitalism perpetuates a violence that it simultaneously obscures through a displacement of blame.

 

[Dak]

You are still speaking in vague terms. If we want to speak vaguely I could in turn argue that capitalism does not justify suffering - in fact the primary motivator of capitalism is reducing suffering. Less vaguely: A Happy Meal in every tummy and an Iphone in every hand, broadband in every home and a flat screen on every wall. Etc.

I used the shares vs wages as an example because that is an existing argument about a problematic contributor of uneven distribution, it's not the entire process, but one of many processes. Furthermore, if I were to agree that that particular process is unethical, wrong, etc., that doesn't mean that I have a problem with mere inequality, in fact inequality doesn't even have anything to do with the potential problem of share vs wage renumeration.

You are making a categorical claim about the ethics or lack thereof of inequality - with nothing to substantiate it.

 

[Einherjar86]

You are still speaking in vague terms. If we want to speak vaguely I could in turn argue that capitalism does not justify suffering - in fact the primary motivator of capitalism is reducing suffering. Less vaguely: A Happy Meal in every tummy and an Iphone in every hand, broadband in every home and a flat screen on every wall. Etc.

I used the shares vs wages as an example because that is an existing argument about a problematic contributor of uneven distribution, it's not the entire process, but one of many processes. Furthermore, if I were to agree that that particular process is unethical, wrong, etc., that doesn't mean that I have a problem with mere inequality, in fact inequality doesn't even have anything to do with the potential problem of share vs wage renumeration.

You are making a categorical claim about the ethics or lack thereof of inequality - with nothing to substantiate it.

If I'm being vague, it's because I'm speaking of a general cultural milieu. This isn't necessarily a topic that you can consider through specific examples, which I know is difficult for some people to understand. It requires a broader scope.

You can't deny that all day long the television reminds us that our political and economic system is one founded on freedom, opportunity, and individuality. It doesn't matter that the news is a propaganda machine; in fact, that's the point. But it's not a propaganda machine for socialism or any other brand of mixed economy; it's a propaganda engine for the contemporary concept known as "Capitalism," and it justifies and perpetuates capitalism's existence based on its appeals to our capacity for free action - freedom of opportunity and freedom to practice as individuals.

I'm targeting an ideology, not the specifics of economic processes. This might be vague, but there's no way you can turn it around and claim that capitalism aims to reduce suffering. The evidence lies in the grand scheme of things, not in the petty details.

 

[Dak]

Even if we can agree on that, at least for the sake of argument, this doesn't give me any reason to consider it, much less consider it poorly - and says nothing about the ethics or lack thereof of inequality. Why is inequility unethical? Oppressive? Etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I honestly can't see how it gives you no reason to consider it. That sounds like willful denial.

Inequality, at an absolute base materiality, isn't unethical; it can be just the way things are. But in capitalism, that is never "just the way things are." Capitalism gathers its momentum around accumulated capital like gravitational bodies, and actively withdraws from those in the hinterlands. It's a perpetuation of inequality, not merely the deterritorialization toward absolute-zero.

In capitalism, inequality is never a mere fact devoid of meaning. It is always a reinforcement of previous inequality, which means that it does nothing to level the playing field. That's where ethics enters into the picture.

This is why I said earlier that Marxists can believe in free enterprise as a fact; but in capitalism, free enterprise is predicated on the restriction of certain peoples from opportunity.

 

[Dak]

I honestly can't see how it gives you no reason to consider it. That sounds like willful denial.

Well we are working from different definitions of several things, but merely describing the state of something doesn't necessarily invoke a reason for closer examination, or for a negative (or positive) value judgment.

I've got issues with the current state of things, both in the "private" and "public" sector, with the media, education, and so on. But I'm not starting from a position of "inequality = bad".

Inequality, at an absolute base materiality, isn't unethical; it can be just the way things are. But in capitalism, that is never "just the way things are." Capitalism gathers its momentum around accumulated capital like gravitational bodies, and actively withdraws from those in the hinterlands. It's a perpetuation of inequality, not merely the deterritorialization toward absolute-zero.

In capitalism, inequality is never a mere fact devoid of meaning. It is always a reinforcement of previous inequality, which means that it does nothing to level the playing field. That's where ethics enters into the picture.

Reinforcing inequality, or reinforcing inequality for the same people? This is a crucial distinction, and where anti-market arguments fall flat on their face. There is always necessarily a hinterlands that comes along with innovation, and a hinterland always has occupants. The point is that these occupants do change. Possibly even more important, these hinterlands increasingly improve.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right, but again, inequality does not translate directly into "bad" or "wrong." Inequality begins as a mere fact that gains ethical concern when a system can be shown to perpetuate it. Capitalism contributes to growing inequality gaps, and it applies to everyone; those who possess vast amounts of wealth are still "unequal." This equality does not apply to an essence or interiority. It applies to the means of opportunity, action and option within a given politico-economic environment.

Capitalism, at its core, is unethical; it simply doesn't care about leveling the playing field or providing for those with less. This is why its ideology must appeal to individual responsibility: "There might be people suffering; but it's an individual's responsibility to either help and ignore those people." We displace the ethics of the system onto the responsibilities of the individual.

 

[Dak]

Inequality.....gains ethical concern when a system can be shown to perpetuate it.

You aren't supporting or substantiating this claim, and most of the rest of the post consists of reiterations. Why does inequality, systemic or otherwise, warrant or gain ethical concern? There are secondary problems, but I seem unable to get to a foundation for this claim, and so I want to continue to focus on this.

Is material inequality unethical in itself? Because it could create inequality of opportunity, of action? Where does the problem lie? Why are one or any of these ethical concerns?

 

[Einherjar86]

Where you seem to require proof that inequality and disenfranchisement entail an ethical dilemma in our modern society, I would require proof that they do not.

With the vast amounts of wealth in our global modernity, the fact that there are individuals who have nothing or next to nothing is unconscionable. Where there exist people in pain, there exists an ethical concern/dilemma.

Capitalism attempts to alleviate this concern through an ideology of individualism, and that's why I take issue with it.

 

[Dak]

Where you seem to require proof that inequality and disenfranchisement entail an ethical dilemma in our modern society, I would require proof that they do not.

I'm not asking for proof of an ethical delimma because I don't believe there can be some - I want to know what you consider to be proof.

With the vast amounts of wealth in our global modernity, the fact that there are individuals who have nothing or next to nothing is unconscionable. Where there exist people in pain, there exists an ethical concern/dilemma.

Capitalism attempts to alleviate this concern through an ideology of individualism, and that's why I take issue with it.

Vast amounts of wealth, created by market processes. Where there exists people in pain, it easy very easy to point out a dearth of robust market processes, whether it be in sub-Saharan Africa or the muggy fields and forests of the American South. Furthermore, where there is pain in nominally capitalistic regions, it is in regions less market oriented in others, and those in pain there are not nearly in the amount of pain (materially) of those in sub-Saharan Africa, or other areas less touched by "global capitalism". The rather obvious observation is that the critique above would be as easily satisfied by the removal of wealth as by its redistribution, *and that it prefers to willfully ignore how wealth is created to begin with.

Of course, jumping from inequality to "pain and suffering" is moving the goalposts, and a move that happens every time I get into a discussion of this sort. This is why I must continue to focus on the former portion of the discussion. I didn't ask why "pain and suffering" was of ethical concern, or even "disenfranchisement". I asked why inequality was an ethical concern - what is the foundation for a poor valuation of difference in material position of any degree? As that is necessary for the categorical claim of "inequality is bad/wrong/unethical/immoral/insert-any-other-value-judgement".